• 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?

Give us the full report, no omissions, no BS. Complete timeline with second by second coverage of the critical final 10-20 minutes. FDR data should match CVR and radar data. When were the explosions and what were the explosions? When did the debris fall off, what was it from and where did it fall? When did the engine fall off and where? Give us a map of the debris field. Lay those cards on the table.
Click to expand...

The owner of that site is kind of wooey huh. Not very high on the credibility meter.

Why no change in cabin pressure?
Why did the FDR record engines running?


http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_summary.html


Nite now!
 
Devil's Advocate said:
I'm not going to break this up point by point, it will take too long.

etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I stand by my previous post, and as I said, you're not playing devil's advocate, you're trolling.

Have fun with that, but I'm not playing your game.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
*yawn*

Did I imply anything? No. I stated a fact. The CVR said it did, the FDR said it did not. That is a fact, not an implication.

Did I say the FDR was more reliable information? Did I say the CVR was?
No. Read what is said, not into what is said.
Click to expand...

*fart*

So why do you bring it up? You mentioned that there should have been alarms going off and that there weren't any. Yet you conveniently neglected to mention that there is clear recorded evidence of alarms going off. Don't you find it interesting the path of things you do and don't mention? You just happen to note all the things that may seem suspicious, and just happen to miss all the things that aren't. But hey. you're just asking questions right? you're not implying anything what so ever. Mooooo!!!

Oh and no, you never implied the one was more reliable than the other. No siree. Just as you never really said eyewitness testimony was reliable. No siree. No implications on your part what so ever. And we're all just a bunch of idiots too. You're jsut way too clever for me and gosh darn it, yew just soooOOOoo have your bases covered there.....
 
So rule of thumb.

When it comes to an issue that shows a rational explanation for something, such as the term "forced down" we must be extra clear and make sure there is no confusion.

but when it comes to an issue that presents suspicion, such as where debris landed and how fast, then no real specification of clarification is needed. being completely vague and confusing which turns into misleading is acceptable.


I am starting to get the hang of this now.
 
I'm just asking some questions about some areas that I have a "problem" with, and I see something suspicious. These two statements don't quite seem to go together and I can't believe you can disbelieve it:

Devil's Advocate said:
I'm a closet truther? If it makes you feel better to believe something false, then by all means, do so.
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate said:
The burden of proof is not on me. I could post tons of video proving exactly what I am saying.
Click to expand...


Highlight of the thread, so far, for me. Although a close second goes to:

Devil's Advocate said:
I find that hard to believe. Note that people noted earlier about dew on the ground. Paper traveling on the ground getting wet would have gotten heavier.
Click to expand...


Highly compelling?
 
There were two sources of ignition to the trees on either side of the road. Those closest to the impact point were directly ignited by the burning jet fuel, as was the grass. Those on the other side of the road, as the picture of the burn pattern shows, were ingited when the grass fire reached them.

The woods would have been somewhat damper than the grass. So the fire went out sooner in the woods, once whatever fuel has been splashed on them burned off. That the fire is not right around the crater shows that some of the fuel was still moving slightly forward when the fuel ignited. Being well-aerosolized, it would have burned quickly, producing a tremendous volumn of super-heated gases, which would rise, sucking a lot of debris into the air with it.

I remember one training fire in the Air Force, in which we torched 10000 gallons of JP-4. The updrafts picked up gravel as large as 3 mm. That the fire ball from 93 could keep paper and such aloft is, to my thinking, not remarkable.

As to the timing of the arrival of paper debris at the lake, there would be little lag between the noise and the fall of debris, and time, in the mind of a person experiencing something inexplicable, tends to get distorted.

As to the explosive force of the deflagration of that much fuel, I should not expect it to dig much more of a crater of level trees. Comapred to ANFO, the blast would propogate a relatively slow-moving shock wave. Also, because it was not in any way contained, it would not sustain much pressure for any length of time.

In the photo of the smoke cloud, note that the "tail" never totally dissipated. It still seems somewhat connected to the ground, probably trailing, at this point, a small amount of smoke from class A fuels, such as the grass.

Because of the angle at which the aircraft hit, it is likely that about a quarter of the aft section broke loose and would have continued forward, perhaps bouncing when the tail hit the ground. This would tend to loft a few loose items into the air to follow the up-draft from the fireball.

The site of the crash was a reclaimed open-pit mine, filled within the last several years before the crash with loose soil and relatively small rocks. Not a very obdurate substrate, thus, easily penetrated by a multi-ton bullet.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
At 2:00 it shows the crater on the left. You would have clearly seen the damage there, and at 2:06 shows the crater on the right, and again you would have seen the damage there because the split in the tree's is the road to the south east of the impact. Look at the picture again and the damage around the road area. Switch between the video at 2:06 and the picture.
There is clearly no damage there in the video, but has major damage in the picture.
Click to expand...



Hi Devil's Advocate. Your assessment of the videos appears to be in error. In the first frame, at the 2 minute mark, the trees left of the white smoke are quite clearly blackened, broken off, and exhibiting signs of significant fire damage. Although the video is of poor quality, there is also a very clear difference in the background colour of the trees, with those on the left of frame being a dark grey in colour while on the right they are a dark green.

In the next frame, from 2:05 to 2:12, determining the precise location of the shot is difficult, but it appears to be looking across the crater from the east towards the west. The "split in the trees" is not at all a split in the trees, but a less heavily wooded section of the forest, which can be identified on Google Earth as a lighter patch of forest extending about 100m from the bottom of the road up to just before the white rectangular structure.

You'll note, if you glance on Google Earth, that the open ground to the east of the crater rises higher than the surrounding land. In the direction of the gap in the trees, SSE of the crater, a narrow band of forest about 400ft wide is followed by a further open area of about 200ft, before the large pond where part of UA93's engine was recovered.

All of this would, of course, be quite evident in the frame at 2:06, were the camera pointed in a southerly direction. Instead we see nothing but trees. The camera is looking west. The burnt area of trees lies off the left hand edge of the frame.

In regards to some other earlier raised points... you contend the smoke from an aircraft crash is always black, yet you seem to feel this was not the case with UA93. We have only one image of the initial burn-off, and in that image we see a black mushroom shaped cloud. Do you have another photo in which the smoke is not black?

Finally, your contention about the debris on Indian Lake (most of which, incidentally, is much closer than 2.5 miles from the crash site) seems to rely solely on the assertion of witnesses that debris landed within seconds of the crash.

In my experience, eyewitnesses are exceedingly poor at estimating time in such situations, and any value they offer must be considered with a very heavy dose of skepticism.

For lightweight debris to land a few miles from an airline crash site is certainly in no way strange. The explosion of the aircraft, upon impact, will throw large amounts of light material fairly high into the sky. Anything light enough can then be carried by the wind with ease.

Indeed, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence refuting any shoot down claim is the highly concentrated nature of the debris field. A study of airline mid-air break ups quickly reveals that light debris is typically recovered hundreds of miles from the primary crash site.

-Gumboot
 
Devil's Advocate said:
I am not misleading anyone.
Click to expand...
False. You are misleading yourself, which is why you are immune to our help.

I am stating the facts with the data being discussed.
Click to expand...
False. You are spewing denialist nonsense because your default position is that morons are correct.

Have the no-planers shown themselves to be honest people who rationally consider all the evidence? Do you really want to count yourself among them?

Then think.
 
Indeed, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence refuting any shoot down claim is the highly concentrated nature of the debris field. A study of airline mid-air break ups quickly reveals that light debris is typically recovered hundreds of miles from the primary crash site.
Click to expand...

Quite true, look at the debries feilds from TWA 800 and PanAm 103, they were very distinctive of a break up in midair. The major part of Flight 93 that wasn't in the crater was the engine, and it was further along the flight path heading away from the crater. In a shoot down senario it should have been back along the flight path before the crater.
 
Undamaged suitcases, large sheets of aluminum, pieces of engine turbines and that sort of debris in the lake would indicate a shoot-down.

Most air-to-air missiles either home on engine heat or are directed by radar or laser marker into the fuselage, or create a burst of frag in close proximity to the target. This would have involved two very loud explosions. Only one is clearly documented from all sources.
 
Ya know, a plane that just crashed in Brazil burned at around 1800F. But Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot, so it must be a conspiracy too right? And ho will they explain the debris that survives? It's all part of the NWO agenda to take over the world a couple planes at a time. In a few 1000 years their plans should be complete.
 
When I went to fire fighting school at Chanute AFB in 1966, we used sheet steel mock-ups for aircraft fire training. 1/18 inch, as I recall. Sometimes it would become cherry red.

Our turnout coats were of fiberglass and asbestos over light canvas. Supposedly, they would reflect about 90% of ambient heat.

One of my friends stumbled and pressed his elbow up against one of the mock-ups. When he took off his turnout coat after the exercise, he had a steam burn from his elbow to his wrist.

Obviously, at least 212 F was transferred through his turnout coat, which, as I say, was supposed to resist 90% of ambient heat. So, the ambient heat must have been well over 1000F.

I wonder where some of these values come from.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Ya know, a plane that just crashed in Brazil burned at around 1800F. But Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot, so it must be a conspiracy too right? And ho will they explain the debris that survives? It's all part of the NWO agenda to take over the world a couple planes at a time. In a few 1000 years their plans should be complete.
Click to expand...


not to take light of this, but the plane skidded into a GAS station at the end of the runway (it broke through the fence), so the gas also fueled the fire that killed 200 people today.

brazil was told that the airport runway was too short to handle big planes, and that there is a drainage problem for the runway. today it was raining when the plane crashed.


which also brings to question: why the heck would you build a gas station NEAR an airport runway? on march 5, 2000, a southwest airlines flight 1455 overran the runway at the Bob Hope airport in Burbank, CA, and almost hit the gas station at the end.
http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/wn1455.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/wn1455/photo.shtml

ETA: oH dangit, now looking at those photos and seeing how much we paid for gas in 2000.....in 7 years, its doubled. gya!
 
Last edited:
Devil's Advocate said:
The witness testimony already shown before told you exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

I checked over the thread, and I can't see the witness testimony you're referring to. Can you post (or re-post, if I missed it) the link please? It's rather important, because it's your source for the statement that:

Devil's Advocate said:
They saw debris coming down right after the explosion...they are 2.5 miles away. That is not possible unless the plane was already coming apart when it flew over. Completely impossible if the plane did not fly over them.
Click to expand...

I'd like to look at the source material to see what they actually said - was it "right after", "a few seconds after", or something more quantitative?

Dave
 
gumboot said:
Hi Devil's Advocate. Your assessment of the videos appears to be in error. In the first frame, at the 2 minute mark, the trees left of the white smoke are quite clearly blackened, broken off, and exhibiting signs of significant fire damage. Although the video is of poor quality, there is also a very clear difference in the background colour of the trees, with those on the left of frame being a dark grey in colour while on the right they are a dark green.

In the next frame, from 2:05 to 2:12, determining the precise location of the shot is difficult, but it appears to be looking across the crater from the east towards the west. The "split in the trees" is not at all a split in the trees, but a less heavily wooded section of the forest, which can be identified on Google Earth as a lighter patch of forest extending about 100m from the bottom of the road up to just before the white rectangular structure.

You'll note, if you glance on Google Earth, that the open ground to the east of the crater rises higher than the surrounding land. In the direction of the gap in the trees, SSE of the crater, a narrow band of forest about 400ft wide is followed by a further open area of about 200ft, before the large pond where part of UA93's engine was recovered.

All of this would, of course, be quite evident in the frame at 2:06, were the camera pointed in a southerly direction. Instead we see nothing but trees. The camera is looking west. The burnt area of trees lies off the left hand edge of the frame.

In regards to some other earlier raised points... you contend the smoke from an aircraft crash is always black, yet you seem to feel this was not the case with UA93. We have only one image of the initial burn-off, and in that image we see a black mushroom shaped cloud. Do you have another photo in which the smoke is not black?

Finally, your contention about the debris on Indian Lake (most of which, incidentally, is much closer than 2.5 miles from the crash site) seems to rely solely on the assertion of witnesses that debris landed within seconds of the crash.

In my experience, eyewitnesses are exceedingly poor at estimating time in such situations, and any value they offer must be considered with a very heavy dose of skepticism.

For lightweight debris to land a few miles from an airline crash site is certainly in no way strange. The explosion of the aircraft, upon impact, will throw large amounts of light material fairly high into the sky. Anything light enough can then be carried by the wind with ease.

Indeed, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence refuting any shoot down claim is the highly concentrated nature of the debris field. A study of airline mid-air break ups quickly reveals that light debris is typically recovered hundreds of miles from the primary crash site.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

93 debris at the lake. Lets say it was two minutes, hell, five minutes after impact. How long would it take debris to go 2 miles with a 10mph wind heading south west?

I have to disagree with your positioning.
The impact at 2:06 is clearly in the right of the shot, and is pointing south -south west from the impact showing the split in the tree line of the access road going south.
I've tried playing with the angles on google earth, and I'm not seeing what you're saying.

With regard to the shoot down, that would depend greatly on the altitude of the plane when it was hit. Large aircraft do not explode from a typical armament on an F-16 or similar sized aircraft. There are examples of planes being hit and losing parts, but not blowing into pieces. It would depend on what was hit, and what hit it.
A sidewinder for example is designed to disable/destroy engines.
F-16 Missiles Available:
AIM-9M Sidewinder: infrared - Speed: Mach 2+ - range 10 miles
AIM-9P Sidewinder: infrared Speed: Mach 2+ - Range: 10 miles
AIM-120 AMRAAM: Active radar - Speed: Mach 4+ - Range: 25 miles
AIM-7 SPARROW - Speed: Classified - Range: Classified

There are witnesses saying they heard explosions before the plane crashed. Also the call from the plane made by Edward Felt, who was the last to make a call from Flight 93. He heard and explosion, and saw smoke.
(He was hiding in a bathroom. He poked his head out after the explosion and saw white smoke, but could not tell where it was coming from.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011223...o/news/091101_nw_terrorist_attack_united.html


Issues I want to further look into:

I still have not seen a flight path on the plane. I've seen some, saying the NTSB gave the most accurate, but I have not found it yet. But, only looked for about five minutes before I had to leave.

Another thing that would be interesting to look into is how much of the debris that were found went against the wind.

Did the FDR say that -15° was level throughout the entire flight? If so, how big of a difference in impact would there have been if that adjustment was never factored in? I have looked at FDR data, but I am missing the angle of the plane in it so far.

That is all I can think of at the moment.

And about the whole 'you're a CT in disguise' BS I'm getting....
Let me state clearly, the only CT that I would even think about at this point is that Flight 93 was shot down. I'm not saying it was, but that is why I want all the info I can get.
It has nothing to do with 'no plane' here and at the Pentagon, or CD in the towers and WTC 7, the NWO and all that.
I do not believe in any of that.
Well, if NWO means people pushing for a one world government, then I do believe that, but not in a sinister way.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
93 debris at the lake. Lets say it was two minutes, hell, five minutes after impact. How long would it take debris to go 2 miles with a 10mph wind heading south west?
Click to expand...


People in stressful situations can get their timings wrong by quite remarkable amounts. Let's not forget, at the time the aircraft crashed, all of those bits of debris were travelling (in the aircraft) towards the lake at 500 MPH.

Plane hits, fireball throws debris upwards and down range, wind catches debris (wind is usually stronger higher up), by the time the wind takes over the debris could already be half way to the lake.



Devil's Advocate said:
I have to disagree with your positioning.
The impact at 2:06 is clearly in the right of the shot, and is pointing south -south west from the impact showing the split in the tree line of the access road going south.
I've tried playing with the angles on google earth, and I'm not seeing what you're saying.
Click to expand...


That's not my fault. I'm pretty good at this whole photographic interpretation thing. :) There is no road between the trees, by the way. The road ends before the crash site.

Facts:

1. The background in the shot does not match the direction you claim it is looking.

2. The background in the shot does match the direction I claim it is looking.

3. The direction you claim then creates the problem of explaining the lack of fire damage.

4. The direction I claim means there is no need to explain the lack of fire damage.

Not to say that my positioning is actually correct. But I'm about 99% sure yours is wrong.

Bear in mind the position of the crater in the shot is somewhat irrelevant. I can easily frame a chosen background and then adjust my position so that the foreground is wherever in the frame I desire it to be.



Devil's Advocate said:
With regard to the shoot down, that would depend greatly on the altitude of the plane when it was hit. Large aircraft do not explode from a typical armament on an F-16 or similar sized aircraft. There are examples of planes being hit and losing parts, but not blowing into pieces. It would depend on what was hit, and what hit it.
Click to expand...


Regardless of what was hit, and what damage was done, the FDR data would not be what it is. Engines, cabin pressure, and everything else were completely normal at the time of impact. The only abnormal thing was the angle of attack and rate of roll, both of which were a result of inputs from the control column.

In addition, there were no military aircraft anywhere near UA93 at the time of the crash, let alone armed fighters.

United 93 was crashed into the ground intentionally by the Islamic terrorists that hijacked it. The evidence to support this contention is overwhelming.




Devil's Advocate said:
There are witnesses saying they heard explosions before the plane crashed. Also the call from the plane made by Edward Felt, who was the last to make a call from Flight 93. He heard and explosion, and saw smoke.
(He was hiding in a bathroom. He poked his head out after the explosion and saw white smoke, but could not tell where it was coming from.
Click to expand...


That's nice. There were witnesses at the WTC who heard trains. But no trains were involved in the collapse of the towers.



Devil's Advocate said:
Issues I want to further look into:

I still have not seen a flight path on the plane. I've seen some, saying the NTSB gave the most accurate, but I have not found it yet. But, only looked for about five minutes before I had to leave.
Click to expand...


Five minutes? All of the flight path data on all four flights is readily available. You're welcome.



Devil's Advocate said:
Another thing that would be interesting to look into is how much of the debris that were found went against the wind.
Click to expand...


Why would that be interesting? What is interesting to me is that all debris found away from the immediate vicinity of the impact site was found down wind, and in the direction the aircraft was travelling. Had the aircraft been shot down, there would need to be debris some distance BEFORE the impact point.

and for what it's worth, the 757 has a very decent power to weight ratio, and can comfortably continue flying on one engine.



Devil's Advocate said:
Did the FDR say that -15° was level throughout the entire flight? If so, how big of a difference in impact would there have been if that adjustment was never factored in? I have looked at FDR data, but I am missing the angle of the plane in it so far.
Click to expand...

With an aircraft travelling at 500MPH, a variation in impact angle of 15° is irrelevant.



Devil's Advocate said:
Let me state clearly, the only CT that I would even think about at this point is that Flight 93 was shot down. I'm not saying it was, but that is why I want all the info I can get.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear:

1. There was no authorisation to use force.
-Permission to use force came at approximately 10:10, from the President.
2. There were no fighters in a position to engage UA93.
-The only airbourne fighters that were armed were a pair of F-15's from Otis ANGB, flying CAP over New York City, and a pair of F-16's from Langley AFB, heading for Washington DC.
3. The military were not aware that UA93 had been hijacked.
-NEADS were first notified that UA93 was a hijack at 1007EDT.
4. The UA93 FDR and CVR conclusively show that UA93 was not shot down.
-The FDR shows all systems functioning normally including engines and cabin pressure, and the CVR captures the intention of the hijackers to intentionally crash the aircraft.
5. The debris pattern is consistent with an intact airframe impact, and is not consistent with a shoot down.
-Primary debris is located in a very localised space in and around the impact crater, with isolated pieces of debris down range of impact, and light debris landing within a distance of a few miles, down range and down wind.

UA93 was not shot down. The hijackers intentionally flew it into the ground to prevent the passengers regaining control.

-Gumboot
 
Last edited:
gumboot,

I was talking about the planes heading on an overhead of the crash site.



(sloppy I know)
Joel_Curveball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom