|
Post by scooter on Feb 25, 2007 12:43:10 GMT -4
Could the pre-crash booms have been compressor stalls? At that high speed and low altitude, with all the pitching and yawing going on, I suspect the engine airflow was very disrupted. Compressor stalls can be very loud booms, especially inside the plane. (been there several times)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 25, 2007 15:05:45 GMT -4
David, you do know that posting pictures of bodies is a bannable offense, right? As in, two people have been banned for doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 25, 2007 16:43:22 GMT -4
I still haven't been able to find any pictures of body parts.
If you know where they are, please post them.
I already did, back in Post #51 of this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 25, 2007 16:44:47 GMT -4
David, you do know that posting pictures of bodies is a bannable offense, right? As in, two people have been banned for doing just that.
The picture I posted shows mostly bones in a bucket, but I was stillin two minds about it, and did note to LO that he could remove it if he wished too.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 25, 2007 17:11:51 GMT -4
I was on the fence about the picture you posted but decided that showing a few bones isn't as bad as showing entire bodies with recognizable faces. But in the future I would still prefer people didn't post any images of bodies, body parts, or blood and guts because I can only guess at what Proboards would consider obscene.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 25, 2007 17:22:45 GMT -4
I'm quite willing to remove it to a link, LO. The only reason I did post it was that I mistakenly believed that Rocky/David couldn't miss it if it was posted rather then having to click on a link.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 25, 2007 18:02:13 GMT -4
No, I want David to at least acknowledge it. I'm beginning to suspect that David simply can't see things that he doesn't believe in.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 25, 2007 19:22:10 GMT -4
You see David, in this kind of a crash, you end up more with "fragments" than "parts". I've seen pics from the Pentagon of burned bodies, more than likely workers in the building overcome by smoke vs the impact. And the video that distantly shows the remains of the jumpers from the towers...they too were not intact. Bottom line is there were bodies, and fragments found, and identified, at all three sites. They were not planted. The pathologists and DNA specialists are not scoundrels and liars. Do a "9/11 pathology" search.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 25, 2007 20:16:24 GMT -4
You see David, in this kind of a crash, you end up more with "fragments" than "parts".
According to the FBI, while 95% of the plane was recovered, only 8% of the human remains were. It's quite staggering to understand the effects on the human body under those sort of incidents, especially when you compare it to the Pentagon in which enough of all of the passangers was recovered to positively identify, with the exception of one 3 year old girl.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 26, 2007 7:36:54 GMT -4
Turbonuim said previously only one suspect witness saw flight 93 crash this is categorically false* as even CT sites attest. Perhaps he can tell us why this witness shouldn’t be trusted (even though he/she is far from being the only one). * As is so much of what he tells us. His perseverance (obstinace ?) is impressive though despite being repeatedly shown the assumptions upon which his conclusions are based are wrong he continues to insist he's right. More nonsense from lenbrazil. I said that only one witness claimed to have seen the actual plane crash. That is, see it actually hit the ground. Then he posts links to the witnesses and claims several of these witnesses said they saw the actual plane crash. OK, then - let's go over each and every one of these accounts, from all three sources posted. Repeated accounts have been left out, other than those that include further relevant details.... Nomuse handled that pretty well. You missed your calling as a pretzel maker! You do know that the person who actually took the 911 call and the caller’s brother (who heard the tape) said Edward Felt said no such thing. www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html None of the numerous people who saw the plane crash or shortly before it crashed reported any signs of the plane being damaged - Odd that if there was a plot they didn’t alter the FDR - The reports aren’t that inconsistent, it is normal for witness accounts to vary on details (the famous Rashemon effect) also some witnesses saw the plane at different moments. Those that reported seeing it dive to the ground are pretty consistent. -If we had for example 20 witnesses who said it crash at close to 90 degrees and none say it did so at 45 the most logical conclusion would be that there was a problem with the FDR or the interpretation of the data. But I agree the plane probably crashed at around 40 degrees though the possibility it did at 90 can not be discounted. PW and LO handled that pretty well the reports that the white jet looked military or resembled a fighter didn’t appear until a year later other witnesses said it looked like a Lear Jet. No one disputes the white jet was in the area. It is had to take McElwain seriously since she claimed the plane was 40 – 50 overhead and didn’t say the plane flew so low orlooked military when she was interviewed within days of 9-11. Citations AFAIK no one reported seeing a pre-crash explosion. Several reported booms but a passenger jet flying low and erratically at 580 mph might be expected to do that. They normally only fly so fast at high altitude where air pressure is much lower Paper and seat covers etc 8 miles downwind and beyond the flight path The author(s) say the hole is inconsistent but offer no evidence to back his-her-their claim. Only two of the group’s members claim to have any crash investigation experience but there are no indications they wrote or helped write the article you’d think if they did it would say something like “Joe Blow with 20 years of crash investigation experience says ‘the hole is inconsistent with a 40 degree crash’ ”. The fact they couldn’t get either member with relevant credentials to say such a thing is telling. Woulda coulda shoulda. Any examples?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 22:12:45 GMT -4
THE unmarked military-style jet swooped down at high speed through the valley
PW and LO handled that pretty well the reports that the white jet looked military or resembled a fighter didn’t appear until a year later other witnesses said it looked like a Lear Jet. No one disputes the white jet was in the area. It is had to take McElwain seriously since she claimed the plane was 40 – 50 overhead and didn’t say the plane flew so low orlooked military when she was interviewed within days of 9-11.The Dassault Falcon 20 does have a military look to it, and is used by the French Military (Hmmm, perhaps I need to return to my "The French did it" claims.)
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 28, 2007 3:15:45 GMT -4
ienbrazil
well put, although it is the Rashomon effect, not Rashemon. Picky I know, but I'm a fan of the film from which the effect gets its name.
I think these theories are extremely disrespectful of the people on the flight. There is no doubt that they died that day, and these armchair whistleblowers have no sense of decency or respect for them. Why can't they just shut their stupid mouths and keep their worthless opinions to themselves, if not for anyone else than at least for the people that died and their loved ones who suffered?
Shame on you, David. You speak with such authority on this matter, like you really know that something's being covered up just from the smattering of photos you've googled and the shady websites you've looked at. How can you speak so assuredly on an event so violent and unique as a plane crashing headfirst into the ground at cruise speed? Have you been educated on matters relevant, like ballistics or physics? Or did you just get brainwashed by some conspiracy site and decide to shoot your mouth off on this forum? And why does everything have to be so complicated with you? If you are going to cry foul, why not at least come up with something plausible, something almost respectable? If the government were behind this, why not just train the hijackers and let them do all the work? Why go through the trouble of planting fake plane crash sites and somehow make the plane and its passengers disappear from the face of the earth? If you are going to make wild unverifiable claims you might as well make them plausible.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 28, 2007 8:20:33 GMT -4
According to the FBI, while 95% of the plane was recovered, only 8% of the human remains were. It's quite staggering to understand the effects on the human body under those sort of incidents, especially when you compare it to the Pentagon in which enough of all of the passangers was recovered to positively identify, with the exception of one 3 year old girl. Apart from the obvious that the solid ground has a lot less "give" than a building, so that the aircraft is decelerated over a shorter distance, I imagine that it is easier to identify human parts/DNA in a building than in an outdoor setting with a lot of other shredded organic matter present.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 28, 2007 12:05:00 GMT -4
Could the pre-crash booms have been compressor stalls? At that high speed and low altitude, with all the pitching and yawing going on, I suspect the engine airflow was very disrupted. Compressor stalls can be very loud booms, especially inside the plane. (been there several times) What are compressor stalls? Are they loud?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 28, 2007 13:07:18 GMT -4
Compressor stalls are similar to a back fire on a car. The combustion gas comes out the air intake side of the engine.
|
|