• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

POPCORN! Gravy is on...! :D

Wizard said:
So which was it and why did you choose the one that suited you more?
Click to expand...
I didn't choose one over the other I found the FDR angle after I posted, an eye-witness described the crash as an almost 90 deg angle and the FDR recovered at the crash site recorded a 40 (or maybe 45?) deg angle, I personally believe the FDR. Using the eye-witness angle and not the FDR angle of impact in hindsight was an error on my part.

Why do you think the plane shouldn't have buried itself 25 feet undergound and left a crater about 10 feet deep?
 
Last edited:
Spins said:
I didn't choose one over the other I found the FDR angle after I posted, an eye-witness described the crash as an almost 90 deg angle and the FDR recovered at the crash site recorded a 40 (or maybe 45?) deg angle, I personally believe the FDR. Using the eye-witness angle and not the FDR angle of impact in hindsight was an error on my part.

Why do you think the plane shouldn't have buried itself 25 feet undergound and left a crater about 10 feet deep?
Click to expand...

Because I would expect said crater to be 25 feet deep
 
A 45 degree angle of impact would actually half the vertical component of the force of the planes impact.
 
Wizard said:
Could you find me a case where a plane buries itself underground like Flight 93 is supposed to have done?
Click to expand...

Yes! You could if you tried too.

The pitch angle on the FDR was -40 degrees. But the angle the plane hit at could be more or less. The FDR stopped before all the data was recorded. Flight 93 was in a decent that continued constantly to increase the pitch down in the last minute.

How much will you pay me to get you some photos of a hole where everyone is dead in the hole? If you would find them yourself you could save the embarrassing posts that lack facts.
 
beachnut said:
Yes! You could if you tried too.

The pitch angle on the FDR was -40 degrees. But the angle the plane hit at could be more or less. The FDR stopped before all the data was recorded. Flight 93 was in a decent that continued constantly to increase the pitch down in the last minute.

How much will you pay me to get you some photos of a hole where everyone is dead in the hole? If you would find them yourself you could save the embarrassing posts that lack facts.
Click to expand...

Could I see these cases please?
 
Wizard said:
Common sense and the lack of any precedent.

Planes have hit the ground at high speeds such as air show crashes where planes have failed to pull out of loops at the last minute
Click to expand...
are intentional plane crashes at 500mph common events?

if no, how does common sense apply?
 
Wizard said:
Because I would expect said crater to be 25 feet deep
Click to expand...


Were you expecting a globe shaped object or a meteor? The same characteristics that make an airplane aerodynamic allow it to slice into the ground without ejecting much earth. Do you remember the profile of the planes that hit the towers on the tower faces? Do you recall the impact of the second tower? How much debris was ejected from the south or impact face?
 
That is good work Mark. I could tell your frustration though. There is just simply not enough time to get out all of the facts. It is especially frustrating when you do present all of the facts, simply for them to respond "Well I don't buy that."
 
David Wong said:
Host: "Now, many critics have accused the Bush administration of ignoring warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks about Islamic terrorism. Do you think that's fair?"

Bermas and Dylan: "Oh, absolutely, absolutely."





Does somebody have a gif of a smiley's head exploding? Because I need it here. Talking about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

"Bush ignored warning signs that the 9/11 attacks were coming from Islamic terrorists! Also, Bush performed the attacks! And the Islamic terrorists didn't attack! So he ignored the warnings about the attacks that didn't happen and that he actually performed himself!!!!!"
Click to expand...

Oh, that's when your head asploded, too? I thought that was just me...
 
geni said:
The britsh tallboy couldn't break Mach 2 but it could penitrate 16 ft of concrete or at least 60 feet of soil. The plane wasn't designed for quite the same ground penetrating performance so only bits of it managed 25 feet.
Click to expand...
geni, I'm not familiar with this. Do you have any links?
 
Wizard said:
Could you find me a case where a plane buries itself underground like Flight 93 is supposed to have done?
Click to expand...

Can you please show me a case where a plane has been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried itself underground.

Thanks in advance.

Well done Mark.
 
I still can't figure out how they weave the ISI connection into their theories. It would be interesting to hear where they stand on the taxonomy questions these days. They believe Arabs were on the planes, but meek and mild Arabs, but they also apparently believe that the head of the ISI had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta. For what purpose? Was it, "Here's a hundred thou and I'll send more if you'll just take Flight 11 out of Boston on 9-11-01,"?
 
stateofgrace said:
Can you please show me a case where a plane has been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried itself underground.

Thanks in advance.

Well done Mark.
Click to expand...

How is the hijacking relevant?

Beachnut says he has seen cases of planes burying themselves so I am waiting to see them
 
20 minutes in...

I kinda feel sorry for Dylan. I think he was just a silly kid with big dreams who came up with a crazy idea, and it turned into a monster when those around him believed it. He obviously doesn't believe any of it, judging by this interview.

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
How is the hijacking relevant?
Click to expand...

becuase its relevant to flight 93, flight 77 and those planes that crashed into the wtc towers (flight numbers escape me right now). This shows that it was intentional, not accidental.
 
Wizard said:
How is the hijacking relevant?

Beachnut says he has seen cases of planes burying themselves so I am waiting to see them
Click to expand...

Oh, let me think, emmmmmmmm, maybe because the hijacker flew the plane into the ground at high speed. Other than that , I see your point.

Now stop side tracking where are your examples of planes that have been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried themselves?

It´s ok if you have none, you can admit it.
 
stateofgrace said:
Oh, let me think, emmmmmmmm, maybe because the hijacker flew the plane into the ground at high speed. Other than that , I see your point.

Now stop side tracking where are your examples of planes that have been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried themselves?

It´s ok if you have none, you can admit it.
Click to expand...

I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?
 
Wizard said:
Common sense and the lack of any precedent.

Planes have hit the ground at high speeds such as air show crashes where planes have failed to pull out of loops at the last minute
Click to expand...



That's really not comparable. When aircraft misjudge a loop and hit the ground, they're right at the bottom of the loop and their impact force is very lateral. They don't generally hit the ground early in the look, at a nose-down angle, because if that were going to happen they'd know well in advance they were too low and pull out of it.

(If it's a 2000ft loop and they are gonna hit the ground at 90 degrees straight down, that means they're 1000ft too low!)

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?
Click to expand...

I look forward to it. Now stop spamming this thread, which is not about Flight 93 but is actually about Gravy debating the LC guys.

When you get back to me , start a new thread all about Flight 93 and I´m sure you will get exactly the type of debate you wish.

I look forward to seeing your new thread.
 
gumboot said:
20 minutes in...

I kinda feel sorry for Dylan. I think he was just a silly kid with big dreams who came up with a crazy idea, and it turned into a monster when those around him believed it. He obviously doesn't believe any of it, judging by this interview.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
That's a bullseye assessment, Gumboot. Wow. Take a look at Avery's body language. Very uncomfortable to be there. And it's as if he couldn't wait to disregard his own films, couldn't wait for the opportunity to slam them himself. And his facial expressions and body language when Bermas was talking are very telling.

I think there is hope for Dylan Avery. He seems to be starting a move in a more positive direction. He seems to want to distance himself from Bermas, who is obviously pure tinfoil.

Dylan Avery is thinking, and questioning and reevaluating. Good signs.
 
ConspiRaider said:
That's a bullseye assessment, Gumboot. Wow. Take a look at Avery's body language. Very uncomfortable to be there. And it's as if he couldn't wait to disregard his own films, couldn't wait for the opportunity to slam them himself. And his facial expressions and body language when Bermas was talking are very telling.

I think there is hope for Dylan Avery. He seems to be starting a move in a more positive direction. He seems to want to distance himself from Bermas, who is obviously pure tinfoil.

Dylan Avery is thinking, and questioning and reevaluating. Good signs.
Click to expand...

I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.
 
stateofgrace said:
I look forward to it. Now stop spamming this thread, which is not about Flight 93 but is actually about Gravy debating the LC guys.

When you get back to me , start a new thread all about Flight 93 and I´m sure you will get exactly the type of debate you wish.

I look forward to seeing your new thread.
Click to expand...

I did not mention Flight 93 first. It was in the debate and another poster commented on it. I replied with a single sentence and was then asked numerous questions, so I am not spamming the thread.

If I find examples I will start the thread.
 
Wizard said:
I did not mention Flight 93 first. It was in the debate and another poster commented on it. I replied with a single sentence and was then asked numerous questions, so I am not spamming the thread.

If I find examples I will start the thread.
Click to expand...

Which you won't find examples, so a thread will never be started. Good work.
 
Quad4_72 said:
I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.
Click to expand...



Dylan can't let go of his theory entirely... I think that's evident. But consider... the only point he pushes evidence on is whether the hijackers were "ruthless". Yet to do that, he has to admit the hijackers exist and WERE on the planes.

Look at key points of LC:2E that Dylan never even mentions when Gravy hits on them:
-UA93 never crashed at Shankesville
-No hijackers on the aircraft
-Fake phone calls

etc...

When Bermas digs into "no bodies at Shankesville" and the "hijackers alive" angle Dylan looks positively ill.

-Gumboot
 
Wizard said:
You can't back up your claims? Fair enough
Click to expand...

I have studied high speed impacts, all is in the hole.

I and thousands of Air Force pilots can back up my claims. You have failed to back up you claim. I have studied Accidents, have you.

I have been to the University of Southern California school for Safety and Systems Management and the Air Force School for accident investigation. Have you had training in safety and accident investigation? I have; have you.

