Flight 93

[Southwind17]

No, you most certainly cannot assure me he did not. How can you tell me or anyone else what Lee Purbaugh saw? You are not Lee Purbaugh and you were nowhere near Shanksville on 9/11.

I'm not telling you what he saw; I'm telling you what he didn't see, if his account is correct, which you seem to be convinced of. Why don't you focus on the facts presented in my post about Lee Purbaugh and show me where they fail the smell test?

All of your information comes from a FDR , that if the eyewitnesses are all telling the truth, is a 100% fabrication.

There's a key, operative word in this post. See if you can work out what it is (I've left a hint), and then question why you chose to use that word! If you're saying that the FDR data plots and eye witness accounts are mutually exclusive, then if the FDR data plots can be shown to be genuine you will be forced to conclude that the eye witness statements are 100% inaccurate. Do you agree?

Not laughable in anyway shape or form. Mr. Purbaugh obviously did not want to discuss the small white drone plane which had a 15-20' wingspan. The drone plane did not fly over Mr. Purbaugh, the plane that hit the ground did. Whatever Lee Purbaugh saw caused him to jump in his truck and take off. He had no interest in looking for survivors or anything else. The only thing on Lee Purbaugh's mind was getting the hell out of there. On his way out he stopped a truck he was passing and pointed in the direction of the crash and told the trucks occupants a plane had crashed.

Mmm ... somewhat of an irrational, but understandable, reaction, I suppose. An indication as to his state of mind, no doubt!

Lee Purbaugh is the most trumpeted witness when comes to arguing against a no planer. So tell me something what do you propose Lee Purbaugh saw in your fantasy world which you invent to claim Lee Purbaugh saw a plane for less than 1 second?

It was Lee Purbaugh himself who effectively claims to have seen the plane for less than one second. Well, that's what one would be forced to conclude, if his "50ft" claim is correct. So you're questioning the accuracy of his statement now, are you? Is that what you're doing, or do you concur with the "50ft" part?

Would Mr. Purbaugh have even been able to correctly identify it as an airplane?

No, he would not. I said as much before.

Or is he lying about even seeing it?

I'm not suggesting he's lying. I'm suggesting his recollection of what he saw is inaccurate. That's all. Nothing particularly contentious with that, is there?

Would he have completely missed the airplane all together had he blinked?

Yes, essentially he would, if the "50ft" part of his statement is correct.

Is this your argument?

My argument, as has been all along, is that witness statements are notoriously unreliable, and should not, therefore, be relied upon without factual corroboration, that's all. Do you disagree?

 

[TC329]

I'm not telling you what he saw; I'm telling you what he didn't see, if his account is correct, which you seem to be convinced of. Why don't you focus on the facts presented in my post about Lee Purbaugh and show me where they fail the smell test?

I have no reason to doubt Mr. Purbaugh saw what he claims to have seen. Would I trust eyewitness testimony for speed or altitude? Absolutely not.
I do trust an account when it comes to him being able to tell whether or not it was upside down.

If you choose to think Mr. Purbaugh is a ********ter (smell test) then so be it. I have no reason to suspect Mr. Purbaugh is a liar. He doesn't have the proven history of being a liar that the people who formed the official 9/11 narrative have.

There's a key, operative word in this post. See if you can work out what it is (I've left a hint), and then question why you chose to use that word! If you're saying that the FDR data plots and eye witness accounts are mutually exclusive, then if the FDR data plots can be shown to be genuine you will be forced to conclude that the eye witness statements are 100% inaccurate. Do you agree?

The only way to prove the FDR data plots are genuine is through eyewitness corroboration of the flight path.

If 9 eyewitnesses account for the plane approaching the crash site from the south then it is safe to say that the FDR data is fraudulent or the government is covering up another plane at the scene at the same exact moment of the crash that was flying low over Indian Lake Marina (2 groundskeepers + 4 Indian lake employees + Barry Lichty + Jim Stop) seem to all conclusively agree on.

Muro says the plane approaching the crash site from the south was silver.

Mmm ... somewhat of an irrational, but understandable, reaction, I suppose. An indication as to his state of mind, no doubt!

Yeah well you may want to ask what the little drone plane witnessed by Mrs. McElwain & Mr. Purbaugh (and others) interaction with the plane was.

It was Lee Purbaugh himself who effectively claims to have seen the plane for less than one second. Well, that's what one would be forced to conclude, if his "50ft" claim is correct. So you're questioning the accuracy of his statement now, are you? Is that what you're doing, or do you concur with the "50ft" part?

