• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Flight 93?

There is a large pile of dirt behind the arm of the bucket that dug up the engine parts. They had been working for some time, I would say. Quite probable that the parts were dug up from some depth. They should really have penetrated deeper than that. It would seem more practical, from my point of view as an occassional day laborer, to dig that much debris, that close to the surface, by hand.
 
again DA, the devils advocate, is tiring. you have the contact list of those who worked the site at Shanksville, please take your questions to them. (if you dont know who did, Gravy's website in his sig has the list)

seriously, your questions are nothing more than posturing on your part. and you are not "playing devils advocate". its apparent by your questions that you are not doing so.


guys let this thread die. he can contact those who worked on the area after the crash via Grayv's website. If he wants to play "devils advocate" let him play it with those who were there that day.

I really do not think you're being honest.

Read post 321.
"So no one can tell if the engine is facing up or down? I mean, yeah. It is easy laugh and pawn stuff off when you cannot answer a question. But it becomes obvious that the only reason you would do so was to avoid the question.
And how many times are people going to talk about the smoke plume? I already said that I found the brightness/contrast a reasonable explanation. And yet people keep beating that dead horse. If people want to keep bringing it up, then show an unedited picture of a plane crashing into the ground that does not result in black smoke. Note how long your search will take.
No more edited blue hued pictures, and no more fires that are being put out or are smoldering. Be honest if you're going to do it. I see no point in the smoke plume thing, but if you want to harp on something, then do it right at least."

You can see two things in that post. I was still asking if anyone could tell if the engine part was upside down or not.
Then, I went over again that I agreed that the plume of smoke color could have been a brightness/contrast issue with the camera. And that was it as far as I was concerned. But people kept bringing it up. So I said if people were going to continue to challenge on the issue that I had already let go, then stop with the edited pictures to 'prove' the dead horse argument.
Which you will note no plane impact with the ground photo was ever shown.

So to imply I am posturing is not honest, nor is saying I am not following my names sake. I was asking about an issue. After a few seemed to agree that the part was upside down, I started seeking opinions on how it got that way. Then that is when the thread completely changed. People sought motive for questions rather than simply discussing possibilities.
Then gravy starts in with his BS that he always does about demanding an answer to his 'do you believe planes crashed blah blah blah.'
Completely irrelavant. The issue was a plane part and theory on how it got into a position. That got people defensive and aggressive like it always does here. That is where the name sake comes in. Theory. Not plane crashes, not this side or that side....just idea's on why something is how it is.
And you'll also note I never once gave an opinion why it was upside down.
Idea's and theories are good. It shows you perspectives you may have never seen from otherwise, and that is why I like doing it.

So step away from a side and be objective, and I think you'll see things differently.
So, just follow the line without thinking of a motive or agenda.
DA: "How do you think the engine part get upside down?"
XX:" Well, I'm not sure, but it could have been because the plane hit at an angle on the upper cockpit which would have caused the wings to sag forward and making the engine break into the ground flat, and either colliding with debris or the resulting explosion forced it around pointing upward."
Even if it is unrealistic, it still adds to thought, and thought is never a bad thing. If someone does not want to participate, then they do not have to post. I do not post to cause problems, but I do not take ***** off anyone.

But it's ok, I'm catching a birdy to the land of parched life on monday, so my posting is all but done. I normally only go online to use email. Internet is normally unavailable where I go, and when it is available, it is restricted to certain criteria. My brother may make an account. I'm staying at his place right now. Just a visit before go out again. Don't worry, he is just a rock star guy. Not a trouble maker like me.
:D
 
*yawn*
I stated from my first post I had a problem with 93. You act like it is new.

When were the earliest pictures taken, Gravy?
How long would a fuel soaked tree burn?
Why don't you go splash a few gallons of kerosine on one and find out. Then explain to me why a patch of burnt trees goes out in less then 10 minutes.
Did you see a continuation of smoke from the 'fireball' picture? No.
Was the smoke even black? No.

Everything I say is denier claims? Like me saying I do not believe in the CT theory? Like that one? Yeap, I'm a CT theorist because I say I'm not. Got to love gravy logic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Where is the large patch of burnt trees in that video?
I see a few black and one smoking....not a large patch.
Why does it not add up? That is why I have a problem with this site, it does not make sense.
You can call me a denier all you want because your opinion means nothing to me. If you have something relevant to show other than a wall of links leading to people saying they saw a fireball, then don't bother.
I do not need a link to the FDR information. Unless the reason for the burnt tree patching growing in size somehow and them not burning for longer than 10 minutes is on it.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.1.jpg
Pic one is the flight 93 'fireball' pic. Note the lack of fire in the 'fireball'.
Pic two is ordinance in Beirut-airport.
Pic three is a plane crash.
Note the differences?

If you think I am saying no plane crashed there, then you're wrong.
What I am saying is that something is not right about the flight '93 story.

There is a book out called Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 "Lets’s Roll" Flight? by Rowland Morgan
 
Rowland Morgan, DRGs right hand man...lol

Ya a good read I am sure.

TAM:)
 
As R. Mackey said, that information and much more is in this thread if you're willing to dig for it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61633

I don't know if all the graphics are still there. I know I've removed the photos I posted because my photo box here was full.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you believe that on 9/11/01 two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?

I'd appreciate a simple answer, please: yes, no, or undecided?

WTC1+2 yes, Pentagon yes, Shanksville undecided.
 
WTC1+2 yes, Pentagon yes, Shanksville undecided.

A follow up question from me.

The Airliners that you do admit hit WTC1/2 and Pentagon, do you believe they were hijacked, and that the hijackers and passengers were killed when they struck the towers/Pentagon? If not, what is your theory related to this?

TAM:)
 
Thank you. What would seal the deal for you?

Actually, I haven't look into this enough to have a real wish list. If someone could explain the crater imprint, it would be a good start. I think it is important to mention here that rather that my expectations diverging from reality, it is someone elses explanation of what happened diverging from reality.

The question remains, how can the wings go through the fuselage to end up on the wrong side of the crater when there are no forces acting in that direction?
 
Actually, I haven't look into this enough to have a real wish list. If someone could explain the crater imprint, it would be a good start. I think it is important to mention here that rather that my expectations diverging from reality, it is someone elses explanation of what happened diverging from reality.

The question remains, how can the wings go through the fuselage to end up on the wrong side of the crater when there are no forces acting in that direction?

So the aircraft crash investigators that investigated the UA93 site, were they:

(1) Incorrect/Missed this glaring anomaly
(2) In on the cover up.

1 or 2 will suffice as an answer.

Thanks

TAM:)
 
So the aircraft crash investigators that investigated the UA93 site, were they:

(1) Incorrect/Missed this glaring anomaly
(2) In on the cover up.

1 or 2 will suffice as an answer.

Thanks

TAM:)

Maybe someone can explain it.
 
You are avoiding the question...why? I mean if you are an honest man, and you believe strongly in what happened that day, either way, you should be able to answer the question either 1 or 2.

TAM:)
 
You are avoiding the question...why? I mean if you are an honest man, and you believe strongly in what happened that day, either way, you should be able to answer the question either 1 or 2.

TAM:)

I don't believe strongly in what happened that day. That is what "undecided" means.
 
you said undecided only for shanksville, which I did not ask a question about.

So are you saying you are undecided about whether the hijackers and passengers were killed in the planes when they crashed...fair enough.

Do you have a suspicion, or a hunch as to what you think probably happened?

If not that is fine.

TAM:)
 
you said undecided only for shanksville, which I did not ask a question about.

So are you saying you are undecided about whether the hijackers and passengers were killed in the planes when they crashed...fair enough.

Do you have a suspicion, or a hunch as to what you think probably happened?

If not that is fine.

TAM:)

Actually I'm 99% sure hijackers and passengers were killed in the planes. I'm undecided whether or not Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney knew in advance and let it happen. I'm undecided whether the three WTC buildings were demolished by CD.
 
Actually I'm 99% sure hijackers and passengers were killed in the planes. I'm undecided whether or not Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney knew in advance and let it happen. I'm undecided whether the three WTC buildings were demolished by CD.

While I have seen no evidence even remotely compelling to support the LIHOP position you are leaning toward, I can see how some people could fear, even suspect this might be the case.

However, unless you feel that Al-Qaeda planted explosives in the towers, and had them go off after the impacts, than you are entering MIHOP territory with the CD option...you cant have it both ways really, I mean either you think the USG allowed it to happen OR they helped make it happen...IMO

TAM:)
 
The question remains, how can the wings go through the fuselage to end up on the wrong side of the crater when there are no forces acting in that direction?
Can you more clearly explain what you mean by this? Why do you think the wings are on the wrong side of the crater?

The aircraft had a 150° right roll at imact, according to the FDR. That means the aircraft was nearly inverted - for all practical purposes, it was upside down when it hit the ground. Thus, if you were looking at the back of the aircraft, the port wing would be on your right hand side and the starboard wing would be on your left, the opposite of what would be the case if the aircraft was flying normally.
 
Can you more clearly explain what you mean by this? Why do you think the wings are on the wrong side of the crater?

The aircraft had a 150° right roll at imact, according to the FDR. That means the aircraft was nearly inverted - for all practical purposes, it was upside down when it hit the ground. Thus, if you were looking at the back of the aircraft, the port wing would be on your right hand side and the starboard wing would be on your left, the opposite of what would be the case if the aircraft was flying normally.

Just being upside down shouldn't change the position of the wings relative to the fuselage. The 757 is low wing, which means they should not be on the same side as the tail imprint. The wings would need to go through the fuselage to accomplish this.

This is what the crater looked like (looks like a high-wing aircraft).

shanksvilleCrater1.jpg


This is something like what the crater should have looked like.

shanksvilleCrater2.jpg
 
Gregory, you keep saying "should have," but you provide no justification for that statement.

Surely you understand that a plane traveling at that speed, striking the soft ground at that angle, is going to excavate soil and pile it up in the direction of travel, and that the point where the nose of the 155-foot-long fuselage struck the ground is unlikely to be the center of the crater?
 
Once again our dept. of Faked Crash Sites lets us down ...badly.

It amazes me that they couldn't plan the site in such a way as to avoid these nagging doubts expressed by the 'ordinary' people.

Now, they might retort that they produced a computer simulation of the crash using the exact paramenters which were then going to be claimed for the actual faked site, and that this simulation told them to fake it just the way we see it. But why oh why do they insist upon relying on physics for these things, when the most important thing is for it to conform to the 'common sense' notions of the people we are trying to fool?

Never mind the first responders and crash site investigators. No one is going to bother with them anyway. We should focus on the internet crowd with their low res pictures and too much time on their hands.

So, in future ops, I strongly suggest that a covert testing procedure be undertaking with a couple o' dozen young people (between the ages of 14 and 25) to find out what to them a given scenario should look like, whether it's a plane crash or a building collapse or a meteor hitting a lake in the northwest...or... any number of false flag ops we have planned for the next few years, and then, once we have obtained the opinions of our target audience we tear up the physics books and the technical manuals and we bloody well produce something these kids will actually be willing to believe. They are, after all, our future......meals.
 

Back
Top Bottom