|
Post by gwiz on Feb 19, 2007 10:18:40 GMT -4
The Flight 93 portion of yesterday's BBC 9/11 programme included a lot of interviews with local people. They contradicted a lot of the conspiracy claims, including the following:
The coroner said that "no bodies" was someone misquoting him. Definitely plenty of body parts, also pieces of the aircraft.
The lake where debris landed is only a mile from the impact site, not the 6 miles usually claimed.
The debris in the lake was all lightweight stuff - paper, plastic, etc - not an engine, and the lake was downwind of the crash.
The "Flight 93 landed at Cleveland" claim was due to confusion on radar between it and another flight, actually a Delta one, that was following a near-by flightpath. They interviewed a passenger on this Delta flight describing how they had been forced to land.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 19, 2007 10:20:24 GMT -4
There is a diagram that shows the fuel tanks of a 757. There would have been burning fuel all over the place if a 757 had crashed there intact. Says YOU. What expertise in the field of crash site analysis do you bring to the table? I have none, therefore unlike you I don't pronounce my findings after looking at some pictures like some kind of expert. I defer to people who make a living studying crash sites. I actually know a couple. Needless to say, they are NOT impressed by you. Do you really think that if it were so obvious that the flight 93 crash site simply couldn't have been from a 757 that even you can see it, real experts would be even more convinced and be screaming foul. Where are they?
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 19, 2007 10:23:47 GMT -4
Urk. That's it, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 19, 2007 10:56:00 GMT -4
I saw a documentary about the Faulkland Island war that explained how the British took the islands from Argentina long ago. It said that when the British first arrived to the Faulkland Islands there was a settlement of Argentines living there; they were forced to leave. That's not what the press said back in 82. That point was certainly made by the UK press in 1982, I remember it clearly.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 19, 2007 12:29:16 GMT -4
The more something is blown up, the fuzzier it gets. Of course it's fuzzy. That's a copout and you know it. Since no information is added to the picture when blown up, it shows that the original was not clear either. What it does show since you mentioned the shadow again is that the white area is more consistent with smoke from the plane and the shadow is off the smoke. And it doesn't matter what the guy on CNN said. Is CNN always right? What about when CNN said that Columbia was going 18 times the speed of light when it broke up?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 19, 2007 12:35:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 19, 2007 12:37:40 GMT -4
It makes as much sense as saying "people from the future traveled back in time, kidnapped the people and took them back to the future, then replaced the bodies with dead meat before the plane crashed." www.imdb.com/title/tt0097883/ There was a plane crash in Colorado Springs in 1991, flight 585. ..., it rolled to the right, pitched down until reaching a nearly vertical attitude, and compacted itself into a 39-foot wide, 15-foot deep crater in an area known as Widefield Park.Almost the entire plane was in the hole. www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtmlThere is nothing about flight 93 that needs a hole filled with explosives. That's just dumb. I don't bother following most of your links. One of them, you claim, alleges that the smoke cloud looks like a bomb explosion, not like a fire. Gee, do they have lots of experience with bomb clouds? From watching late-night tv movies, perhaps? Do you suppose that a fuel-air explosion from an airplane crash might look like any other explosion? Especially the ones seen in Hollywood movies, since that's what they use? Your scenario becomes more and more ridiculous as it goes on. At this point you've left the CT map and are travelling cross country on your own. Do you realize that? That your ideas are more far-fetched than any other CT?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 19, 2007 13:02:22 GMT -4
By the way Rocky, I looked at a couple of your links. Killtown, for God's sake? Killtown is a raving lunatic who for fun accuses innocent people of mass murder, including Val McClatchey, the woman who took the photo of the smoke plume from flight 93.
All this with no formal photo analyzing experience, no investigation skills, and with absolutely no evidence at all.
Beware of throwing your hat in with the likes of him, Rocky.
Perhaps you should be putting the same microscope on Killtown as you do those who support the official story.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 19, 2007 15:52:17 GMT -4
Wait, what's the original size on that image? Is it supposed to be tiny, or is it supposed to be bigger? If it's supposed to be bigger, that's how blurry it would be regardless, right?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 19, 2007 17:10:01 GMT -4
There was a plane crash in Colorado Springs in 1991, flight 585. ..., it rolled to the right, pitched down until reaching a nearly vertical attitude, and compacted itself into a 39-foot wide, 15-foot deep crater in an area known as Widefield Park.
Almost the entire plane was in the hole. www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtmlThere are a few differences. 1) It was a 737, not a 757. 2) It was travelling at about half the speed. Even so, the craters look remarkablely similar. However I have decided that from now on I'm going to believe in my own Conspriacy Theory. That the Towers and 911 were all a hoax like Orson Well's War of the Worlds. There was no Govt conspriacy because the Towers never existed, and I defy anyone to prove that they did. All I have seen is a bunch of photos that could have been photoshoped, seen pilesof rubble that could easily have been planted and heard people claim they have been to them or seen them. These people are obviously lying or have been threatened to made them spread such disinformation. 9/11 was "reality" TV program just like that one where they had an asteriod hitting the planet and wiping out the middlewest of the US, it was all a drama folks, and just like War of the World people fell for it and believed it. Now with the Govt going to war over it and it being believed by so many sheeple, the TV producers can't go back on it and say it never happened so they are continuing the charade. People like Rocky and Turbonium are obvious TV empolyees whose job it is to continue to spread the lies and disinformation supposed to perpetuate the lie that the Towers existed and were destroyed. It's all a hoax folks, can you believe you fell for it? There never were any planes, or hijackers, because there NEVER WERE ANY TOWERS!!! Show me one unaltered photo proving me wrong, I bet you can't.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 21, 2007 2:08:39 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. No, it didn't hit in a direct down dive. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) indicates that the plane was at a 40 degrees downward pitch at the point of impact. First link below is to the ARC Report for Flt. 93... www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdfBelow is an excerpt from, and link to, the Flight Path Study of Flt. 93... www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf The diagram below shows what a 40 degree downward pitch would look like... The diagram is from the pilotsfor911truth website... pilotsfor911truth.org/UAL93.html As noted on the site then (according to the data) ...UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 21, 2007 2:47:49 GMT -4
Yes I do think it was entirely consistant with a large jetliner hitting the ground in a steep nose first dive, causing the plane to impact almost vertically. Now if you can find photos and video showing that this sort of crash wouldn't leave the sort of wreckage that was found at Shanksfield and is shown in the photos I posted, including the one of the hole with bits of aircraft all over it and the engine that was burried so deeply that it needed a digger to extract it, then you might have a case. Showing images of aircraft that have impacted at a shallow angle and scattered over a large area are irrelevant. As I mentioned, the plane did not impact at near vertical - the FDR and the analysis verify that. the engine broke off, bounced up and landed over a mile away.No, it was found 300 yards away, about 600-700 feet in the direction of travel. It's not unusual either since the engine mounts are a weak point that will separate in a crash and engines have been found some distance from crashes in the past, and at the speed of impact the engine would have travelled the distance in under two seconds. At least one report notes the engine was found 2,000 yards away, which is over a mile... A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash..news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article173206.eceAnother only describes it as "a considerable distance" away.... While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the roughly 500 mph impact, they also said an engine - or at least a 1,000-pound piece of one - was found "a considerable distance" from the crater. Stuhl, the Shanksville mayor, said it was found in the woods just west of the crash.web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/local/2001/11/15/SHOT15c.htmBut the distance the engine was found away from the crash site is nothing compared to where some of the other debris was found. A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.
More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/ 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!Sure, though I doubt it'll be any use to more than the lurkers since you'll just claim that they are lying I've been accused of unquestioningly accepting the claims of others because they support my view. So when I ask you for sources that convinced you 95% of the plane was recovered, you simply cite a CNN article that includes the following.... The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered. This is a perfect example of what I said in my reply to the accusation. The FBI claims that 95% of the plane has been recovered. No evidence has been put forward to support the claim, either in this article or anywhere else since this claim was first made. And yet the claim is accepted unquestioningly.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 21, 2007 3:25:05 GMT -4
What do you think turbonium? I think the crash site isn't even consistent with the way it would look if only part of the plane had hit the ground. There would have been plane parts visible all around the hole, if part of a plane big enough to make that hole had crashed there. I agree with what you're saying here, rocky. I don't want to concern myself too much with possible alternative causes of the crater, because I think it's more important to first prove that the official story of Flt. 93 is false. The FDR is evidence that solidly contradicts the photos of a crater being caused by the impact of Flt. 93. Combined with other evidence, such as the total lack of debris at the crash site, and numerous reports of debris being found up to 8 miles away, and we have more than enough proof to falsify the official story of Flt. 93.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 21, 2007 4:15:46 GMT -4
The Flight 93 portion of yesterday's BBC 9/11 programme included a lot of interviews with local people. They contradicted a lot of the conspiracy claims, including the following: The coroner said that "no bodies" was someone misquoting him. Definitely plenty of body parts, also pieces of the aircraft. The lake where debris landed is only a mile from the impact site, not the 6 miles usually claimed. Below is a map I took from this source... www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.htmlI copied the scale indicating one mile and moved it to the area in question. It's over 1 mile, and nearly 2 miles, to the nearest edge of the lake in any direction. I only detailed one possible direction, but you can work out any others for yourself. It's certainly quite a fair distance from the crash site at any location around the lake. The debris in the lake was all lightweight stuff - paper, plastic, etc - not an engine, and the lake was downwind of the crash. No. Brant (Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina) has been taking FBI and ATF agents onto the lake to recover airplane parts and human remains. (AP, 9/13/01) (AP report removed from site, though it may be cached elsewhere) By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.htmlAnd remains were not just found in the lake, but at other areas far away from the crash site... Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 21, 2007 4:53:20 GMT -4
Do you have documentation that it was remains, or just that it "looked like" or "appeared to be" remains? Do you understand the difference?
|
|