Mr. Purbaugh does not claim to see the plane for less than 1 second. That is your claim. I do not trust eyewitness accounts for altitude for speed except for very rough ballpark guestimations. To expect more is nonsense. Simply questions like where did you see it and where was it heading are way more reliable than how fast was it moving when it flew over you.

I'm not suggesting he's lying. I'm suggesting his recollection of what he saw is inaccurate. That's all. Nothing particularly contentious with that, is there?

So is he embellishing or lying and what is the difference between the two?

My argument, as has been all along, is that witness statements are notoriously unreliable, and should not, therefore, be relied upon without factual corroboration, that's all. Do you disagree?

My argument all along is that multiple corroboration of accounts is very reliable. When people who are not in communication with each other all describe certain elements like where a plane was and where it was heading it absolutely accurate.

You have 10 people sitting in a restuarant with a man who is accused of shooting someone on the other side of town at the exact time. His gun was stolen and the shooter wore surgical gloves and left absolutely no prints except the ones that were on there when it was stolen. Now this would be enough to convict the gun owner for life of murder and have his "my gun was stolen" laughed out of a courtroom. The problem is 10 people saw him at the restaurant at the exact time of the shooting. Now those eyewitnesses might not remember what color shirt he had on but they know it was him. Now he's saved from being framed.

So don't give me that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. My argument is when multiple eyewitnesses corroborate certain aspects you can deem it reliable.

 

[chran]

Answer what exactly? Why the wreckage was turned over?

No. What happened to it? Ok, 95% of the plane was turned over to UA. Then what? Was it reconstructed, photographed? Were serial numbers recorded?

Does it still exist? Do people get to study it? Was it sent to China at a fraction of scrap value to be recycled?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a rule saying people should read the thread before replying.

The quoted post is from May 31st, and I just got to it on my read-through.

RedIbis - have you tried to find out yourself, what happened to the 95% of the plane that was turned over to United Airlines?

If not, why not? If you have, what did they say and why didn't you believe them?

 

[TC329]

I'm pretty sure there isn't a rule saying people should read the thread before replying.

The quoted post is from May 31st, and I just got to it on my read-through.

RedIbis - have you tried to find out yourself, what happened to the 95% of the plane that was turned over to United Airlines?

If not, why not? If you have, what did they say and why didn't you believe them?

the "95%" is deep in Iron Mountain still in the government's possession without ever being turned over to UA. There is no evidence what so ever that UA is in possession of any piece of this aircraft.

I would say since your side makes that claim your side should have to back it up. Everyone has seen the news report which clearly states UA93 debris is stored deep within Iron Mountain by the US gov.

 

[OldTigerCub]

This would be quite an interesting issue if the books says what you claim it does - because it's in direct conflict with what we've previously been told about events.

I'm still waiting for the time to get to a book store to buy it, but it will definitely be an interesting read. Did the researcher rely entirely on interviews, or did they also use media reports and things like the NORAD recordings?

I don't know if you've read this article but if you have you can probably understand why there may be some conflicts here.

The aircraft that the pilots assumed was UA93 approaching just after 10am - flying low and fast down the Potomac River towards Washington DC - wasn't UA93 because UA93 was neither flying low, nor along the Potomac.

Thanks for that link, Gumboot. I'll look it over when I get home after work today.
I got the impression that the writer of "Touching History", Lynn Spencer, did quite a few interviews herself with the people involved, though there are a good number of references to other books and news sources listed. She is a pilot herself, and a flight instructor, so it seems likely that many of the a pilots talked to her personally.

 

[Southwind17]

I have no reason to doubt Mr. Purbaugh saw what he claims to have seen.

Then you clearly haven't read and/or understood the many articles like this then. I would particularly draw your attention to the section headed: "Post-Event Information".

Would I trust eyewitness testimony for speed or altitude? Absolutely not.
I do trust an account when it comes to him being able to tell whether or not it was upside down.

So you choose to be selective as to what aspects you wish to be reliable and what aspects don't matter. I see.

If you choose to think Mr. Purbaugh is a ********ter (smell test) then so be it.

I've already explained, I don't. You seem to be consciously avoiding the fact that eye witness statements, regardless of the honesty and integrity of the witness, have shown to be notoriously unreliable. Why do you adopt this stance TC?

I have no reason to suspect Mr. Purbaugh is a liar.

I have no reason either, and I'm not suggesting he is. Do you think I am suggesting he is?

He doesn't have the proven history of being a liar ...

How many people do?! You know him well, presumably?

The only way to prove the FDR data plots are genuine is through eyewitness corroboration of the flight path.

You do realise how falacious that argument is, don't you? If A not B also means if B not A!

If 9 eyewitnesses account for the plane approaching the crash site from the south then it is safe to say that the FDR data is fraudulent or the government is covering up another plane at the scene at the same exact moment of the crash that was flying low over Indian Lake Marina (2 groundskeepers + 4 Indian lake employees + Barry Lichty + Jim Stop) seem to all conclusively agree on.

I've highlighted above all of the words that could be open to interpretation, misunderstanding and/or false or influenced recollection.

Muro says the plane approaching the crash site from the south was silver.

Ditto.

Yeah well you may want to ask what the little drone plane witnessed by Mrs. McElwain & Mr. Purbaugh (and others) interaction with the plane was.

I've watched Mrs McElwain's interview. Gets herself a little tongue-tied and twisted at times, doesn't she! I couldn't help sniggerring at the part where the word "missile" was eventually teased out of her. I was urging her to say it. Reminded me of how Lt. Kaffee (Cruise) finally forced Col. Jessep (Nicholson) to utter those immortal words "I ordered the Code Red" in the film "A Few Good Men"! I actually feel a little sorry for Mrs McElwain, as I did Jessep!

Mr. Purbaugh does not claim to see the plane for less than 1 second. That is your claim.

It is my claim, derived from simple calculation, based in his own words. If his statement is accurate, then my claim holds. If his statement is inaccurate, well ...

I do not trust eyewitness accounts for altitude for speed except for very rough ballpark guestimations. To expect more is nonsense. Simply questions like where did you see it and where was it heading are way more reliable than how fast was it moving when it flew over you.

Citation please.

So is he embellishing or lying and what is the difference between the two?

He's doing neither. He simply entrusts his memory, or rather the likes of you do, more than is scientifically justified.

My argument all along is that multiple corroboration of accounts is very reliable.

Citation please.

When people who are not in communication with each other all describe certain elements like where a plane was and where it was heading it absolutely accurate.

Citation please.

You have 10 people sitting in a restuarant with a man who is accused of shooting someone on the other side of town at the exact time. His gun was stolen and the shooter wore surgical gloves and left absolutely no prints except the ones that were on there when it was stolen. Now this would be enough to convict the gun owner for life of murder and have his "my gun was stolen" laughed out of a courtroom. The problem is 10 people saw him at the restaurant at the exact time of the shooting. Now those eyewitnesses might not remember what color shirt he had on but they know it was him. Now he's saved from being framed.

Interesting that you choose to use a hypothetical scenario, when there are, you claim, so many real-life ones to choose from in and around Indian Lake on 9/11!

So don't give me that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

See above.

My argument is when multiple eyewitnesses corroborate certain aspects you can deem it reliable.

Citation please.

 

[DGM]

TC:
Are Bob Blair, Terry Butler and Tim Thomsberg liars?

 

[TC329]

TC:
Are Bob Blair, Terry Butler and Tim Thomsberg liars?

Absolutely not. And you can keep me on the record on that.

Do you think they are?

 

[TC329]

Then you clearly haven't read and/or understood the many articles like this then. I would particularly draw your attention to the section headed: "Post-Event Information".

blah blah blah. If 20 people see something happen and all 20 people say the same thing then it happened.

So you choose to be selective as to what aspects you wish to be reliable and what aspects don't matter. I see.

You choose "selective", I choose "reasonable".

I've already explained, I don't. You seem to be consciously avoiding the fact that eye witness statements, regardless of the honesty and integrity of the witness, have shown to be notoriously unreliable. Why do you adopt this stance TC?

Not all eyewitnesses are. Why during any Pentagon debate do people say "a hundred people seen it hit"?

What if only 10 people saw the plane hit? Would those 10 people accounts be worthless to you?

I have no reason either, and I'm not suggesting he is. Do you think I am suggesting he is?

I think you are doing whatever you have to do to cast doubt on the credibility of Mr. Purbaugh, an eyewitness who was trumpted for so long by those on your side of the fence. As soon as he makes some statements contradictory to the official story you all hurry and throw him under the bus.

How many people do?! You know him well, presumably?

Well a lot of the politicians in the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission have a history of doing so. I don't know Mr. Purbaugh well enough to say the man has never told a lie.

You do realise how falacious that argument is, don't you? If A not B also means if B not A!

How else can you prove the factualness of your FDR?
How else can you corroborate it? There is no "mechanical damage path" anywhere.
There is an impact and a very odd blast trajectory given the alleged angle and direction the plane was said to have been coming in at.

I've highlighted above all of the words that could be open to interpretation, misunderstanding and/or false or influenced recollection.

None of that is open for interpretation. Please take the following witness accounts and "interpret" them differently. Please include the full quotes and links to your sources and explain them away :

Jim Brandt
Carol Delasko
John Fleegle
Tom Spinelli
Jim Stop
Paul Muro
Chris Smith
Barry Lichty
Val McClatchey

I've watched Mrs McElwain's interview. Gets herself a little tongue-tied and twisted at times, doesn't she! I couldn't help sniggerring at the part where the word "missile" was eventually teased out of her. I was urging her to say it. Reminded me of how Lt. Kaffee (Cruise) finally forced Col. Jessep (Nicholson) to utter those immortal words "I ordered the Code Red" in the film "A Few Good Men"! I actually feel a little sorry for Mrs McElwain, as I did Jessep!

Nothing was "teased" out of Mrs. McElwain. I asked Mrs. McElwain what did she believe she witnessed. Her answer was that it could only be a missile or unmanned airplane due to the size. I have corroborated through other witnesses that it was an unmanned plane but you haven't seen that yet.

It is my claim, derived from simple calculation, based in his own words. If his statement is accurate, then my claim holds. If his statement is inaccurate, well ...

So you don't think an eyewitness can tell if a plane is upside down or not but you believe he can nail "50' AGL" is what you're telling me?

 

[DGM]

Absolutely not. And you can keep me on the record on that.

Do you think they are?

They reported the plane being upside down. This presents a difference of opinions for you does it not?

 

[TC329]

They reported the plane being upside down. This presents a difference of opinions for you does it not?

Nope.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[DGM]

Nope.

You didn't answer my question.

I don't think any of the witnesses are lying. There are witnesses to the plane being upside down.

 

[Southwind17]

blah blah blah. If 20 people see something happen and all 20 people say the same thing then it happened.

What common event(s), exactly, did all 20 people claim to have seen, and what "same thing", exactly, did all 20 say? Please feel free to be more than vague in your response.

You choose "selective", I choose "reasonable".

"Reasonable" by whose measure? Only your own, clearly.

Not all eyewitnesses are. Why during any Pentagon debate do people say "a hundred people seen it hit"?

Because they never learned to speak properly? Seriously, because it's obvious? Is anybody disputing that the Pentagon wasn't "hit"? I'm not. your response to the first point above might enlighten us further.

What if only 10 people saw the plane hit? Would those 10 people accounts be worthless to you?

They would if the facts told a different story. 1000 lemmings can't be wrong. Right?

I think you are doing whatever you have to do to cast doubt on the credibility of Mr. Purbaugh, an eyewitness who was trumpted for so long by those on your side of the fence. As soon as he makes some statements contradictory to the official story you all hurry and throw him under the bus.

You misunderstand. I'm not targeting Mr Purbaugh. I could pick holes in any of the witness statements. It's just that you saw fit to quote Mr Purbaugh, so I saw fit to put you straight. None if this is personal, you know.

Well a lot of the politicians in the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission have a history of doing so. I don't know Mr. Purbaugh well enough to say the man has never told a lie.

I'm pleased we straightened that out.

How else can you prove the factualness of your FDR?

I'm sorry to inform you that if you believe it's falsified then it's for you to prove so. Pointing to a handful of inconsistent witness statements, however, is not the right way to go about it.

How else can you corroborate it? There is no "mechanical damage path" anywhere.

Have you considered any other options?

There is an impact and a very odd blast trajectory given the alleged angle and direction the plane was said to have been coming in at.

"Odd" by whose reckoning? Is there a "blast trajectory" benchmark that we should be referring to? "Alleged", meaning the FDR or the eye witnesses?

None of that is open for interpretation. Please take the following witness accounts and "interpret" them differently. Please include the full quotes and links to your sources and explain them away :

Jim Brandt
Carol Delasko
John Fleegle
Tom Spinelli
Jim Stop
Paul Muro
Chris Smith
Barry Lichty
Val McClatchey

I might just do that, if I conclude you'll pay attention to my findings.

Nothing was "teased" out of Mrs. McElwain. I asked Mrs. McElwain what did she believe she witnessed.

Again, another interesting choice of word - "believe". It's almost as though you accept that what she saw and what she believes she saw could be two very different things. I just don't understand why you're not prepared to come out and admit it. Is it a pride thing?

Her answer was that it could only be a missile or unmanned airplane due to the size. I have corroborated through other witnesses that it was an unmanned plane but you haven't seen that yet.

"It could only be a missile or unmanned ariplane due to the size". So now Mrs McElwain is not simply an eye witness, but an expert witness too. She regularly encounters missiles and unmanned airplanes, does she? And as for its "size", would that happen to fall into the same category as "speed" and "altitude"? Seems the three are inextricably linked, to me. Is this you be "reasonable" or me being "selective"?! You've "corroborated through other witnesses that it was an unmanned plane". Would these "other witnesses" also be expert witnesses? I wonder how they differentiated between a missile and an unmanned plane, amongst other things. Do you plan on letting us all into your little secret?

So you don't think an eyewitness can tell if a plane is upside down or not but you believe he can nail "50' AGL" is what you're telling me?

He's the one who claims to have "nailed 50' AGL", not me! Either way, I don't consider that a plane plummeting at 45 degrees, possibly rotating along its axis, can realistically be described as either upside down or downside up, do you?

 

[Norseman]

I think you are doing whatever you have to do to cast doubt on the credibility of Mr. Purbaugh, an eyewitness who was trumpted for so long by those on your side of the fence. As soon as he makes some statements contradictory to the official story you all hurry and throw him under the bus.

There are no one here that are casting any doubt on the credibility of Lee Purbaugh, he has given a honest description of what he experienced that day. If he has been quoted correctly in the newspapers on the 40 and 50 feet height claims he has given, well then that just tells us that he experienced the event as if the aircraft was much closer than it actually was. Something I pointed out in my post #459 response to the post by Southwind17. Southwind17 is just using that 50 feet claim to show you that there can be inaccuracies in the witness accounts.

But as I has pointed out to you many times, Lee Purbaugh's account is consistent with the fact that Flight 93 passed over his head in an inverted attitude. When are you going to acknowledge that Flight 93 would look grey to Lee Purbaugh in that attitude, since Flight 93 was painted grey on the top half of its body.

And again several other witnesses noticed that Flight 93 was flying in an inverted attitude, like the third person in this video that was presented to you last year:


He says clearly the the aircraft was completely upside down and that the tail fin was pointing down. The second person in that video was Lee Purbaugh (identified by voice). Both were interviewed close to the crash site. Are you going to claim that they are describing the crash of two different aircraft TC329?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, I love the moronic mindset of, unless every citizen in the world is involved in every aspect of something, it never happened. TC has never shown me any evidence that he was potty trained, therefore I can assume that he is not. And unless I see first hand evidence, it cannot be proven.

 

[beachnut]

Do you approve of burning men, women, & children to death for their religious beliefs?

Or are unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse good enough to burn men, women, & children to death? Know that every survivor including the children say to this day David Koresh never abused children. Why don't you find out who invented that claim and why?

Are you on the wrong side of every event?

You lack of logic is massive; David kept the kids in the compound with the FBI ou8tside to protect his "Christ" scam. Would you keep the kids in your house if the FBI was asking for you to come out? Would you risk kids for your lunatic ideas? You are just like David and Tim. Failed idea based on pure bias for things you can't even tell us. You lack the knowledge to understand flight 93. After 6 years you still have nothing right.

Your ideas are based on fantasy; Like David the "Gun toting Christ" Koresh and Tim McVeigh you have a problem with reality and the logic to make sound rational conclusions, and decisions. Your lack of insight on what witnesses say and cannot make a connection to reality.


Your fantasy story of 93 is self debunking. The witness statements you messed up, may be indicative of your lack of comprehension. Did you miss, or did you ignored the lessen in first grade, the lesson on cause and effect?

 

[Norseman]

The Marina Witnesses Revisited

The distance from the crash site of Flight 93 to the Indian Lake Marina is 3750 meters measured in Google Earth.

The speed of electricity in a power line is close to the speed of light that is nearly 300 million meters per second.

The fastest seismic waves travels through the earth with a speed in the area of 5000 - 8000 meters per second.

The speed of sound travels with a speed of about 343 meters per second through air.

When Flight 93 crashed it took out a power line at the crash site, something that created electric disturbances throughout the grid and loss of power at some locations:

Barry Lichty, the mayor of Indian Lake Borough, said the ground shook and the town’s electricity went out. He called the utility company to find out the cause.

Later, Lichty learned that a plane crash had disrupted service to the borough.
Source

In addition the impact itself created seismic waves that were felt by many witnesses in the area, like:

"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."
Source

So if we apply this to the witnesses at the Indian Lake Marina we get the following.

Time for disturbances in the power grid to reach the Marina and cause the lights to flicker: Nearly instantaneously.

Time for the first seismic waves to reach the Marina and shake the building: Less than a second.

Time for the last engine sound to reach the Marina: Nearly 11 seconds.

Time for the sound of impact to reach the Marina: Nearly 11 seconds.

This is what the witnesses said:

“All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.

By the time the witnesses at the Marina thought "hey the lights flickered" there was no more Flight 93. Then they heard the engines of an aircraft no longer flying. And when they heard the explosion everybody on board Flight 93 had been dead for 11 seconds already.

The flying time from the Marina to the crash site of Flight 93 is 15 seconds, if we apply the final speed of Flight 93 of 250 meters per second to TC329's imaginary aircraft. More than adequate time for them to get out and see this imaginary aircraft before if crashed, if it went over the Marina so low that it shook building. But they did not see any aircraft of course, because there was none. The only aircraft was Flight 93 that came in from the northwest and never got any closer to the shores of Indian Lake than about 2500 meters, measured from the crash site.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I know about traumatic events and the aftermath.

LIAR!

I was in Homestead Fla on Aug 24, 1992, and took a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew. I had to dig my family out from under a wall during the eye of the storm, then I got caught outside as the second band of the hurricane came over.

Still waiting for video, pics or newspaper reports about your traumatic event.

Prove any fact I provided is wrong. Go on now! I'll be waiting...

You made the claim so you provide the facts! it's the JREF way!
Hey! just asking Qs here!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

LIAR!
Still waiting for video, pics or newspaper reports about your traumatic event.

As much as it pains me to corroborate UC, something like that wouldn't have been unusual in Hurricane Andrew, Homestead was devastated and there are numerous stories similar to his. I was 5 when it hit here and I remember it very well.

What I will say though from personal experience is that in a general account I can tell you what happened to me, but calling out detailed specs like anything else is a different story, when the storm hits there's plenty racing through your mind, and everything happens quickly. To assume you can remember every speck of detail about a traumatic event is nonsense, you'll retain memory of some specific 'events' however, your memory of others can be grossly distorted. I got reminded of that when Hurricane Wilma hit here a couple years back...

However,
Knowing how stretched my memories are of hurricane Andrew it only corroborates the unreliability of eye witness accounts and why in the face of hundreds of corroborating witnesses, 10 witnesses isn't the best way to make a point in UC's case...

 

[TC329]

The distance from the crash site of Flight 93 to the Indian Lake Marina is 3750 meters measured in Google Earth.

The speed of electricity in a power line is close to the speed of light that is nearly 300 million meters per second.

The fastest seismic waves travels through the earth with a speed in the area of 5000 - 8000 meters per second.

The speed of sound travels with a speed of about 343 meters per second through air.

When Flight 93 crashed it took out a power line at the crash site, something that created electric disturbances throughout the grid and loss of power at some locations:



In addition the impact itself created seismic waves that were felt by many witnesses in the area, like:



So if we apply this to the witnesses at the Indian Lake Marina we get the following.

Time for disturbances in the power grid to reach the Marina and cause the lights to flicker: Nearly instantaneously.

Time for the first seismic waves to reach the Marina and shake the building: Less than a second.

Time for the last engine sound to reach the Marina: Nearly 11 seconds.

Time for the sound of impact to reach the Marina: Nearly 11 seconds.

This is what the witnesses said:


By the time the witnesses at the Marina thought "hey the lights flickered" there was no more Flight 93. Then they heard the engines of an aircraft no longer flying. And when they heard the explosion everybody on board Flight 93 had been dead for 11 seconds already.

The flying time from the Marina to the crash site of Flight 93 is 15 seconds, if we apply the final speed of Flight 93 of 250 meters per second to TC329's imaginary aircraft. More than adequate time for them to get out and see this imaginary aircraft before if crashed, if it went over the Marina so low that it shook building. But they did not see any aircraft of course, because there was none. The only aircraft was Flight 93 that came in from the northwest and never got any closer to the shores of Indian Lake than about 2500 meters, measured from the crash site.

Listen your 'sound of the flying plane' long after it crashed 2 miles away at a low level has to be one of the absolute most hilarious attempts at debunking I have ever encountered.

I can't wait to hear how you prove the witnesses would hear traveling towards the crash site and not away from it next!!!!