Having failed to convince you, that you should treat me as an expert, I will say that the speed and angle of flight 93 impact, plus the fact they found aircraft and people in the hole; that is what impacts look like at that speed and impact angle. (kind of self critiquing and to prove me wrong you have to prove they did not find the plane in the hole with the people)

The problem with most woowoos is they look at low speed impacts at shallow angles. They do not know a normal landing angle is 2 to 3 degrees. They fail to understand an angle much above 5 or 6 degrees will result in a very bad landing. They look at accidents where the pilot did everything he could to be slow and land normal. I doubt if any woowoos have seen a high impact angle accident.

Flight 93 is totally normal wreckage, buried in the ground with some parts ejected; you need to find a real problem. The only problem with your idea is it is not backed up with facts or experience. Bermas is full of false ideas, he is a liar. Are you a liar? I am telling the truth.

Parts being away from the wreckage is not unusually, in a U-2 accident some instruments were ejected from the instrument panel when the plane plowed into the ground. The instrument panel ejected the Vertical velocity indicator 200 yards away. We found parts over 300 yards away from an impact that was basically straight down stalled impact.

I will try to find something for you but I went to school in 87 or 88 and some more later. I was chief of safety at two bases in the Air Force. I have a few books out from some of the classes and I am looking for my accident book. One book may have a poor photo of a hole in the ground where most of the plane is buried.

Why should I waste time looking in my books to prove to you what you will not accept? (most pilots agree with me; ask one, not JDX he is mentally impaired by his unknown political biased brain)
 
Quad4_72 said:
I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.
Click to expand...
Hi Quad -

But clearly he is changing. Just based, if you will, on his statements that Loose Change was a "bunch of kids" and so forth. It's a move. Of course he may go no further - he might just get comfortable with a more LIHOPpish POV and hang onto that for dear life.

We're not seeing the laughing and sarcasm and cavalier foolishness that was so apparent in other media exposures.

True CTs give an inch on nothing. They'll do anything but admit they may have been wrong on whatever they've said. It's a small step - but Avery is actually admitting, publicly, that he was wrong about some things.

The 2 most interesting people in this first show are Mark and Dylan.

Mark, for what he DID say, how he said it, his deftness at handling multiple subjects with ease and confidence. Mark essentially destroyed their arguments with effortless presentation.

Dylan, for what he did NOT say verbally. He was a study in conflict, at point-blank range. He said everything with his eyes and his manner. He was clearly unhappy and very uncomfortable.
 
Wizard said:
I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?
Click to expand...
Nigerian air crash kills all 117 on board

At the site of the wreckage of the ill-fated plane, Ade Aboluyrin, commandant general of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps, told Xinhua "the crashed Bellview Boeing 737 was totally buried after a big explosion late Saturday night,"

"All people on board the plane were dead," he said. "There is no way any one boarding the plane could survive because the whole plane was buried underground."

Amid smoking debris at the site which is a big hole about 25 meters in diameter and 10 meters deep caused by the crash, scores of rescue members, most of them Red Cross members, are busy collecting parts of the dead bodies and moving parts of the ill-fated plane's tail and wings.

Documents, tickets, clothing, as well shoes are scattered everywhere at the site around the hole. Several ambulances were trying but could not get to the site only because there was no motorway.
Click to expand...

Me109 discovered in France buried 6 meters underground

Recovery of three Italian G.55 Centauro shot down by USAAF P-47s

Time Team dig on the Wierre-Effroy Spitfire
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
You can't back up your claims? Fair enough
Click to expand...

Have you found one yet???

I have seen many, I have studied many. I wonder how many there are.

Air Force always was digging out planes.

From
"Military Aircraft Crash Sites" all secret and hush hush,
2002
124474585ba90921f7.jpg


That was one, gee, the plane was all smashed up into a ball a few feet big.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
That's really not comparable. When aircraft misjudge a loop and hit the ground, they're right at the bottom of the loop and their impact force is very lateral. They don't generally hit the ground early in the look, at a nose-down angle, because if that were going to happen they'd know well in advance they were too low and pull out of it.

(If it's a 2000ft loop and they are gonna hit the ground at 90 degrees straight down, that means they're 1000ft too low!)

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
plus a small, light stuntplane is hardly comperable to a large jetliner
 
ConspiRaider said:
Dylan, for what he did NOT say verbally. He was a study in conflict, at point-blank range. He said everything with his eyes and his manner. He was clearly unhappy and very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...


It's worth pointing out that in other exchanges Dylan has had no problem speaking, and that even in this debate, when he DID speak he was confident and articulate.

When he didn't speak it was because he CHOSE not to. That in itself is telling.

Take note of his body language when Bermas is speaking. Then compare it with when Gravy is speaking.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom