|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 17, 2007 1:43:05 GMT -4
Turbonium, perhaps you'd like to take a crack at the questions Rocky/David couldn't answer: why would "they" use anything other than a 757 if they wanted us to believe a 757 was involved? Why would they say it was a 757 if it was another type of plane? What happened to Flight 93 if it didn't crash? Why would they "dispose of" the passengers and crew of Flight 93 in any other way if they could simply crash their plane as they wanted us to believe? Can't you see that this theory that Flight 93 didn't really crash as reported makes absolutely no sense?
I could almost believe that Flight 93 was shot down. I could see them shooting it down to prevent another attack on Washington or New York, and then covering it up to prevent any public backlash that might cause. But saying it wasn't really a 757 that crashed is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It makes no sense and the fact that anyone would believe it boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 17, 2007 4:35:08 GMT -4
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 17, 2007 6:31:53 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 17, 2007 7:30:35 GMT -4
Turbonium, perhaps you'd like to take a crack at the questions Rocky/David couldn't answer: why would "they" use anything other than a 757 if they wanted us to believe a 757 was involved? Why would they say it was a 757 if it was another type of plane? What happened to Flight 93 if it didn't crash? Why would they "dispose of" the passengers and crew of Flight 93 in any other way if they could simply crash their plane as they wanted us to believe? Can't you see that this theory that Flight 93 didn't really crash as reported makes absolutely no sense? I could almost believe that Flight 93 was shot down. I could see them shooting it down to prevent another attack on Washington or New York, and then covering it up to prevent any public backlash that might cause. But saying it wasn't really a 757 that crashed is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It makes no sense and the fact that anyone would believe it boggles my mind. That's not my argument. The point I was making is in regards to the crash site itself. The official claim is that Flt.93 crashed into the ground near Shanksville. My contention is that the crash site photos simply do not support the official claim. The photos of other crash sites always show numerous pieces of identifiable debris - whether they were high speed crashes or not. There are reports of debris found several miles away from the Shanksville site. This makes it seem quite possible, to me, that the plane was indeed shot down. I think that because of a delay in takeoff, it caused a screw-up in the 9/11 inside-job operation. Flt.93 was probably meant to hit the White House or another prominent target, but after flying around for over 1 1/2 hours untouched, they couldn't (or were prevented from) hitting the target. I think the real story has yet to be uncovered.
|
|
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 17, 2007 7:59:37 GMT -4
You don't think the site was consisitent with a jetliner crash how many crash site in which plane crashed in similar conditions have you seen? Do Google image searches for "American Eagle" crash or united 585 crashHere's a photo of the UA Flt. 585 crash site, which shows large pieces of debris... Two photos of the American Eagle Flt. 4184 crash site, which still show more debris than Flt. 93, despite the fact that a 757-200 is about twice the size, and five times heavier, than the twin-turboprop ATR-72!! And since you brought up the comparisons, let's compare the NTSB reports..... The NTSB Report on UA Flt. 585 is 214 pages... www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2001/AAR0101.pdfThe NTSB Report on American Eagle Flt. 4184 is 340 pages... www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/aar9601.pdfAnd, the NTSB Report on Flt. 93 is.....well...there isn't one, really. There's only two tiny reports that exist - a 38 page "Specialist's" report on the FDR... www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf ...and a 15 page "Specialist's" report on the ATC recording.... www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc07.pdf Flt. 93 was a 757-200, weighing about 250 tons, with two massive engines that will not disintegrate into tiny, microscopic fragments, regardless of the speed of impact, and regardless of what they hit. The purported crash site simply isn't supported by the photographic evidence. If you look at the speed, weight and angle of impact of the respective crashes you'll note that 585 and 4184 hit the ground with much less force than 93. No one said that it's engines broke into microscopic pieces a very large piece was found in fact. Close up photos of the crashes are a very valid comparison since the site in Shaksville was cuardonded off as a crime scene. Numerous witnesses saw the plane crash or just before it crashed others heard it, ATCs tracked it on radar. None gave any indication it appeared to be shotdown? Are they all plants
|
|
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 17, 2007 8:12:45 GMT -4
Turbonium, perhaps you'd like to take a crack at the questions Rocky/David couldn't answer: why would "they" use anything other than a 757 if they wanted us to believe a 757 was involved? Why would they say it was a 757 if it was another type of plane? What happened to Flight 93 if it didn't crash? Why would they "dispose of" the passengers and crew of Flight 93 in any other way if they could simply crash their plane as they wanted us to believe? Can't you see that this theory that Flight 93 didn't really crash as reported makes absolutely no sense? I could almost believe that Flight 93 was shot down. I could see them shooting it down to prevent another attack on Washington or New York, and then covering it up to prevent any public backlash that might cause. But saying it wasn't really a 757 that crashed is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It makes no sense and the fact that anyone would believe it boggles my mind. That's not my argument. The point I was making is in regards to the crash site itself. The official claim is that Flt.93 crashed into the ground near Shanksville. My contention is that the crash site photos simply do not support the official claim. The photos of other crash sites always show numerous pieces of identifiable debris - whether they were high speed crashes or not. There are reports of debris found several miles away from the Shanksville site. This makes it seem quite possible, to me, that the plane was indeed shot down. I think that because of a delay in takeoff, it caused a screw-up in the 9/11 inside-job operation. Flt.93 was probably meant to hit the White House or another prominent target, but after flying around for over 1 1/2 hours untouched, they couldn't (or were prevented from) hitting the target. I think the real story has yet to be uncovered. Make up your mind do you think it was shotdown or didn't crash at all? The distant debris was all lightweight and found beyond the plane's flightpath in it's direction of travel. The plane was hijacked at 9:28 and crashed at 10:03 or 10:06 i.e. 35 or 38 minutes Who do you think was flying flt 93 and the other planes?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 17, 2007 12:36:47 GMT -4
If the photo evidence shows that a plane didn't crash we have to assume they didn't use a 757. The photo evidence shows that an aircraft hit the ground at a very high speed and at a steep angle. Circumstantial evidence? It is logic that tells me they would have used a 757. That is the only thing that makes sense! You are making this far more complicated that it needs to be. It makes it clear that you're grasping at straws. You have a predetermined belief (that the government is behind the 9/11 attacks) and you are desperately trying to find evidence to support that belief, even if it doesn't make sense. Maybe there aren't any photos out of respect for the victims and their families. How often do you see pictures of car accident victims printed in a newspaper or shown on TV? Does the fact that these photographs aren't published mean the car accidents were faked? It's also very likely there weren't many recognizable body parts to be photographed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 17, 2007 20:08:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 18, 2007 4:35:43 GMT -4
If you look at the speed, weight and angle of impact of the respective crashes you'll note that 585 and 4184 hit the ground with much less force than 93. No one said that it's engines broke into microscopic pieces a very large piece was found in fact. I assume you are referring to the engine said to have been found over a mile away from the purported crash site, almost fully intact? So when the plane hit the ground, the engine broke off, bounced up and landed over a mile away. Seems quite reasonable. And the other engine? Numerous witnesses saw the plane crash or just before it crashed others heard it, ATCs tracked it on radar. None gave any indication it appeared to be shotdown? Are they all plants Only one person claims to have seen the actual crash, and his account is dubious at best. And numerous witnesses saw another plane - a small white jet - at the same time. Are they all plants?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 18, 2007 4:57:55 GMT -4
Unlike all of the crashes you have shown, Flight 93 hit the ground nose first in a direct dive, most crashes occur when the plane hits the groud on a lower angle causing the wreakage to spread over a long area. Even so 95% of the plane was recovered, so to say there was no wreckage and post a few shots taken from some distance away, then compare them to close up shots of other crashes, is totally false. 95% recovered?!? Wow, that's outstanding! I'd really like to tell other people about this fact. I think I'll start my post with something like this... "Guess what, gang? They have, in fact, recovered 95% of Flight 93!"And then I'll be sure to include all the facts. Maybe I'll add links to official government sources that provide details, like photos showing the debris in situ, serial numbers on parts...maybe even some photos of the reconstructed plane! (that'd be cool) So, if you could - please cite the sources that convinced you that 95% of the plane was recovered. Otherwise, they'll just accuse me of being a GCT! Oh, I almost forgot - was any of that 95% found at the actual crash site?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 18, 2007 7:15:53 GMT -4
If you look at the speed, weight and angle of impact of the respective crashes you'll note that 585 and 4184 hit the ground with much less force than 93. No one said that it's engines broke into microscopic pieces a very large piece was found in fact. I assume you are referring to the engine said to have been found over a mile away from the purported crash site, almost fully intact? So when the plane hit the ground, the engine broke off, bounced up and landed over a mile away. Seems quite reasonable. And the other engine? If people were struggling over the controls, a mid-air break-up due to overloading the structure before the crash would seem quite likely.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 18, 2007 7:32:48 GMT -4
That's because most crashes occur at low speed near airports. Check out the ones that crashed at cruise speed, especially if the aircraft hit the ground at a steep angle. In this sort of crash the aircraft is broken into small fragments and if the ground is soft a lot of the wreckage buries itself. I have checked out the photos of debris sites involving aircraft which had been at cruise speeds when they crashed. The link below is to a photo gallery which has 1,439 photographs, representing 363 accidents, from 1950 to present day... www.airdisaster.com/photos/ Going through the 2000-2007 section, I narrowed my search to incidents specifically involving aircraft flying at speeds similar to Flt. 93 (ie: similar to a 757-222, flying at cruise speed). Below are the first four examples I found..... Well then, if you've seen photos of other debris sites that are comparable to Flt.93, then please provide sources to support your claim. Because I have yet to find even one similar example. Three of your four examples are low-speed crashes near take-off or landing, the fourth is debris from a mid-air collision, none are cruise speed high-angle impacts. The most recent such crash that comes to mind was the Silk Air one, though that hit in a river. I'm a retired aerospace engineer and I used to see military flight-safety magazines that frequently showed crash scenes. The craters I mentioned were from those.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 18, 2007 8:14:44 GMT -4
Are you familiar with the crash of flight 427 of USAIR? It also was a vertical impact like like flight 93 is said to have been. How do you explain the contrast between these two sites? Speed alone IMO does not account for all the discrepancies. www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/items.htmThe contrast with the investigations is pretty huge too.
|
|
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 18, 2007 8:28:49 GMT -4
If you look at the speed, weight and angle of impact of the respective crashes you'll note that 585 and 4184 hit the ground with much less force than 93. No one said that it's engines broke into microscopic pieces a very large piece was found in fact. I assume you are referring to the engine said to have been found over a mile away from the purported crash site, almost fully intact? So when the plane hit the ground, the engine broke off, bounced up and landed over a mile away. Seems quite reasonable. And the other engine? The part of the turbine (not an "almost fully intact" engine) was found 1000 - 2000 feet downhill from the crash site in the planes direction of travel. As for the other engine I have no idea but it was probably broken in small pieces and or burried into the ground by the force of the crash No several witness said they saw it crash other saw or heard it before it crashed. Many are quoted on CT sites, do your homework! Yes there was a small white jet in the area, so what?
|
|
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 18, 2007 8:32:50 GMT -4
Are you familiar with the crash of flight 427 of USAIR? It also was a vertical impact like like flight 93 is said to have been. How do you explain the contrast between these two sites? Speed alone IMO does not account for all the discrepancies. www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/items.htmWhat discrepancies? Speed and mass increase the energy available to smash a plane to smithereens
|
|