Killtown: some unanswered questions

chucksheen said:
Physical evidence is one of the easiest things to fake. I find the notion that these feeble items survived and were used for evidence to be ambiguous. I find it hard to believe that the tail incinerated while a bandana and paper survived unscathed.
Click to expand...


In air crashes it is fairly common for small light weight items to survive the crash when heavy items do not. It is very common for magazines, etc. from air crashes to be found far away from the impact site, with very little damage.


chucksheen said:
I was under the impression that the tail was made of titanium and the ground was soft. I have seen other tails survive crashes that seem WAY more believable.
Click to expand...

Aircraft are made of aluminium, not titanium.

I am not aware of another air crash in which a large airliner flew perpendicular into the ground at high speed, making comparison with another crash very difficult.

Most other accidents either occur on take off or landing, at low speed, with a very shallow impact angle, or involve the aircraft breaking up at high altitude.


chucksheen said:
I believe an explosion/detonation is what caused the holes in the inner rings. I have speculated on the exact device used but I remain open minded.
Click to expand...

There's only one punch-out hole, and it's in the C-ring wall.

-Andrew
 
Welcome Chuck...

Here is the fundamental issue I have with CTers accusing people of murder, quotes from your post...
chucksheen said:
I don't believe...
because I believe...
they may have...
I find it hard to believe...
I was under the impression...that seem WAY more believable...
I believe...
Click to expand...

Here in the U.S of A. we are innocent until proven guilty, how would you like a DA to prosecute you using the above quotes while not producing a single shred of evidence?
 
Killtown said:
Shall I call you a waambulance?
Click to expand...
Seriously are you 11?

Please continue posting, but don't expect to keep running away from serious questions without getting asked about it.

I assume you refuse to answer because you can't. You are welcome to prove me wrong. Or you can run away or provide 11 year old level responses, your choice. But if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you will need to step it up a bit. So far you've provided zero technical details in your posts, zip.
 
Every time I see a 9/11 debate thread I rub my hands anticipating an interesting exchange of facts and ideas.

Then, without fail I click on the thread and read with gleeful anticipation.

Every time I end up disappointed.
 
Killtown, is simply answering the questions going to be that Earth-shatteringly devastating to your credibility?? Whats the problem?

Killtown said:
Notice to anyone else how chooses to debate with me. If you insult me, I won't debate with you anymore. If I insult you, you shouldn't debate with me anymore either.
Click to expand...
Darn, I'm afraid I cant ask Killtown these questions either because I've insulted him in the past..

I've tried debating you Killtown, you simply dismiss everything that may counter your beliefs; you do not accept evidence, at all. Instead, you say "planted!!" or explain it away badly. You resort to repeating yourself(with a side helping of childish antics) instead of actually debating people.

Mark Binghams Mom said:
Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".
Click to expand...
http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html

Wow. Thats gotta hurt, Killtown!! Like a punch to the gut, isn't it.
Comments? Concerns?

Do you feel ashamed of yourself for pissing on this mans grave, and making fun of his last (heroic)moments?
 
gumboot said:
I am not aware of another air crash in which a large airliner flew perpendicular into the ground at high speed, making comparison with another crash very difficult.
Click to expand...

Another example of a relatively high-speed and high angle-of-attack impact with terrain was Valuejet 592, a Douglas DC-9-32 which crashed in the Florida Everglades on May 11, 1996. The crash was attributed to in-flight fires caused by improperly-handled oxygen generator cannisters shipped as cargo aboard this passenger flight. The smoke generated by the fire interfered with aircrew operations and the high temperatures severed flight surface control wires leading to complete loss of response to pilot input.

The last recorded airspeed for VJ592 was 290 knots at 7900 feet MSL one minute before impact. For comparison, UA93 impacted terrain at 580 mph - 504 knots. Page 3 of the NTSB Aircraft Accident Report details VJ592's airspeed and attitude:

The accident occurred at 1413:42. Ground scars and wreckage scatter indicated that the airplane crashed into the Everglades in a right wing down, nose down attitude. The location of the primary impact crater was 25° 55’ north latitude, 80° 35’ west longitude, or approximately 17 miles northwest of MIA. [Cylinder: Miami International Airport]...

Two witnesses fishing from a boat in the Everglades when flight 592 crashed stated that they saw a low-flying airplane in a steep right bank. According to these witnesses, as the right bank angle increased, the nose of the airplane dropped and continued downward. The airplane struck the ground in a nearly vertical attitude. The witnesses described a great explosion, vibration, and a huge cloud of water and smoke. One of them observed, “the landing gear was up, all the airplane’s parts appeared to be intact, and that aside from the engine smoke, no signs of fire were visible.”

Two other witnesses who were sightseeing in a private airplane in the area at the time of the accident provided similar accounts of the accident. These two witnesses and the witnesses in the boat, who approached the accident site, described seeing only part of an engine, paper, and other debris scattered around the impact area. One of the witnesses remarked that the
airplane seemed to have disappeared upon crashing into the Everglades...
Click to expand...

A greater portion of Valuejet 592 debris was recovered by the NTSB, probably due to the decreased airspeed at impact. See pp. 39-43 of the report for wreckage details. A photo of the crash site can be found here.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
I am not aware of another air crash in which a large airliner flew perpendicular into the ground at high speed, making comparison with another crash very difficult.
Click to expand...

I might add that United 585 (a 737) nose-dived into the ground in a way very similar to United 93 (although there were probably differences in speed), and also in a similar type of terrain. Again, few recognizable pieces of aircraft were left, and certainly no complete tail sections were present.
 
Blackadder_no said:
I might add that United 585 (a 737) nose-dived into the ground in a way very similar to United 93 (although there were probably differences in speed), and also in a similar type of terrain. Again, few recognizable pieces of aircraft were left, and certainly no complete tail sections were present.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board, Blackadder. That's a good find. According to the NTSB report, United Airlines Flight 585 crashed on March 3, 1991 at the final approach course on the grounds of the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. UA585 impacted terrain at over 200 knots and a near vertical attitude. All 20 passengers plus all five crew members were killed. The cause of the crash was not conclusively determined. Some wreckage notes starting from p. 42:

The left engine was buried about 10 feet nose down in the ground under the left wing at about a 75-degree impact angle. The nose cowl and the inlet cases were destroyed...

The forward portion of the right engine was buried about 7 feet in the ground under the right wing at an angle of about 50 degrees. The portion aft of the combustion section of the right engine was separated, and some parts were located about 25 feet north of the impact crater....
Click to expand...

It looks as if the NTSB recovered a good portion more wreckage from UA585 than it did from UA93.
 
Just fyi, UA 585 went in at only 210 KIAS. At 7000' elevation (Colorado Springs), thats around 265 mph. It still made a nice crater 24 x 39 x 10 feet and very little was recovered in "good condition"
The biggest piece of the tail was a 3 foot chunk of the rudder.
 
Unimpressive. They have to come stronger than that.

That runaway was too quick, he stopped posting in post 22! Is that a new knockout record for Gravy?!
 
Gravy said:
I don't know how much was recovered from 585, but about 95% was recovered from 93 as of 9/25/01.
Click to expand...
I've read those stories, and also read that 95% of what was recovered was turned over to United. The figure of how much of the plane was recovered was attributed in all the news stories to the same FBI spokesman, who also was the source for the other 95% figure. I'd feel better confirming that 95% of the plane was recovered, from another source. It could be that the numbers got confused, either by the FBI spokesman, or by the media reporting it.

The 95% figure is plausible - where else would the pieces go? If you dig out all the dirt and sort carefully enough, you'll find them all.

By the way, I had posted links to articles saying that 95% of the plane was found, over at the LC Forum, which was received by mockery and derision. Of course, there was no evidence or reason on their part, as usual.
 
Overman said:
That runaway was too quick, he stopped posting in post 22! Is that a new knockout record for Gravy?!
Click to expand...
No, I think DJLegacy is the all time record for running away. He posted dozens of times, bragging that he was waiting for Gravy to show up for a great debate, then as soon as Gravy showed up, DJ was gone without another post. Well, his "cousin" posted from his login, saying that DJ had to go, but of course DJ never showed up.

I'm pretty disappointed by Killtown's showing, though.
 
Fine since Killtown has refused to answer Gravy, I shall asked the questions then as I have yet to insult him. So...

"Glad you're here, Killtown.

Please now answer these questions:

1) You claim to be investigating the events of 9/11. You have a great deal of information on your websites, and claim to have over 200 "smoking guns" that show that the attacks were not carried out according to the official version. You claim that flights 93 and 77 did not crash where the OV says they did. Who, among the thousands of first responders and investigators at those scenes, have you spoken to, and what did they say? I've asked you this at least a dozen times. Please respond now.

2) You have repeatedly stated that the red bandanna found at the flight 93 scene could not have survived the crash. The post above shows many other items that survived, and the Moussaoui trial exhibits show more. What is your reaction to this evidence, and will you change the way you present this claim?

3) Why do you think that a 757's tail section would remain intact after a nearly 600 mph head-on collision with the ground?

4) Likewise, why do you think the "nose cone" of the plane that hit the Pentagon remained intact and caused the exit hole damage in C ring?

I look forward, finally, to your replies."
 
The other rule was to post questions in a different thread than this one, for some reason.
 
Killtown said:
You know I've had a lot of people insult me when debating, so many that it's not worth the trouble forgiving someone who has, because there are so many other new people to debate with who haven't insulted me and sometimes you have to make an example out of people.

So no, I don't accept your apology. I won't be debating with you anymore. Good day.


Notice to anyone else how chooses to debate with me. If you insult me, I won't debate with you anymore. If I insult you, you shouldn't debate with me anymore either.
Click to expand...
This is shocking to me. I would have thought that every self-respecting member of the 9/11 truth movement, especially one such as yourself with a reputation among the movement of tireless research and fluency of information, would be gunning for Mark Roberts and would salivate at the opportunity to tear his status as one of the prime debunkers to shreds.

Instead, every single one of you weasels your way out of a confrontation of your evidence against his. Bring your whole team over if you want--no one will think any less of you (that would be hard after this display of cowardice). Bring all your most tenacious and prolific researchers and we'll lay down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom