9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - lets talk flight 93 to get a better understanding

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

lets talk flight 93 to get a better understanding
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Either way, it is an astonishingly small hole for an explosion that hurled debris 8 miles.

How big should the hole have been? And why?

Because 100 tons travelling at hundreds of miles an hour hitting 'soft earth' combined with a huge explosion would make a bigger hole - if another aircraft can punch through feet of reinforced concrete - then the Shanksville hole is minute in comparison. I compare it to the hole made in Lockerbie by the wings and exploding fuel tanks alone and this was into structures with concrete foundations.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

How is it that we can happily be shown charred bodies of workers from inside The Pentagon - but can anyone supply a single link to anything that clearly shows any of these 'thousands of human tissue samples' from anywhere else?

Why do you want to see photos of tissue samples from Shanksville?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Why do you want to see photos of tissue samples from Shanksville?

Because we shouldn't be scared of looking at the evidence no matter what it is?

Right Ignatz? For someone who supposedly believed 911 was an inside job for a while this is a strange question as it hints at a patriotic appeal to 'morality'.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Why do you want to see photos of tissue samples from Shanksville?

I actually never said I wanted to see samples from Shanksville - I said anywhere else - any 9/11 site - I have never seen any, only lots of read/write about 'this sample' or 'that sample'. I remember reading someone (I think it was the local coroner although I could be wrong), turning up at Shanksville who said the first thing he saw was a human spine hanging in a tree. It is so strange that Pentagon bodies are available but nothing else - it makes no sense.

You ask why? I am highly skeptical. It is unusual though that someone like you who is so quick to supply links and info, responds with such a question - this is extremely out of character.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

I remember reading someone (I think it was the local coroner although I could be wrong), turning up at Shanksville who said the first thing he saw was a human spine hanging in a tree.

This seems very, very unlikely. One of his (Wallace Miller) quotes is that he couldn't find a drop of blood anywhere.

Source - Jere Longman - Among the Heroes Page 363 "I never saw a drop of blood, not even on the first day"

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject:

IronSnot wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Why do you want to see photos of tissue samples from Shanksville?

Nobody here is suggesting that "scared" is an issue, are they? There's nothing immoral whatsoever about looking at evidence.

But - I'm wondering how photos of scraps of charred flesh, or bloodstained bits of clothes, or pieces of bone would convince a CTist that the Shanksville crash was in fact flight 93 hitting the ground at high speed.
If craters, DNA matching, aircraft parts and the rest are - according to the CT - eminently fakeable, why do you request yet more evidence that will only be rejected?

That was the reason for my question.

Do you disbelieve the DNA tests that matched casualties at Shanksville with the passengers known to be on that flight?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject:

IronSnot wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

I remember reading someone (I think it was the local coroner although I could be wrong), turning up at Shanksville who said the first thing he saw was a human spine hanging in a tree.

Unlikely? I ran a search and found reference immediately;

'Nearly all the passengers were reduced to charcoal on impact and the largest piece of human tissue found was a section of spine eight inches long.'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAL200 40810&articleId=685
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Do you disbelieve the DNA tests that matched casualties at Shanksville with the passengers known to be on that flight?

There were only (allegedly) 37 passengers aboard (about 16% of seats available), most of these seem to have been transferred from the 9am Flight 91 which was cancelled due to a cracked cockpit window.

So their DNA is probably mostly fine, having not meant to be on that plane in the first place. But the DNA profiles of the four 'hijackers' although supposedly on record have never been confirmed.

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

Unlikely? I ran a search and found reference immediately;

Hey Tele, tah for the bold, would have missed it otherwise. But your link does not quote Wallace Miller the coroner of the UA 93 site making that statement. In fact it makes no reference at all to where this bit of body was found or when it was found or who found it.

And the collective weight of passengers was 7500 pounds yet only 600 pounds were recovered.

Last edited by IronSnot on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject:

Ignatz asked;

Quote:

Do you disbelieve the DNA tests that matched casualties at Shanksville with the passengers known to be on that flight?

Neither believe nor disbelieve - I merely question why the Pentagon bodies are deemed viewable, whilst other bodyparts are not?

However, given the enormity of staging 9/11, I would conclude that matching bodyparts with DNA supplied by relatives would have featured in the plans. Hence, I am not surprised they match, they would have to obviously.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject:

IronSnot wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Unlikely? I ran a search and found reference immediately;

Agreed, it is what I remember reading at the time, sources are now scarce. However, it is still a source that says otherwise to the 'unlikely' aspect.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

I actually never said I wanted to see samples from Shanksville - I said anywhere else - any 9/11 site - I have never seen any, only lots of read/write about 'this sample' or 'that sample'.

Your first question is very badly phrased. What does 'from anywhere else' mean here? The word 'else' implies someplace/person (etc) other than one(s) previously mentioned or implied. You haven't mentioned any.
"John has a dog. Does anyone else here have a dog?" i.e. some person other than John ...

The first question also requests "a single link to anything that clearly shows..." (my bolding). If you're not actually looking for photos, then would a report do? If so, what's wrong with the DNA testing? Sounds very rigorous to me, and I'd have thought an ex-policeman would give that some credence.

In your second question you repeat the word "seen", again ambiguously. What do you mean here? "Seen" websites describing human remains? "Seen" photos? "Seen" transcripts of eye-witness reports?

You need to make your questions/points clear. What exactly would you like by way of evidence?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

Agreed, it is what I remember reading at the time, sources are now scarce. However, it is still a source that says otherwise to the 'unlikely' aspect.

The local Pensylvannia papers are a goldmine for information. You can find some of them online, more of them on Lexis, but if you really wanted to check it, you'd have to head there and check into a couple of libraries for a few weeks.

Last edited by IronSnot on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

Ignatz asked;

Quote:

Do you disbelieve the DNA tests that matched casualties at Shanksville with the passengers known to be on that flight?

You appear to be saying that CT or not CT, the DNA would match.
Thanks for wasting some bandwidth.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

What exactly would you like by way of evidence?

Typical JREF patronising tosh.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject:

This is closer to what I remember; 'As coroner for the previous four years, and a funeral director all his working life, Miller (Wallace) was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached.' http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Either way, it is an astonishingly small hole for an explosion that hurled debris 8 miles.

How big should the hole have been? And why?

But how do you know the hole is too small for that event? What scientific evidence can you provide to back this up? To compare it to Lockerbie is still incorrect, because the type of plane, size, weight, velocity, angle of impact, surface etc are all different.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

This is closer to what I remember;

Thanks for that, it seems he did say it. But the full quote is much more interesting;

Quote:

"It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled. "Usually, when you see a plane crash on TV, you see the fuselage, the tail or a piece of something. The biggest piece I saw was as big as this (spreading his hands less than a metre apart). It was as though someone took a tri-axle dump truck and spread it over an acre."

As coroner for the previous four years, and a funeral director all his working life, Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this.

Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached.

"I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation," Miller said. "The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised."

Last edited by IronSnot on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote;

Quote:

You appear to be saying that CT or not CT, the DNA would match.
Thanks for wasting some bandwidth.

I can always tell when you don't like a response or it has jarred you a little, your usual concise response drops away and is replaced by sarcasm or some attempt at condescension.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying - also CT or not CT, planes hit the WTC. See the way it works? Logic can be a b* like that.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Last edited by telecasterisation on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote;

Quote:

The subject of the board is 9/11, hence we are discussing 9/11, not John Lennon's death.

Quote:

Why do you want to see photos of tissue samples from Shanksville?

I never mentioned Shanksville specifically – you just went ahead and assumed.

Quote:

The first question also requests "a single link to anything that clearly shows..." (my bolding). If you're not actually looking for photos, then would a report do? If so, what's wrong with the DNA testing? Sounds very rigorous to me, and I'd have thought an ex-policeman would give that some credence.

This is a far from an ordinary investigation – this is mass homicide/murder – so, no, no credence when we are not simply discussing a cloned credit card. I would expect faked official documents to be in circulation on every level. Call it vigourous if it makes you more comfortable.

Quote:

In your second question you repeat the word "seen", again ambiguously. What do you mean here? "Seen" websites describing human remains? "Seen" photos? "Seen" transcripts of eye-witness reports?

I would find it difficult to ‘hear’ human remains, so I will stick with my original statement – and as my comparison was with the images we have of Pentagon bodies – then if you cannot conclude that pictures of ANY bodyparts other than Pentagon bodies are required, then you are simply being deliberately obtuse.

Quote:

You need to make your questions/points clear. What exactly would you like by way of evidence?

I have made this crystal clear, we only have a visual record of the bodies we would expect to see regardless of what hit The Pentagon and none others - why?

However, as you are unable to supply any photographic evidence on this occasion to back up your side, you are now entering semantic chicane territory in an attempt to make more of this than there is. It is another 'you said' 'I said' pointless exercise - no pictures this time, get over it.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Either way, it is an astonishingly small hole for an explosion that hurled debris 8 miles.

How big should the hole have been? And why?

Ah, still smarting from 'terminal velocity' are we? Never did mention that again did you?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:37 am Post subject:

JP -

Quote:

That's why we have experts rather than layman to investigate things,

Well, and as a layman not an expert, I am curious as to how an aeroplane can explode whilst simultaneoualy burrowing. Part of the job of experts is to bestow their wisdom on others. Given this issue appears not to confuse your good self, and given you are clearly knowledgeable regarding 911 this leads me to conclude you are likely to have an answer that satisfies you. I simply request this so I may ascertain if:
a/I've misunderstood the issue.
b/There is an explanation I'm not privy to.

However, if I disagree with expert opinion, I reserve the right to make up my own mind. This may lead me to erroneous conclusions due to my lack of expert knowledge, but then I'm fairly sure Steven Jones is more highly qualified in physics than you, but I would never suggest that makes his opinion correct over yours by default.

Quote:

and if it were suspicious, then why aren't air accident investigators from other countries making a fuss? Or is the US buying their silence?

That's an interesting question and I'm unsure of the answer.

That they were 'bought off', I regard as highly implausible. That's just me.

On one hand, it may indicate (but in no way proves) that there is a straightforward answer. Which is all I've asked for.

On the other, I'd need to factor in:

a/They weren't there. Many of the images and the narrative came out a lot later. Unless they were directly following the flight 93 story they would have seen scant actual detail at the time. Which leads me to:

b/How many would have gone beyond seeing pictures of smoke from a field on tv, been shocked by the event, preoccupied with the horror of it all and then got on with their lives. What makes you believe accident investigators not directly involved would scrutinise the details? Just because you work as an air accident investigator doesn't mean you'll
have an intimate knowledge of all air accidents (well, not that this was an accident). Why would you assume they are preoccupied with work matters in their spare time? Might it be the last thing they want to dwell on?
Why would they think there was a need to check out the details?

c/It may be the case some thought it was weird but wouldn't shout it from the rooftops because they wouldn't believe their government capable of foul play, wouldn't want to be seen as a 'conspiriloon' or just put it from their mind as they 'didn't want to go there'. What makes you sure none of them thought it anomolous? That none of them currently appear to be out campaigning, posting on a major forum or appearing on the Alex Jones show does not provide definitive proof of their personal opinions. Not everyone is vocal on such matters.

Unless you are privy to the personal opinions of a sample of air accident investigators, I suggest the question is impossible to conclusively answer.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

Ah, still smarting from 'terminal velocity' are we? Never did mention that again did you?

Actually you posted a quote saying that the majority of the plane did indeed impact at terminal velocity. It also suggested that if the conditions were right then the wing could possibly have impacted at higher speed. But there were an awful lot of possiblys, maybes, could haves and in theories in that quote.

But still that wouldn't bother you too much, seeing as you think comparing a fragmented airliner and an intact one under full power crashing into the ground is perfectly legitimate.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:46 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

telecasterisation wrote:

Ah, still smarting from 'terminal velocity' are we? Never did mention that again did you?

there are reports of debris for miles around and some upto 8 miles away , how do you explain this? you'll find the links to all the info needed in this thread that i supplied a while ago and have been ignored. also how do you explain the perfectly intact bandana that a hijacker wore and was used as evidence surviving the crash? it wasnt burnt or anything. if a bandana survived the crash why nothing else? like luggage ect.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:46 am Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

The plane burrows because it is travelling at 500mph. It explodes because it has a pressurised cabin and several tonnes of jet fuel on board.

However, the suggestion that debris was found miles away is false. Only light debris was discovered at any distance from the crash site.

Quote:

a/They weren't there. Many of the images and the narrative came out a lot later. Unless they were directly following the flight 93 story they would have seen scant actual detail at the time. Which leads me to:

b/How many would have gone beyond seeing pictures of smoke from a field on tv, been shocked by the event, preoccupied with the horror of it all and then got on with their lives. What makes you believe accident investigators not directly involved would scrutinise the details? Just because you work as an air accident investigator doesn't mean you'll
have an intimate knowledge of all air accidents (well, not that this was an accident). Why would you assume they are preoccupied with work matters in their spare time? Might it be the last thing they want to dwell on?
Why would they think there was a need to check out the details?

c/It may be the case some thought it was weird but wouldn't shout it from the rooftops because they wouldn't believe their government capable of foul play, wouldn't want to be seen as a 'conspiriloon' or just put it from their mind as they 'didn't want to go there'. What makes you sure none of them thought it anomolous? That none of them currently appear to be out campaigning, posting on a major forum or appearing on the Alex Jones show does not provide definitive proof of their personal opinions. Not everyone is vocal on such matters.

Unless you are privy to the personal opinions of a sample of air accident investigators, I suggest the question is impossible to conclusively answer.

Air accident investigators, like all people involved in accident analysis, engineering etc learn from other peoples work. This is why there are journals that publish the research papers and results of engineering and scientific work. Because air crashes are thankfully extremely rare, then investigators must take advantage of each one in order to improve their knowledge and so they can perform better at their work. Just because they are not working on a particular crash does not mean that investigators will switch off and not pay any attention.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:50 am Post subject:

telecasterisation wrote:

< routine wrigglefest and word-gaming snipped >
However, as you are unable to supply any photographic evidence on this occasion to back up your side, you are now entering semantic chicane territory in an attempt to make more of this than there is. It is another 'you said' 'I said' pointless exercise - no pictures this time, get over it.

1. Why would you expect photos of body fragments to be available?
2. You accept that the DNA testing could have been faked as part of the CT, so presumably photos of "bits of somebody's Sunday roast mixed in with shredded clothing" (your words) would not impress you. You've started a discussion about 'absent' photos when already primed to deny their validity.

Tell us - what evidence would you accept in support of the Shanksville crash being - in fact - flight 93 hitting the ground at 500+mph at a steep angle. If you could answer that then perhaps we could get somewhere.

[tc wriggle mode] enter your answer here [/tc wriggle mode]
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:

[quote="wobbler"] .... Well, and as a layman not an expert, I am curious as to how an aeroplane can explode whilst simultaneoualy burrowing. .... quote] Just on this one point - I really can't see the difficulty here. The fuel is in the wings and would take time to ignite, however quickly. A good amount of the plane is already in the ground before the wings impact. Aircraft wreckage was found around the crater as well as in it. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject:

Quote:

he plane burrows because it is travelling at 500mph. It explodes because it has a pressurised cabin and several tonnes of jet fuel on board.

So you are saying it burrowed down into the soft earth whilst in the process of exploding. So the fuselage pushed itself underground whilst blowing up? Or it impacted deep into the ground then exploded but just left that 'raked earth effect' we see? Not so much a crater as a well dug allotment.

Quote:

Faie enough, I can see that due to them being fairly rare (looking at the NTSB list of accidents, there seems to be generally a few a year) would lead you to want to keep abreast of current findings. However -

- Bearing what I've just said in mind, many professionals should keep up with the relevant journals, but it doesn't mean they do. Perhaps you read the relevant journals for your trade, but the sad truth is not everybody is so diligent.
- I'm under the impression (I may be wrong) the raison d'etre for this field is understanding what caused accidents, learning from them, improving safety etc. Hijackers flying an aircraft at the ground at full speed tends to cause an accident. Even I know that. Surely in the terms of your profession, it'd be one of the least illuminating to study.
- There may well be articles regarding it in air accident journals (I don't know - not the kind of thing I subscribe to), but they will not contain the relevant technical data interesting for the specialist:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA065&rpt=fi

so I'd say it's doubtful there's been any meaningful outside technical strutiny.

And it still leaves my third point.

Quote:

However, the suggestion that debris was found miles away is false. Only light debris was discovered at any distance from the crash site.

I'm too busy for the next day or so to go digging up links regarding this. I'll try to respond to this later. Suffice to say, even if it was 'light' debris, this means nothing; you still need to account for how it got there. It wasn't all just paper. However, I know this point gets contentious and convoluted, so I'll leave it there for now.

Ignatz - you seem to be suggesting the wings exploded while the body of the lane burrowed. Fair dos. Though JP seems to think the body of the plane exploded too -

Quote:

It explodes because it has a pressurised cabin

If the fuselage did not explode, then why was the most far flung debris predominently personal effects? If it's because the wings caused the exlosion, then they're what? halfway down the plane at most? And that's assuming impact at a vertical angle. So how would the rest of the plane travel past the dislodged exploding wings underground. It just seems to me it'd explode all over the place.

If that's not what your suggesting, I'd ask why it's relevant that the front part of the aircraft impacted before the wings.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:

This is the page from an interesting site about flight 93 which deals with the impact hole. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

Ignatz asks;

Quote:

Tell us - what evidence would you accept in support of the Shanksville crash being - in fact - flight 93 hitting the ground at 500+mph at a steep angle. If you could answer that then perhaps we could get somewhere.

[tc wriggle mode]enter your answer here [/tc wriggle mode]

[tc wriggle mode]Pictures of sections of the fuselage (compressed or otherwise), being removed from the hole/crater[tc wriggle mode]
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum