• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

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!!!!

Pay a little attention the next time a thunderstorm comes through. Flash....boom....it takes about 5 seconds for sound to travel a mile (through air).
Important safety tip...don't do this experiment on a hilltop golf course while you are waving a club above your head.
 
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!!!!

He made a bad assumption that you might be able to understand even the most basic o physics that grade school children understand. Perhaps you could point out the miscalculations on the speed of sound.

PS - Looks like another stundie nomination here.
 
LOL!!!

When airplanes crash the sound of them flying doesn't continue for miles. Especially if they were at a low altitude. You pathetically cling to anything you think might offer an explanation that supports Bush's handpicked Commission's claims.
 
Yup, definite stundie for TC who doesn't understand the difference between speed of sound and speed of light. Or reading comprehension.
 
LOL!!!

When airplanes crash the sound of them flying doesn't continue for miles. Especially if they were at a low altitude. You pathetically cling to anything you think might offer an explanation that supports Bush's handpicked Commission's claims.
You don't understand the real world! You do not understand time, space, or physics. Gee, you need to understand time and space to understand physics, and now I have some more insight to why you mangle witness statements.

This is cool. I watched Scuds and Patriots fight in the gulf war. After the Scuds and Patriots finished fighting, I could hear the supersonic flight paths for what seemed like minutes! And that is correct, the supersonic path of the SCUD sound was behind the SCUD because the SCUD was going much faster than sound, so the SCUD could impact you before the sound gets to you; because it is going faster than sound. Then after the SCUD is done, the sound path is arriving, it sounded like thunder, rolling in the distance.

TC, when 77 impacted, or when people saw 77, the sound was not the sound 77 was making at the time they saw 77, it was the sound that traveled to their ear, and was delayed due to the distance of the observer.

If you observe the plane crash from 2 miles away, you may hear that plane flying for 9.53 seconds, before you hear the BOOM from the crash. Different positions will have different delays and sounds from the plane!

Why are you wrong on 9/11 and physics?

Next time listen to Norseman!
 
Last edited:
you're all funny like I don't know this ****.

the point is the sound went from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site. this is not possible unless it is following the plane from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site.

What you're all clinging to Norseman's claim that the sound is traveling ahead of the plane and none of you are bright enough to realize that.
 
you're all funny like I don't know this ****.

the point is the sound went from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site. this is not possible unless it is following the plane from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site.

What you're all clinging to Norseman's claim that the sound is traveling ahead of the plane and none of you are bright enough to realize that.

Since the plane was traveling slower than the speed of sound, sound WAS traveling ahead of the plane, nimrod.
 
you're all funny like I don't know this ****.

the point is the sound went from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site. this is not possible unless it is following the plane from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site.

What you're all clinging to Norseman's claim that the sound is traveling ahead of the plane and none of you are bright enough to realize that.
This is funny! Now you could learn why you never see planes, you can't figure out how to lead the sound.

Calm down TC, you need to slow down and think. It may be a new experience. I think you have problems analyzing things, like witness statements and now sound. This is why your non-conclusions are all false, you make errors in analyzing things.

This is funny as you post stundie after stundie after people have tried to coach you towards knowledge, you ignore them and continue to make the same error. Nothing seems to get in the way of your fantasies, not physics, not logic, not facts.

You better stop posting until you go back to physics class and pass the course.
 
Last edited:
well then since all the witnesses say the sound went from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site you all have just proved Flight 93 flew over Indian Lake. Thanks for playing.
 
well then since all the witnesses say the sound went from behind Indian Lake towards the crash site you all have just proved Flight 93 flew over Indian Lake. Thanks for playing.
Oops, now you have reflected sound, and I doubt you can tell us much about sound after your constant stundie performance on sound.

You have posted false information on sound. Messed up science, and now you apply that same warped logic to witness statements! You have just posted another lie, you have no proof at all the jet flew over Indian Lake, and no one saw the plane over Indian Lake.

I can see why you make massive errors in logic. You have no practical skills in physical sciences. This is why your latest non-conclusion/theory is flawed. So you can mark up another failed idea; which you continue to make over and over again.


Does this mean you admit you made some errors on sound? Why do you post here, you have zero evidence to support your ideas? Why do you mess up the witness statement analysis so badly?
 
Let's just assume, for argument's sake, that Flight 93 did approach the crash site from over Indian Lake. That would be a heading of typically 270-300, remembering that the plane was also descending at around a 45-degree angle at close to 500 knots when it hit the ground. Now, assuming for a second a constant 45-degree angle of descent, simple trigonometry would put the plane right above the lake at the point that it began to plummet from 10,000ft (try it - draw a line 10,000ft long from the crash site on Google Earth). The pitch angle of the plane, however, was constantly decreasing during its descent, attaining 45 degrees only around the time it hit the ground. The horizontal distance from the crash site, therefore, would have been greater than the vertical distance at the point it bagan its descent. Let's be generous and say 20,000ft instead of 10,000ft. OK - go ahead - extend your Google Earth line to 20,000ft, crossing right over the Marina, or golf course, if you like. This marks the likely zenith that the plane began its descent from, if it approached the crash site from over the lake.

So, all we need do now is get the plane to that point and understand its direction of travel. Well, given that the plane was travelling generally in an arc during the four minutes before impact, the last 30 seconds of which show the greatest rate of turn during such 4-minute period, it's not difficult to conclude that the final approach/descent could well have been from the south-east. The last recorded heading of the plane is just over 180-degrees, from 120 degrees just 60 seconds earlier. A further 100 degress rotation or so doesn't seem even close to impossible to me. This plane was both turning sharply and descending increasingly. I'm no expert, but logically that would likely result in a spiral motion, given enough height.

I don't know how accurately FDR magnetic heading plots reflect the actual direction of a plane, but a south-easterly final descent does not seem implausible. Assuming so, where does that leave us? It seems to have removed the apparent inconsistency between the "official flight path" and the witness statements.
 
Let's just assume, for argument's sake, that Flight 93 did approach the crash site from over Indian Lake. That would be a heading of typically 270-300, remembering that the plane was also descending at around a 45-degree angle at close to 500 knots when it hit the ground.

You can't have the plane come over Indian Lake and then rely on fraudulent FDR data to assess any aspect about it. Pure and simple. If the plane came over the lake [which something sure did according to Chris Smith, Barry Lichty, Jim Brandt, Jim Stop, Carol Delasko, Tom Spinelli, John Fleegle, Paul Muro, & Val McClatchey] then the data is false.
 
Lee Purbaugh didn't say it came from the area of the lake. If it went over him it didn't . Is it time to throw him under the bus?
 
Last edited:
You can't have the plane come over Indian Lake and then rely on fraudulent FDR data to assess any aspect about it. Pure and simple. If the plane came over the lake [which something sure did according to Chris Smith, Barry Lichty, Jim Brandt, Jim Stop, Carol Delasko, Tom Spinelli, John Fleegle, Paul Muro, & Val McClatchey] then the data is false.
Another lie. The FDR is not fraudulent, your statements are. Sorry, but without evidence you are just making up stuff.

Who saw the plane cross the lake? Oops, no one. Darn, you have sounds like instead of seeing it. Do you understand this? Sorry, I have read their statements, you can't say they support 93 flying over the lake since it is prove wrong by the FDR; which you can't even present a single piece of evidence to dispute the authenticity of the FDR.

Have you figured out sound yet? And why are you evidence free on this topic, just presenting your own opinions based on your faulty analysis of witnesses?

You are full of junk ideas on 9/11, there are witnesses who saw 93 NOT pass over Indian Lake and they followed 93 descent to the impact point, never once did 93 go over the lake. You are prove wrong with your faulty sound analysis by visual sightings placing 93 northwest of the Lake for it's entire final descent to impact. You are busted! Debunked, and further post making up lies by you only expose your failure to understand sound, physics and investigation techniques and analysis. Your failure to present the whole story must mean you lack the understanding of each witness statement and how to interpret them. You conveniently leave out the statements or mangle them to support your failed idea. Guess which statement proves you wrong very quickly. You will never admit it so I doubt you will every mention him/them.

Anyone can look up 9/11 issues about Flight 93 and find enough evidence to debunk your ideas quickly.
 
Last edited:
Lee Purbaugh didn't say it came from the area of the lake. If it went over him it didn't . Is it time to through him under the bus?


Ok DGM fair enough.

Show me a map where Lee Purbaugh confirms his exact location. :D

Remember he says it wasn't upside down. Do you need to look at some aerial shots of the crater again first?
 
Ok DGM fair enough.

Show me a map where Lee Purbaugh confirms his exact location. :D

Remember he says it wasn't upside down. Do you need to look at some aerial shots of the crater again first?
So Bob, Terry and Tim are wrong?

ETA He was at work, right?
 
Last edited:
Another lie. The FDR is not fraudulent, your statements are. Sorry, but without evidence you are just making up stuff.

Who saw the plane cross the lake? Oops, no one. Darn, you have sounds like instead of seeing it. Do you understand this? Sorry, I have read their statements, you can't say they support 77 flying over the lake since it is prove wrong by the FDR; which you can't even present a single piece of evidence to dispute the authenticity of the FDR.

Have you figure out sound yet? And why are you evidence free on this topic, just presenting your own opinions based on your faulty analysis of witnesses?

Jesus Christ Super anonymous research authoritive. I let it slide earlier because I figure its late and you're most likely intoxicated but Flight 77 wasn't involved in every scenario on 9/11 so quit trying to bring it to Shanksville.

Congrats you are now the second person to go on my ignore list. You join Bobert. You're in great company......
 
Jesus Christ Super anonymous research authoritive. I let it slide earlier because I figure its late and you're most likely intoxicated but Flight 77 wasn't involved in every scenario on 9/11 so quit trying to bring it to Shanksville.

Congrats you are now the second person to go on my ignore list. You join Bobert. You're in great company......

I would like to see Mr Stop statement that it flew over the lake. His words.

PS have you ever heard of a typo?
 
Jesus Christ Super anonymous research authoritive. I let it slide earlier because I figure its late and you're most likely intoxicated but Flight 77 wasn't involved in every scenario on 9/11 so quit trying to bring it to Shanksville.

Congrats you are now the second person to go on my ignore list. You join Bobert. You're in great company......
Sorry, I am not dwt. Darn, guess I made a big mistake an put 77 instead of 93. Darn you got me.

When will you and CIT, and p4t (pilots for 9/11 truth) stop spreading false information, or the implication of false information since p4t do not have theories or conclusions? How can you sell DVD that have no theories or conclusions? Like a movie without a plot? Are you guys big fans of plot less movies?

So when do you come clean on your inability to understand sound and physics? Do you know how fast sound travels? We are just trying to help you understand the real world which you are ignoring (as evident by your posts).

Late, it is early here. Looks like you can't get much right; or was that a typing error like my 77 vs 93? Are you sure Balsamo is not posting for you? He always jumps on people for errors they make but he could correct the error for them. If you had said 77, I think I would just say you meant 93; but you and Balsamo make it a big point and miss the fact your ideas are still based on nothing. Or are they non-ideas?

But your errors in logic are not a mistake? Ignore is the best thing you can do, it make you look like you can't answer simple questions. Cool.

I think ignore goes so well, as a base word for your entire compilation of work.
 

Back
Top Bottom