Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"
- Thread starter Mr.Herbert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flight 93 kinetic energy
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
He's an expert in night soil. 
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
When I want to know if the soil chemistry in my back yard will kill my chick-peas, I'll call a soil specialist.
Until then, "Rewey" can STFU and stay outta things that he knows nothing about.
Until then, "Rewey" can STFU and stay outta things that he knows nothing about.
TheDaver
hairy farting brute
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008
- Messages
- 970
When anybody on ATS claims to be an expert on anything, it pegs my BS meter.
I'll go and answer a few, just for fun.
A1: The plane is much heavier than vehicles and people, while not pressing down on a much larger footprint. It will leave a greater impression than any comparison made in the question before we consider it was also traveling at a high speed at the time of crash. The situations are literately incomparable. No one, except for him, claimed the plane was neatly covered, so I'll be kind and ignore that, rather than call him a liar outright (as would be proper).
A2: The forces involved in a crash are way beyond what the structure of the tail section can sustain, so it broke apart. As simple as that. He is the first person to claim the plane traveled through the sand "largely unimpeded". If that were the case, the plane would be "largely intact", and it wouldn't stop either. He's clearly just setting up a straw man.
A3: If we leave out the untruthful part that the tail section needs to be "intact" in order to leave an imprint (it needs to be mostly in one piece, that's it), his contention here is that the entire plane should disintegrate immediately in the moment the nose touches the ground, or remain largely intact throughout the crash. If you doesn't understand why that is ridiculously flawed, please cancel your account and apply for disability benefits for mental retardation.
A4: Yes. As you pointed out in Question 2, it's very lightly built.
A5: Because the two aren't mutually exclusive. The high speed of the plane is the key to disintegrating. Had the plane impacted a lot softer surface of the water, it would still disintegrate, but the pieces would be larger. Many accidents worldwide attest to that. The Air France disaster of June 2009 is very illustrative - it is fairly likely the plane broke apart just because it was traveling too fast. It was therefore only impacting the air in front of it. That's obviously a lot softer than any sand.
A6: Not factual. If you claim that happened, please show your evidence to support or clarify it.
A7: See A6.
A8: See A7.
A9: I'm assuming there are a few pictures missing here, so I'll skip this one.
A10: See A8.
A11: This is the first time I see the claim the plane was torn apart by explosion. See A10 if to gain a more complete answer.
A12: Probably because the crash at Shanskville was a lot simpler and with a lot less implications to anyone. if the plane crashes into the ground at high speed, it will disintegrate. This was well known to anyone outside the present 9/11 'truth' community apparently decades before 911.
A13: See A10.
A14: See A13.
A15: Probably because the photo only showed the top portion of the resulting cloud, not the entire explosion. It's quite evident the explosion itself is obscured.
A16: See A14.
A17: Because the individual, heavy pieces need to crash through a smaller section of the wall. A truck has much more inertia to a steel-coated 5.56mm bullet, but the truck will not penetrate a soft ballistic vest, while the bullet might. You'd think that would be evident to any school kid.
A18: If I understand you correctly, your premise here is that the entire fuel load exploded outside. If that is correct, see A16.
A19: Because it's loosely packed sand, which will absorb the blow. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this.
A20: See A16.
A21: The force of momentum of the plane was greater than the counteracting force. You said it yourself countless times that the sand offered "no resistance". Though this is incorrect, it certainly offered less resistance than, say, a thick piece of steel would. The plane was able to bury itself inside because the resistance was sufficiently small. If you quote me Newtons' 3rd law on this, re-enroll into high school.
A22: Why would it need to hold the nose again? See A20.
Overall, moderately entertaining to answer.
McHrozni
A1: The plane is much heavier than vehicles and people, while not pressing down on a much larger footprint. It will leave a greater impression than any comparison made in the question before we consider it was also traveling at a high speed at the time of crash. The situations are literately incomparable. No one, except for him, claimed the plane was neatly covered, so I'll be kind and ignore that, rather than call him a liar outright (as would be proper).
A2: The forces involved in a crash are way beyond what the structure of the tail section can sustain, so it broke apart. As simple as that. He is the first person to claim the plane traveled through the sand "largely unimpeded". If that were the case, the plane would be "largely intact", and it wouldn't stop either. He's clearly just setting up a straw man.
A3: If we leave out the untruthful part that the tail section needs to be "intact" in order to leave an imprint (it needs to be mostly in one piece, that's it), his contention here is that the entire plane should disintegrate immediately in the moment the nose touches the ground, or remain largely intact throughout the crash. If you doesn't understand why that is ridiculously flawed, please cancel your account and apply for disability benefits for mental retardation.
A4: Yes. As you pointed out in Question 2, it's very lightly built.
A5: Because the two aren't mutually exclusive. The high speed of the plane is the key to disintegrating. Had the plane impacted a lot softer surface of the water, it would still disintegrate, but the pieces would be larger. Many accidents worldwide attest to that. The Air France disaster of June 2009 is very illustrative - it is fairly likely the plane broke apart just because it was traveling too fast. It was therefore only impacting the air in front of it. That's obviously a lot softer than any sand.
A6: Not factual. If you claim that happened, please show your evidence to support or clarify it.
A7: See A6.
A8: See A7.
A9: I'm assuming there are a few pictures missing here, so I'll skip this one.
A10: See A8.
A11: This is the first time I see the claim the plane was torn apart by explosion. See A10 if to gain a more complete answer.
A12: Probably because the crash at Shanskville was a lot simpler and with a lot less implications to anyone. if the plane crashes into the ground at high speed, it will disintegrate. This was well known to anyone outside the present 9/11 'truth' community apparently decades before 911.
A13: See A10.
A14: See A13.
A15: Probably because the photo only showed the top portion of the resulting cloud, not the entire explosion. It's quite evident the explosion itself is obscured.
A16: See A14.
A17: Because the individual, heavy pieces need to crash through a smaller section of the wall. A truck has much more inertia to a steel-coated 5.56mm bullet, but the truck will not penetrate a soft ballistic vest, while the bullet might. You'd think that would be evident to any school kid.
A18: If I understand you correctly, your premise here is that the entire fuel load exploded outside. If that is correct, see A16.
A19: Because it's loosely packed sand, which will absorb the blow. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this.
A20: See A16.
A21: The force of momentum of the plane was greater than the counteracting force. You said it yourself countless times that the sand offered "no resistance". Though this is incorrect, it certainly offered less resistance than, say, a thick piece of steel would. The plane was able to bury itself inside because the resistance was sufficiently small. If you quote me Newtons' 3rd law on this, re-enroll into high school.
A22: Why would it need to hold the nose again? See A20.
Overall, moderately entertaining to answer.
McHrozni
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
A guy who works for a company that constructs housing and mentions that they (not he, himself) do soil testing?
And, hey, he had some physics in school! I'm convinced.
You have to give the props to a scientific paper published under a web pseudonym. I'm sure Alex Jones will help him get it peer reviewed.
Is this Kiltown's magnum opus? (Too much fascination with Val's picture for it not to be him.)
And, hey, he had some physics in school! I'm convinced.
You have to give the props to a scientific paper published under a web pseudonym. I'm sure Alex Jones will help him get it peer reviewed.
Is this Kiltown's magnum opus? (Too much fascination with Val's picture for it not to be him.)
High speed impact.
High speed impact.
This is what happens, the plane gets buried and ejects parts.
Having worked aircraft accident scenes I find his questions are indicative of an insane dolt who ate the soil instead of studying soil. An idiot on this issue with no working knowledge of aircraft accidents, who can't do physics, and has appeared to make moronic conclusions through his dirt dumb, stupid soil questions.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Rather an understatement and more politely worded than what I would have said.
Could you tell me where and when and what sort of aircraft that was? Looks even more tidy than the Shanksville crater and the rocks in trhe soil look larger. The soil in this picture (I and assuming it is a plantation of some sort, based on the straight lines observeable in the overhead views) would have to be more compact that 5-10 year old fill.
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Time to post this again.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
You can tell that that was originally added to the meme by a twoofer, because they show the bottom of the aircraft where the top should be.
The twoof movement in a nut shell.
That was out of the accident investigation manual the main purpose was to show the lack of identifying part (parts that look like planes). The aircraft may of been a fighter who hit like 93 with lots of speed. When we discussed high speed high angle impacts like 93 we learned the pilots in some of these accidents was smashed to the size of shoe-box. The first impact looks like the desert, the same problem is high energy impact not many identifying parts.
Flight 93 impact is exactly what you would expect for the speed and angles. Boeing has some experts who could tell you for the soil type how deep items could be buried and what kind of ejection distances to expect on parts from the crash. On one accident for a U-2 the altimeter was ejected over 400 feet in good condition from a 150mph stall impact, and the fan part of 93 found 300 yards or more away would not be unexpected.
I tried to find more stuff from my aircraft accident investigation class but I do not have the other old manual and they were discontinued and are horded by safety guys.
If the accident scene in PA was staged thousands of trained people from Boeing, USAF, USN, DoD, NTSB, and other places would see it and there would have been a big deal 7 years, 9 months and 14 days ago. But the scene at PA for 93 is what you get when you run into the ground at 600 mph. If you want more parts in better condition, slow down like the guy who ditched in NY.
ComsatAngel2017
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 897
Irony bites. Soil scientist? Beachnut's favourite insult comes of age and relevance!
Wow, I can’t believe you guys were all talking about me, and didn’t even invite me over to defend myself! I’ve just stumbled across this site by accident, and after reading this thread, I fail to see why this site is called a place to discuss ‘critical thinking’ in ‘a friendly way’. So far there’s been very little but abuse towards me. Let’s have a look at the ‘critical thinking’ so far:
Besides the fact that those comments are obviously in violation of the T&C’s of this site (awesome moderating), I get the feeling there are a few people here who feel proud that they are critical thinkers for no other reason that they post their thoughts on a website which claims it’s for critical thinking. That’s quite sad, but anyway…
I’ll tell you what. HERE’S A CHALLENGE. Read what I have to post here. Not just speed-read or skim it, but take a couple of minutes to read it. I’ll explain my side, and here’s the catch – I’ll do it without anonymously verbally abusing someone I’ve never met, just because they have an opinion. Some of you might learn something from that.
To clear up a few things first:
I should hope so, because I never said that. That was someone on this thread. Heck, you even said so in the thread title.
I don’t know, but I’ve never claimed I was writing a ‘scientific paper’ – just putting my thoughts on paper, using my interpretation of the photos available, and discussing it with people who might have differing opinions or contrary evidence I might learn from.
What I find hard to believe is that all of you guys missed the very obvious fact that EVERY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WAS A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING AN ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPOTER WAS CLAIMING. So please, feel free to laugh at them as much as you like. Marvel in their stupidity, because they come from someone on YOUR side of the argument.
And leftysergeant, with regards to me drifting to the Pentagon from time to time – this was stated in the report as being well off topic. For those who continued with the thread on ATS, you’d also know that when someone pointed out evidence contrary to what I’d said, I THANKED THEM AND AMENDED MY REPORT. You see, unlike most people on both sides of the 9/11 debate, when someone points out evidence to show I’m wrong, I actually go back and amend my paper. I don’t immediately abuse the **** out of them. I’m currently working on Revision 1, which I’d hoped to finish tonight, but thought I’d better say a few things here instead. [continued...]
Besides the fact that those comments are obviously in violation of the T&C’s of this site (awesome moderating), I get the feeling there are a few people here who feel proud that they are critical thinkers for no other reason that they post their thoughts on a website which claims it’s for critical thinking. That’s quite sad, but anyway…
I’ll tell you what. HERE’S A CHALLENGE. Read what I have to post here. Not just speed-read or skim it, but take a couple of minutes to read it. I’ll explain my side, and here’s the catch – I’ll do it without anonymously verbally abusing someone I’ve never met, just because they have an opinion. Some of you might learn something from that.
To clear up a few things first:
I should hope so, because I never said that. That was someone on this thread. Heck, you even said so in the thread title.
I don’t know, but I’ve never claimed I was writing a ‘scientific paper’ – just putting my thoughts on paper, using my interpretation of the photos available, and discussing it with people who might have differing opinions or contrary evidence I might learn from.
What I find hard to believe is that all of you guys missed the very obvious fact that EVERY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WAS A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING AN ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPOTER WAS CLAIMING. So please, feel free to laugh at them as much as you like. Marvel in their stupidity, because they come from someone on YOUR side of the argument.
And leftysergeant, with regards to me drifting to the Pentagon from time to time – this was stated in the report as being well off topic. For those who continued with the thread on ATS, you’d also know that when someone pointed out evidence contrary to what I’d said, I THANKED THEM AND AMENDED MY REPORT. You see, unlike most people on both sides of the 9/11 debate, when someone points out evidence to show I’m wrong, I actually go back and amend my paper. I don’t immediately abuse the **** out of them. I’m currently working on Revision 1, which I’d hoped to finish tonight, but thought I’d better say a few things here instead. [continued...]
Last edited:
The report I wrote was in response to some of the claims that were being made by supporters of the ‘official story’, such as:
- the plane buried itself in the soil up to the tail fin
- small pieces of plane buried themselves as deep as 50 feet into the soil
- you could clearly see the imprint of the tail fin on the ground
- the pieces of plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet deep because the soil around the Shanksville site was ‘loosely packed’ because it was on old strip mine
Firstly, there’s something you guys need to accept. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STORY with regards to Flight 93. NIST didn’t bother to make a report on this one. What does this mean? It means that unfortunately, the ‘official story’ includes everything that supporters of the ‘official story’ say. Sadly, as all of those obviously dumb claims were made by people supporting an ‘official story’, they are in the same boat as you guys. If I were you, I would be as worried about that as I am about the idiots talking about No Plane Theory and Rocket Pods on 747s. Why? Because they form a part of the ether which is collectively known as the ‘official story’, and that’s what you guys are supporting. I accept that No Planers make all people like me who question the ‘official story’ look like retards, but you guys have to accept that some people are making equally dumb claims on your behalf. It is not acceptable just to claim “Well I never said that!” You still have a responsibility to bring into line those claims being made on your behalf, just like I do with people making stupid claims on my behalf.
FOR THAT REASON some of you guys should be thanking me, because I’m trying to prove wrong what you and I both seem to think are ludicrous statements. It actually HELPS YOUR CAUSE when I prove some of those dumber claims wrong. For some reason, some of you seem to think that I’M MAKING THOSE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, whereas I’ve simply read them elsewhere, and am trying to point out how silly they are.
So let’s look at those claims above. Why do I think it’s nonsense to suggest that the soil was ‘loosely packed’ because it was a filled in strip mine? After all, even leftysergeant claims:
To me, this demonstrates little understanding of decommissioning of strip mines. He seems to think that when the strip mine at Shanksville (called Diamond T, I now know) was decommissioned, the mine operators simply poured in truckloads of loose fill, and everyone shook hands and walked away. In short, this is not realistic at all, because in decommissioning the mine VERY STRICT decommissioing requirements had been met.
Unlike you, I looked it up. It's covered by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977 (SMCRA), and administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is just one of the nearly 60 Federal laws and regulations which must be adhered to which apply specifically to coal mining.
One of the requirements of the Act is the preparation (BEFORE mining even starts) of a reclamation plan, which needs to be assessed and approved. To quote: "The broad objectives of the rehabilitation program were to eliminate soil and water pollution on and around the site, and to produce a STABLE LANDFORM with a self-sustaining vegetative cover…"
The reclaiming of the decommissioned strip mine was under strict Federal laws surrounding strip mining activities. For the ‘official story’ to continue to claim that the ground was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of an old strip mine that used to operate is completely ignoring the masses of Federal laws and regulations which would have ensured that the area was returned to its PRE-MINING STATE (which is a term used throughout the legislation).
These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine SPECIFICALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Volume 3, Part 398 ‘Pennsylvania’.
From another source:
There are heaps of sources I could post on this, but you guys get the idea. [continued...]
- the plane buried itself in the soil up to the tail fin
- small pieces of plane buried themselves as deep as 50 feet into the soil
- you could clearly see the imprint of the tail fin on the ground
- the pieces of plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet deep because the soil around the Shanksville site was ‘loosely packed’ because it was on old strip mine
Firstly, there’s something you guys need to accept. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STORY with regards to Flight 93. NIST didn’t bother to make a report on this one. What does this mean? It means that unfortunately, the ‘official story’ includes everything that supporters of the ‘official story’ say. Sadly, as all of those obviously dumb claims were made by people supporting an ‘official story’, they are in the same boat as you guys. If I were you, I would be as worried about that as I am about the idiots talking about No Plane Theory and Rocket Pods on 747s. Why? Because they form a part of the ether which is collectively known as the ‘official story’, and that’s what you guys are supporting. I accept that No Planers make all people like me who question the ‘official story’ look like retards, but you guys have to accept that some people are making equally dumb claims on your behalf. It is not acceptable just to claim “Well I never said that!” You still have a responsibility to bring into line those claims being made on your behalf, just like I do with people making stupid claims on my behalf.
FOR THAT REASON some of you guys should be thanking me, because I’m trying to prove wrong what you and I both seem to think are ludicrous statements. It actually HELPS YOUR CAUSE when I prove some of those dumber claims wrong. For some reason, some of you seem to think that I’M MAKING THOSE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, whereas I’ve simply read them elsewhere, and am trying to point out how silly they are.
So let’s look at those claims above. Why do I think it’s nonsense to suggest that the soil was ‘loosely packed’ because it was a filled in strip mine? After all, even leftysergeant claims:
To me, this demonstrates little understanding of decommissioning of strip mines. He seems to think that when the strip mine at Shanksville (called Diamond T, I now know) was decommissioned, the mine operators simply poured in truckloads of loose fill, and everyone shook hands and walked away. In short, this is not realistic at all, because in decommissioning the mine VERY STRICT decommissioing requirements had been met.
Unlike you, I looked it up. It's covered by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977 (SMCRA), and administered by the Office of Surface Mining. This is just one of the nearly 60 Federal laws and regulations which must be adhered to which apply specifically to coal mining.
One of the requirements of the Act is the preparation (BEFORE mining even starts) of a reclamation plan, which needs to be assessed and approved. To quote: "The broad objectives of the rehabilitation program were to eliminate soil and water pollution on and around the site, and to produce a STABLE LANDFORM with a self-sustaining vegetative cover…"
The reclaiming of the decommissioned strip mine was under strict Federal laws surrounding strip mining activities. For the ‘official story’ to continue to claim that the ground was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of an old strip mine that used to operate is completely ignoring the masses of Federal laws and regulations which would have ensured that the area was returned to its PRE-MINING STATE (which is a term used throughout the legislation).
These legislative requirements for decommissioning a strip mine SPECIFICALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Volume 3, Part 398 ‘Pennsylvania’.
From another source:
There are heaps of sources I could post on this, but you guys get the idea. [continued...]
Last edited:
Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?
Ask any military in the world what they use to stop bullets. SAND BAGS. That’s because the physical properties of sand are great at resisting small, fast moving objects. It is even better at stopping larger objects, due to the increased resistance to the greater surface area (This is due to the grains of sand having tiny gaps between them, which allows the sand to slightly compress, which decelerates the object more effectively than a solid object. This is why newer cars have crumple zones. A solid resisting object is more likely to shatter, ricochet or fragment the moving item… hmmm, just like what you guys claim happened to F93. Seems the ground was more solid than you think?). Therefore, how do the OS supporters claim that small fragments of the plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet into the sand? Maybe they assume that sand bags actually get their strength from the cotton bag that holds the sand? I don’t know. But like it or not, sand – loosely packed or otherwise – has mass. This mass needs to be displaced when something buries itself in the sand.
Further in my defence – nowhere have I ever stated that the plane should have bounced. Those who are so proud of your ‘critical thinking’ skills should really take a look at yourselves here. I was saying that the forces upon impact, particularly given that the plane struck at LESS THAN 45º, were far more likely to slam the plane onto its back than to bury itself into the soil.
I’ll use an example. A few years ago a car ran off the road and hit a limestone retaining wall about 10 houses down from mine. What happened? Did the car shatter into tiny pieces – no (and don’t go on here about the much smaller mass and momentum, I get that). But also, the car did not simply continue in a straight line passing through the retaining wall and into the soil behind it. The car deflected off the wall, leaving some smaller pieces behind, and ended up back on the street. Do I think that the car ‘bounced’? No, because I’m not a moron. If anyone wants some photographic proof, look up photos of the crash that killed F1 driver Aryton Senna, when it collided with a concrete barrier AT AN ANGLE and was deflected back into the middle of the track (and no, there were no soft tyre-walls here). Or for you North Americans, think about what happens when NASCARs collide AT AN ANGLE with the concrete barriers. Do you think the cars ‘bounce’? (I had a couple of links to help demonstrate, but can't post them in the first 15 posts...)
Look, I’ll explain it as simply as I can. Newton’s laws of motion (simplified) claim that a body will continue to move in the same direction until acted upon by another external force. A body which is acted on by another external force WILL CHANGE its direction. Guess what – the GROUND is providing that external force which will act in changing the direction of the plane. For all of you on this thread who claim I know nothing about physics, please feel free to take the time to prove Newton and myself wrong. Try it in real language, instead of:
Oh… an insult. I get it. Such critical thinking! And much easier than taking the time to actually demonstrate how it’s wrong.
Beachnut also provided some photos of another plane crash. Let me provide 3 simple pieces of analysis on the middle photo:
1. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here. This is created by the force which I explained in my report with the yellow arrow, which you guys have mocked me for, falsely claiming that I think the plane should have bounced. Even though many of you claim the F93 crash was a 'nosedive', the FACT is that it hit at 40º, which means there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM THAN VERTICAL MOMENTUM (We know this because the horizontal and vertical components of a force moving at an incline are calculated as the COS and SIN ratios of the angle of the incline – again, all those who think I “can’t do physics”, feel free to take a moment to prove me wrong there).
2. You can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. Although many OS supporters like to call the F93 crash a ‘nosedive’, in reality it was only at 40º. Yet for some reason there is basically NO direction discernable from the crash site, and the crater is PERPENDICULAR to the alleged direction of the plane (which is why people call them ‘wing imprints’ instead). This might result from a plane hitting at 90º to the ground, but the recovered FDR say that it was at 40º. Go figure. A FAR MORE REALISTIC VERSION would be that F93 crashed IN LINE with the crater allegedly left behind, as this would much more accurately resemble EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH which has left a crater behind.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long. Do I think there’s a tail fin imprint at Shanksville? No, I think it’s a stupid idea. Guess what? The people who say that are on YOUR team. I guess not everyone on the team is a Wayne Gretzky. Some of them are a Steven Goertzen.
If you can’t understand the significance of those three points TOGETHER, than I probably can’t help you. [continued...]
Ask any military in the world what they use to stop bullets. SAND BAGS. That’s because the physical properties of sand are great at resisting small, fast moving objects. It is even better at stopping larger objects, due to the increased resistance to the greater surface area (This is due to the grains of sand having tiny gaps between them, which allows the sand to slightly compress, which decelerates the object more effectively than a solid object. This is why newer cars have crumple zones. A solid resisting object is more likely to shatter, ricochet or fragment the moving item… hmmm, just like what you guys claim happened to F93. Seems the ground was more solid than you think?). Therefore, how do the OS supporters claim that small fragments of the plane were able to bury themselves up to 50 feet into the sand? Maybe they assume that sand bags actually get their strength from the cotton bag that holds the sand? I don’t know. But like it or not, sand – loosely packed or otherwise – has mass. This mass needs to be displaced when something buries itself in the sand.
Further in my defence – nowhere have I ever stated that the plane should have bounced. Those who are so proud of your ‘critical thinking’ skills should really take a look at yourselves here. I was saying that the forces upon impact, particularly given that the plane struck at LESS THAN 45º, were far more likely to slam the plane onto its back than to bury itself into the soil.
I’ll use an example. A few years ago a car ran off the road and hit a limestone retaining wall about 10 houses down from mine. What happened? Did the car shatter into tiny pieces – no (and don’t go on here about the much smaller mass and momentum, I get that). But also, the car did not simply continue in a straight line passing through the retaining wall and into the soil behind it. The car deflected off the wall, leaving some smaller pieces behind, and ended up back on the street. Do I think that the car ‘bounced’? No, because I’m not a moron. If anyone wants some photographic proof, look up photos of the crash that killed F1 driver Aryton Senna, when it collided with a concrete barrier AT AN ANGLE and was deflected back into the middle of the track (and no, there were no soft tyre-walls here). Or for you North Americans, think about what happens when NASCARs collide AT AN ANGLE with the concrete barriers. Do you think the cars ‘bounce’? (I had a couple of links to help demonstrate, but can't post them in the first 15 posts...)
Look, I’ll explain it as simply as I can. Newton’s laws of motion (simplified) claim that a body will continue to move in the same direction until acted upon by another external force. A body which is acted on by another external force WILL CHANGE its direction. Guess what – the GROUND is providing that external force which will act in changing the direction of the plane. For all of you on this thread who claim I know nothing about physics, please feel free to take the time to prove Newton and myself wrong. Try it in real language, instead of:
Oh… an insult. I get it. Such critical thinking! And much easier than taking the time to actually demonstrate how it’s wrong.
Beachnut also provided some photos of another plane crash. Let me provide 3 simple pieces of analysis on the middle photo:
1. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here. This is created by the force which I explained in my report with the yellow arrow, which you guys have mocked me for, falsely claiming that I think the plane should have bounced. Even though many of you claim the F93 crash was a 'nosedive', the FACT is that it hit at 40º, which means there is MORE SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM THAN VERTICAL MOMENTUM (We know this because the horizontal and vertical components of a force moving at an incline are calculated as the COS and SIN ratios of the angle of the incline – again, all those who think I “can’t do physics”, feel free to take a moment to prove me wrong there).
2. You can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. Although many OS supporters like to call the F93 crash a ‘nosedive’, in reality it was only at 40º. Yet for some reason there is basically NO direction discernable from the crash site, and the crater is PERPENDICULAR to the alleged direction of the plane (which is why people call them ‘wing imprints’ instead). This might result from a plane hitting at 90º to the ground, but the recovered FDR say that it was at 40º. Go figure. A FAR MORE REALISTIC VERSION would be that F93 crashed IN LINE with the crater allegedly left behind, as this would much more accurately resemble EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH which has left a crater behind.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long. Do I think there’s a tail fin imprint at Shanksville? No, I think it’s a stupid idea. Guess what? The people who say that are on YOUR team. I guess not everyone on the team is a Wayne Gretzky. Some of them are a Steven Goertzen.
If you can’t understand the significance of those three points TOGETHER, than I probably can’t help you. [continued...]
Last edited: