Why Flight 93?

[Jonnyclueless]

Devil, can you pleaase provide some calculations that show that the derbis you claim that was as far as you claim cannot have made that distance from the given circumstance please? Simply assuming it's not possible and assuming that because it's different than what you expect is not reasonable. Let's see the math to back your point so we aren't talking about opinion from ones own personal experience.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please explain how you calculated that debris went 2 and a half miles in several seconds. And what debris are we talking about specifically.

And if you're implying the shoot down theory, please explain how 95 % of that plane could land up in the hole while only a few light pieces ended up far away.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

DA, in all honesty your posts have a decidedly conspiracist tone, and I think people might be forgiven for suspecting you of being a closet "Truther." I would also point out that it's not unknown for conspiracists to show up at a forum frequented by debunkers, and initially pretend to be "just asking questions." If you wish not to be taken for a "Truther," I respectfully suggest that you might want to adopt a less strident, defensive, and incredulous tone in your questions.




[qimg]http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/concorde/timeline/203_concorde_crash2.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/concorde/timeline/203_concorde_crash1.jpg[/qimg]
Concorde crash, Paris, France, 25 July 2000

[qimg]http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200607/11/images/crash2.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200607/11/images/crash3.jpg[/qimg]
Fokker F27 crash, Multon, Pakistan, 10 July 2006

[qimg]http://www.esdjournal.com/articles/Lightning/060822_russiaplanecrash.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42003000/jpg/_42003454_afp_firemen3_416credit.jpg[/qimg]
Tu-154 crash, Sukha Balka, Ukraine, 22 August 2006

[qimg]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/0803W_CRASH_wideweb__470x253,0.jpg[/qimg]
Boeing 737 crash, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7 March 2007

Frankly, DA, your credibility meter just pegged off-scale low. It took me only a few minutes to find these using Google. If you wish to be taken seriously, I'd suggest some humility is in order.




Please provide some sources for these allegedly anomalous photos and videos.




These warnings are triggered by data from the radar altimeter, which does not function when the aircraft is inverted, or is at a high pitch or roll angle.




From a WTAE News article:




Please give sources for the claims that the items were actually "books and clothing."

Also, from Salon.com's "Ask the pilot" column:







Common sense can often be misleading.

SpitfireIX,
So you're saying that it's descent of 10k feet in the last minute would not have set off an alarm such as the Sink Rate?
Am I wrong in all I read that stated the plane rolled over just above the tree line? Then I think warnings would have sounded when the plane was below 100 feet. And if those accounts are true that it rolled over above the tree line, at 500+mph, would there have been enough time to do that?
I'll read witness stuff again to see about that. It may have been the lady that saw something else that said that. But the actions of the object she saw seemed to be mirrored by others.

All your pictures showed fires that were out already. Only one showed a fire, and you can see that it was very dark even with water being pumped onto it.

And the video I already posted a link to.
I'm a closet truther? If it makes you feel better to believe something false, then by all means, do so.
Argue facts, not your false opinion within 'the team' mindset.

 

[DGM]

You tell me.
Don't try to paint me into a corner. Evidence is all that matters, right?

It's really a simple question. I'm not passing judgment. Sometimes it's easier to approach a problem from a different angle. If I knew what you were thinking maybe I could help you understand better. Have I called you a CT? No. I simply can not understand what your problem is. You must have something in mind.

 

[uk_dave]

It's a tricky one. Unless we have seen a plane deliberately crashed in to the same ground as shanksville, at the same speed, angle and attitude as flight 93, we cannot say for certain what the crash scene should look like. More so if we have no intimate knowledge of other crash scenes.

You know, sometimes things don't appear the way we expect them to.

I well remember some years ago travelling to work in the morning and passing through a town where kids were waiting for the school bus. One girl ran out into the road in front of a car coming towards me. The car hit her. I watched her fly up into the air and crash down on the road. Everything stopped for what seemed like quite a few seconds then people rushed to the kiddie, including me. She was mostly fine, just some bruising and shock. The old woman driving the car which had hit her was probably in worse condition. But that was nothing compared to the front of her car (a VOLVO no less) which was caved in, the radiator was spewing water and steam. You would never have though an impact between that and a young kid could have caused so much damage to that machine and so little to the fragile child. But there you go. Our expectations are not always what reality see fit to provide.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What's with this claim of no alarms? One of the reasons it was hard to transcibe some of the voice recorder was because of the alarms going off. I am confused.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Please explain how you calculated that debris went 2 and a half miles in several seconds. And what debris are we talking about specifically.

And if you're implying the shoot down theory, please explain how 95 % of that plane could land up in the hole while only a few light pieces ended up far away.

The witness testimony already shown before told you exactly what I said.
They were on Indian Lake (2.5 miles) from the impact.
They said they plane flew over the lake. (Conflicts with official flight path)
They said they saw the explosion and saw debris raining down over head.
They thought a boat had blown up. They rushed to see what happened while debris continued to rain down.
They saw debris coming down right after the explosion...they are 2.5 miles away. That is not possible unless the plane was already coming apart when it flew over. Completely impossible if the plane did not fly over them.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's a tricky one. Unless we have seen a plane deliberately crashed in to the same ground as shanksville, at the same speed, angle and attitude as flight 93, we cannot say for certain what the crash scene should look like. More so if we have no intimate knowledge of other crash scenes.

You know, sometimes things don't appear the way we expect them to.

I well remember some years ago travelling to work in the morning and passing through a town where kids were waiting for the school bus. One girl ran out into the road in front of a car coming towards me. The car hit her. I watched her fly up into the air and crash down on the road. Everything stopped for what seemed like quite a few seconds then people rushed to the kiddie, including me. She was mostly fine, just some bruising and shock. The old woman driving the car which had hit her was probably in worse condition. But that was nothing compared to the front of her car (a VOLVO no less) which was caved in, the radiator was spewing water and steam. You would never have though an impact between that and a young kid could have caused so much damage to that machine and so little to the fragile child. But there you go. Our expectations are not always what reality see fit to provide.

Interesting story, I saw something similar myself.
However, no matter what we expect to happen will not change the chemical composition of jet fuel and how it burns.
Smoke from a jet fuel explosion is black....and I'm at over 400 pages of searching for pictures without any luck of something different.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What debris rained down over them?

And another conflicting story. So once again we have a daring caper where they decided to change all the flight data to something different then what actually happened so as to serve no real purpose but to give themselves away. Isn't that convenient. And this always revolves around the weakest form of evidence, eyewitness testimony.

Here's one of the reasons that you are a closet truther.

You continue to use the wekest forms of evidence to attempt to dismiss all the rest of the evidence. You don't seem to have any concern for the fact that it's not very credible evidence. nowhere near as reliable as all the other evidence that contradicts it.

At the same time, you don't use the other evidence to point out that those people were probably wrong.

And because they were 2.5 miles away, does that mean the debris was raining down on them? Or does it mean they saw debris in the air at the scene? What was some of this debris?

What's also not possible is for a plane to be apart when it flew over, but only some small bits end up 2..5 miles away while pretty much the entire plane ends up in a hole. But you don't seem have raise any question about that paradox do you? Of course not. But you're just "playing devil's advocate" right?

Again, the reason people are hostile towards you is simply because you are insulting everyones intelligence. not with asking questions, with assumptions that everyone here is an idiot and can't see what you're doing. Just be honest and you will get a lot more respect. Say you think there was a conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with it, no one can No one can fault you for having an opinion. The line here is drawn when people try to start distorting the truth and mislead others.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

With regard to 'what I think happened' I cannot say.
I have thought of a lot of possible answers, but evidence always conflicts no matter what route I take.

Go with it being shot down...
Well, that could explain the distance the debris traveled, it would explain why debris were raining down on people 2.5 miles away seconds after impact, it could explain why an engine was found a half mile away (Heat seeking missile blew it off) which caused the plane to roll over because the pilots were unable to control that power shift coupled with impact, and why there was no black smoke at impact because the fuel out of an entire wrong could have been gone already, which still leaves two fuel sources so that is still shaky at best.
However, other data conflicts with that theory as well.

So in short, no matter how I look at, nothing adds up.
Do you see now why this is causing me problems?

 

[uk_dave]

ok

Most jet fuel fires you will have witnessed or seen footage of will be situations where the fuel is contained and is burning off from that containment. It is rare that a situation is available where the footage of a fire can be so immediate as to allow us to see an actual fireball from a totally destroyed containment vessel (as in a plane, car etc etc).

In he case of flight 93, it hit the ground without any prior warning. The usual (expected) scenario of a plane crash known to be about to occur and the media or local being available there and then to shoot footage was not the case with flight 93.

It hit the ground and disintegrated

The fuel was immediately set free. Nothing contained it so that the burn was slow. It burned off within seconds.

It takes some time for the temperature of other objects to rise sufficiently for them to burn. Rather like passing your finger through a candle flame. Do it fast enough and you don't feel it. Too slow and it hurts.

So the fuel at shanksville, set free by the total disintegration of the plane burned quickly and was exhausted before the surrounding area could be raised to the temperature where it would also burn. Some areas did burn, and that could be equally down to the spread of hot debris from the crash. But the fuel, being uncontained and without any oxygen starvation, just burned quickly and massively.

This created the large smoke plume which has become famous thanks to killtown and his psychosis.

ETA: The point of this post being that I don't know any more than Devils Advocate, but just like he can imagine that what happened shouldn't have looked the way it did I can imagine a scenario where it could.
Neither of us are experts, but there are possible explanations for what occured

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Interesting story, I saw something similar myself.
However, no matter what we expect to happen will not change the chemical composition of jet fuel and how it burns.
Smoke from a jet fuel explosion is black....and I'm at over 400 pages of searching for pictures without any luck of something different.

Yes lots of things change the way it burns. The environment around it, the other materials that burn with it. Many many things. And there was a crash a while back where the pilot dove the plane straight into the ground (I think they deemed it as suicide). Everything was identical to what happened with flight 93. But still a moot point since trying to say that all crashes should be the same is completely irresponsible. It's the same technique used by cultists when they try to say that because no buildings in history have collapsed from fires and being hit by planes (of course they leave the planes part out), that it is therefore impossible.

This is no different. you are trying to say that because you have not personally seen a picture of a plane crash that has gray smoke, that it's impossible. Even if no picture existed known to man, it would still not prove what you are saying. And you claim it must have broken up over the sky because of the debris. But does breaking up in the sky then change the properties of how jet Fuel burns?

This is a very easy game to play.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What debris rained down over them?

And another conflicting story. So once again we have a daring caper where they decided to change all the flight data to something different then what actually happened so as to serve no real purpose but to give themselves away. Isn't that convenient. And this always revolves around the weakest form of evidence, eyewitness testimony.

Here's one of the reasons that you are a closet truther.

You continue to use the wekest forms of evidence to attempt to dismiss all the rest of the evidence. You don't seem to have any concern for the fact that it's not very credible evidence. nowhere near as reliable as all the other evidence that contradicts it.

At the same time, you don't use the other evidence to point out that those people were probably wrong.

And because they were 2.5 miles away, does that mean the debris was raining down on them? Or does it mean they saw debris in the air at the scene? What was some of this debris?

What's also not possible is for a plane to be apart when it flew over, but only some small bits end up 2..5 miles away while pretty much the entire plane ends up in a hole. But you don't seem have raise any question about that paradox do you? Of course not. But you're just "playing devil's advocate" right?

Again, the reason people are hostile towards you is simply because you are insulting everyones intelligence. not with asking questions, with assumptions that everyone here is an idiot and can't see what you're doing. Just be honest and you will get a lot more respect. Say you think there was a conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with it, no one can No one can fault you for having an opinion. The line here is drawn when people try to start distorting the truth and mislead others.

Now see, you could have left out most of the BS in that.
I am not misleading anyone. I am stating the facts with the data being discussed. Eyewitnesses said that is what they saw, and debris were in fact found at the lake. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Evidence proves debris did in fact rain down onto the lake even though F.B.I thought it was unlikely. But, they still filled a large garbage bag with the debris found in and around the lake.

"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake [2.5 miles away from main crash site]"

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The plane being shot down would be a bigger conflict than the ones you are reporting.

One thing you are going to have to understand that is no matter what happens, there will be conflicting evidence. This is true of any and everything. This is why ALL the data has to be assessed and a conclusion determined form all o it. Taking the weakest form of evidence and using it to dismiss the rest is not proper scientific method.

And the biggest problem of all is people thinking they understand the mechanics of how these things work because they have seen things like car accidents, but never any such actual incidents. DA, have you studied plane crashes as a profession? I doubt you or any of us has. So doesn't it stand to reason that our lack o knowledge in these areas may be a factor for things not making sense? Isn't that a bit more reasonable than these far fetched theories that just present bigger problems?

 

[uk_dave]

Evidence proves debris did in fact rain down onto the lake even though F.B.I thought it was unlikely. But, they still filled a large garbage bag with the debris found in and around the lake.

A large garbage bag? Is that all?
Jeez. Out of everything that plane was or could have been carrying, the most debris they could find at the lake was enough to fill a garbage bag?

Sorry, I most definitely do not have a problem with that amount.

 

[DGM]

With regard to 'what I think happened' I cannot say.
I have thought of a lot of possible answers, but evidence always conflicts no matter what route I take.

Go with it being shot down...
Well, that could explain the distance the debris traveled, it would explain why debris were raining down on people 2.5 miles away seconds after impact, it could explain why an engine was found a half mile away (Heat seeking missile blew it off) which caused the plane to roll over because the pilots were unable to control that power shift coupled with impact, and why there was no black smoke at impact because the fuel out of an entire wrong could have been gone already, which still leaves two fuel sources so that is still shaky at best.
However, other data conflicts with that theory as well.

So in short, no matter how I look at, nothing adds up.
Do you see now why this is causing me problems?

Now that wasn't so hard was it.

Smoke from a jet fuel explosion is black

Is gray a shade of black. What i'm getting at is if you mix jet fuel at the perfect fuel/ air mix there's almost no smoke. If the atomization was good enough a gray smoke would not be out of the question.

One problem with a shoot down is the cabin pressure was normal at impact.

I believe what was said at the beginning of this thread. Why cover it up? It would not have been a crime and I for one would have understood.

 

[Arus808]

DA it would really help if you quit with the questions and just posit what you thought happened. really this "just asking questions as if you were a truther" is tiresome, YOu come off a truther, so you are getting treated as such

Actually, just stop with the "Devil's Advocate" bull. It really is tiresome. And you are showing that you are not willing to look for the answers yourself.

why should we explain why things happened to you? You could easily contact an professor at your local college to explain to you the physics of how things happen. But you rather come to a forum.

Truly, this is the same type of behavior that Im experiencing with another "Im not a truther; but I repeat and ask the same questions as truthers do" member on Myspace. She is doing the exact same thing you are doing, and when pointed to where she can get her answers; she DEMANDS answers from those who would know less than those she could contact. And she claims she's not a "truther". Unfortunately her actions and replies say otherwise.


Your actions and questions speak otherwise.

Really, stop playing the devil's advocate card, you were given answers and your replies are disingenuous. You were given the right people to contact, instead you post here.

You make claims, but provide no support.
You make vague references, yet when we look at hte specifics, your references fall to pieces.

please, just give it up.



Post what you think happene,d and why you think so, and back it up with evidence. No "debris fell here , 8 miles away". Specific evidence like "a piece of paper from flight 93 fell 8 miles away, by the road that lead from the crash scene to the lake".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Now see, you could have left out most of the BS in that.
I am not misleading anyone. I am stating the facts with the data being discussed. Eyewitnesses said that is what they saw, and debris were in fact found at the lake. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Evidence proves debris did in fact rain down onto the lake even though F.B.I thought it was unlikely. But, they still filled a large garbage bag with the debris found in and around the lake.

"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake [2.5 miles away from main crash site]"

First of all, you have no business accusing others of BS. It's pretty much agreed on here that you're the king of it. So don't bother with the tough attitude because it's not going to make your point any better and it's not going to impress us. You only call is BS because you don't like being called on it.

Quote me where I said you are misleading people on the facts being discussed here?

And as to be expected you completely (COMPLETELY) missed the point on your evidence. To you the eyewitnesses saw what they saw. Which is you saying it's 100% reliable evidence and undoubted "fact". No what is fact there is that the witnesses said that, not that it happened. Them saying it flew over them does not make it a fact that the plane flew over them. Them claiming debris rained down, does not make it a fact that debris rained down over top of them. I'm not claiming it's not true, I am pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. And how you are again trying to use the weakest forms of evidence to dismiss all other evidence. And then you try to make it sound more official by calling it "fact". And here you are calling other people's writing BS? Think you might wanna re-read what that term means.

Large garbage bags with debris from the plane? Let's see your list of debris they put in those bags? What exactly was the debris? This is very important because it makes a big difference. All of it got there in a could of seconds? How do you know that? Was most of it paper and things that blew there? Was much of it dirt from the impact?

What's really in question here is your interpretation of the eyewitness accounts to bolster a pre-determined conclusion. Is that all you're going by? That quote?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Point of fact. Saying the smoke plume would or could be different is an opinion.
However, hundreds of plane crashes witnessed and tapped show a black fireball instantly. The burden of proof is not on me. I could post tons of video proving exactly what I am saying.
True, the planes in the videos are not going deep into the ground as far as I can tell, but all of them display a dramatic black fireball on impact.
So, it would have to be proven that under certain conditions, that fact would change. And it is a change that I have seen no evidence of as yet.
(Still looking....and youtube needs a spam filter. I hate seeing 350 video's of the same event cluttering search results)

But, let us take the theory that the fuel spread out of the craft and did not ignite. How did the trees burn?
How did the damage around the area get worse when fire crews were there?
The video I posted earlier proves this fact.
Compare ending video to this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

 

[beachnut]

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that? I'm sorry, but that made me LOL for real.
Don't forget that it had to overcome the inertia of the plane doing 500+mph, but also had to come out of the ground.

I'd bet 5,000 bucks that you could launch a shirt with ten times that force and it would not come close to traveling 2 miles.

Wowzer! I have been at aircraft accidents and debris is ejected and travels through the air for miles, thousands of feet, etc. You do not understand impacts. (But flight 93 stuff in the lake was insulation and fragments that were in the air, no heavy stuff, you are reading too many false accounts and your are unable to put together real stuff, sad) You can go to aircraft investigator school if they still have classes at USC. I bet you can pay your own way to learn why your posts are not very good at this 9/11 stuff. You fail to bring up sources or even understand color. When can I expect some conclusion from the new king of hearsay, no sources and fewer facts? If you are not a card carrying member of 9/11 truth, you sure are challenged finding facts about 9/11, or you fell in a big batch of 9/11 truth Kool-Aid.