Why Flight 93?

[DGM]

Nope. I got a screen shot. That is proof you said it.
You said it because you're mean.






lol j/k

No worries.

The funny part is I posted then left the room and when I came back to read it was there. MY PC POSSESSED.

Do you see what I mean by camera angle?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Which proves you do not read very well.


It doesn't look to me like the same camera location or even the same spot. Look at the picture you posted. now envision a video of the crater from the top right(draw a line through the crater). There would show no burnt woods. To make that statement the camera positions would need top be the same.

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.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Unless you can state with certainty where the photographer was standing and where the news cameraman was standing, what precise direction they were pointing their cameras, and the focal length of the lenses used for the shots, then you are doing a great deal of assuming in your quote. Camera angles and lens focal length can make for very different looking pictures even of the same subject.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Where does your "matter of seconds" come from? Perhaps you should try being a devil's advocate with some of your own suppositions.

Questions still outstanding that I've asked which you still have yet to respond to:

How many of those photos of crashes that you have looked at involved a high speed plunge at a steep angle into the ground?

Do you accept that Flight 93 was nearly inverted at the time of impact, as lapman has stated and as the FDR data Gravy has posted indicates?

This will be the last time I answer a question to which you imply I have not answered or am avoiding when I clearly stated the answer elsewhere.
I clearly stated that it was in fact true that none of the plane crashes I have seen buried themselves. I do not see why it is safe to assume a jet fuel fire explosion will change based off that. It is opinion, and cannot be verified. However, what is verified is that no one, including me, can find visual evidence to prove that theory.

Now, let me return your manner of forum etiquette, or the lack of, and ask why are you avoiding my video evidence? Are you afraid to answer?
See? That is just not cool.
I do not need to call you out to see that you are not addressing it, and I'll assume you do not plan to answer it.
Calling people out is to stroke you own ego, nothing more. "See? Look at me! I asked a question he did not answer! I win!"
I've addressed your questions.
But do not think for a second I'm going to continue to answer yours if you never address mine.

 

[DGM]

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.

I think we're going to agree to disagree on that one. Aerial shot to ground shot. I can't make the same conection.

I'm going for my walk now.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Unless you can state with certainty where the photographer was standing and where the news cameraman was standing, what precise direction they were pointing their cameras, and the focal length of the lenses used for the shots, then you are doing a great deal of assuming in your quote. Camera angles and lens focal length can make for very different looking pictures even of the same subject.

An area that should be damaged will come out green and full because of the camera's lense and angle?
Perhaps you should reread the part where the camera shows the road split at the 2:06 mark and the impact crater on the right, and explain why those trees are green and full. That tells you what the camera angle is, and shows that there is no damage there.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think we're going to agree to disagree on that one. Aerial shot to ground shot. I can't make the same conection.

I'm going for my walk now.

Quitter!
lol j/k

Have fun.

 

[uk_dave]

I clearly stated that it was in fact true that none of the plane crashes I have seen buried themselves. I do not see why it is safe to assume a jet fuel fire explosion will change based off that. It is opinion, and cannot be verified.

You're dealing with a unique event. The closest experienced opinion you will obtain regarding this event is from those who investigated it.

If they are happy with the premise that flight 93 crashed in shanksville then, unless they are idealogically committed to the deception or bribed or scared, we have to take their professional opinion on this.

But, thinking about it logically, without any prior experience of plane crashes, we can (can't we?) imagine a scenario whereby a jet moving at extreme high speed (very close to the speed of sound) was forced down into the ground at shanksville and that upon the disintegration of this plane (see the scandia test of a phantom into a concrete wall) the fuels was released and burned instantaneously (explosively), scattering debris over a wide area, including some items which were thrown up into the wind and carried a couple of miles to a lake where they were collected in a trash bag.

Can we not?

 

[CTM]

#53:I'm not from that part of the world, but would it be surprising if at about 9.30am on a September morning the trees near that field were covered with dew?

What was the weather like on September 10, 2001? I remember reading somewhere that in New York city the night before had been cloudy and rainy which is one reason why the morning of 9/11 was particularly beautiful weather-wise. I spent quite a bit of time trying to verify this but I didn't have much luck. I discovered that at accu-weather.com you can have access to 10 years of historical weather data for free for 30 days. I am not going to sign up for it because I had a difficult cancelling something else that was free from another site and I don't want to try that again but perhaps someone else here might want to check it out. If it had rained the day before or during the night it would affect how well trees would burn wouldn't it?

 

[Corsair 115]

This will be the last time I answer a question to which you imply I have not answered or am avoiding when I clearly stated the answer elsewhere.

You still have not said whether or not you accept that Flight 93 was nearly inverted at the time of impact.

That question arose because you said you could not see how lapman's description of how the aircraft made the impact hole fit with a 40° dive angle. With an inverted aircraft the impact crater fits quite well, thus my question to you.

I clearly stated that it was in fact true that none of the plane crashes I have seen buried themselves.

If you did, then I did not happen to see that reply; this thread does move fast at times with new posts. Direct me to if you can and I shall apologize for overlooking it.

Now, let me return your manner of forum etiquette, or the lack of, and ask why are you avoiding my video evidence?

You mean this video evidence? You are referring then to your assertion of the background scenery not matching up to photos? I think I replied to that before I started this post. Skip to the bottom for a follow-up.

Calling people out is to stroke you own ego, nothing more. "See? Look at me! I asked a question he did not answer! I win!"

Calm down. I was curious why you answered others' simple questions which were bracketing posts of mine. If you had simply said "Sorry, I missed it earlier" and then answered that would have been entirely sufficient. Much as I have said in regards to me perhaps missing a post of yours

An area that should be damaged will come out green and full because of the camera's lense and angle?

It is your assumption that the two images are showing the same patch of terrain. Thus my comment about camera angles and lens focal length making all the difference.

But perhaps I am not viewing the same specific two images you are using in your assertion, and there is a misunderstanding at work. So, may I ask you to precisely spell out the shots which I should directly compare for the purposes of examining the background scenery?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You're dealing with a unique event. The closest experienced opinion you will obtain regarding this event is from those who investigated it.

If they are happy with the premise that flight 93 crashed in shanksville then, unless they are idealogically committed to the deception or bribed or scared, we have to take their professional opinion on this.

But, thinking about it logically, without any prior experience of plane crashes, we can (can't we?) imagine a scenario whereby a jet moving at extreme high speed (very close to the speed of sound) was forced down into the ground at shanksville and that upon the disintegration of this plane (see the scandia test of a phantom into a concrete wall) the fuels was released and burned instantaneously (explosively), scattering debris over a wide area, including some items which were thrown up into the wind and carried a couple of miles to a lake where they were collected in a trash bag.

Can we not?

No we cannot. Who said the plane was forced down? Maybe I am reading too much into that statement. How exactly was it 'forced' down?
I was under the impression that they chose to dive into the ground because they feared people would get into the cockpit.
At least that is how I read the transcripts.
Is there an audio of that event, BTW? I've only found transcripts.

And debris were scattered over a vast distance, up to 8 miles away.
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.
The mushroom cloud does not look like a terrible explosion to me, and yes, I've seen many.
Nor does the theory of an extremely powerful explosion seem evident because of the impact area evidence. The first shots (before the digging) looks like someone 'drew' the plane impact into the ground.
(I'm not saying they did that)
A massive explosion would have effected the ground more. Imagine an explosion powerful enough to launch debris miles away. Also I find it hard to believe that the impact made a perfect plane sized hole.
Things that hit the ground that hard tend to leave ground damage many times the size of the object that hit it.
Inertia, kinetic force, etc.

 

[uk_dave]

No we cannot. Who said the plane was forced down? Maybe I am reading too much into that statement. How exactly was it 'forced' down?
I was under the impression that they chose to dive into the ground because they feared people would get into the cockpit.
At least that is how I read the transcripts.
Is there an audio of that event, BTW? I've only found transcripts.

And debris were scattered over a vast distance, up to 8 miles away.
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.
The mushroom cloud does not look like a terrible explosion to me, and yes, I've seen many.
Nor does the theory of an extremely powerful explosion seem evident because of the impact area evidence. The first shots (before the digging) looks like someone 'drew' the plane impact into the ground.
(I'm not saying they did that)
A massive explosion would have effected the ground more. Imagine an explosion powerful enough to launch debris miles away. Also I find it hard to believe that the impact made a perfect plane sized hole.
Things that hit the ground that hard tend to leave ground damage many times the size of the object that hit it.
Inertia, kinetic force, etc.

OK let's say you're an average 'joe' and I'm an evil shapeshifting reptoid pervert with a penchant for white knee high socks and egg whisks....well, let's just say I'm the perp...ok?

So, I plan a fake air crash in shanksville. Now, unless I have every expert in my pocket I'm looking to fool them, not you, correct?

So I fake the scene with as much believable debris as I can. I factor in that if I keep everything within the crater those pesky experts are gonna smell a rat, so I make sure the debris is spread as far as it should be. I even go to the expense of commissioning a company to spread the debris in real time using a process I not only don't know exists, but I don't want to know exists!! All I care about is fooling those people on the ground (those stubborn bastards I couldn't bribe or intimidate and who wouldn't come along with my global plans for.... something) and those watching in other countries who know what this crash site should look like.

But you know, the one thing I didn't think of? I didn't think of those people who have absolutely no experience, training or expertise in air crash investigation, but will insist that all my meticulous planning is wrong.

Well bugger me with a stuffed owl.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You still have not said whether or not you accept that Flight 93 was nearly inverted at the time of impact.

That question arose because you said you could not see how lapman's description of how the aircraft made the impact hole fit with a 40° dive angle. With an inverted aircraft the impact crater fits quite well, thus my question to you.

If you did, then I did not happen to see that reply; this thread does move fast at times with new posts. Direct me to if you can and I shall apologize for overlooking it.

You mean this video evidence? You are referring then to your assertion of the background scenery not matching up to photos? I think I replied to that before I started this post. Skip to the bottom for a follow-up.

Calm down. I was curious why you answered others' simple questions which were bracketing posts of mine. If you had simply said "Sorry, I missed it earlier" and then answered that would have been entirely sufficient. Much as I have said in regards to me perhaps missing a post of yours

It is your assumption that the two images are showing the same patch of terrain. Thus my comment about camera angles and lens focal length making all the difference.

But perhaps I am not viewing the same specific two images you are using in your assertion, and there is a misunderstanding at work. So, may I ask you to precisely spell out the shots which I should directly compare for the purposes of examining the background scenery?

Note the damage, and the road south east of the impact.
On the video, you'll see the 'split' in the trees from the road path, and see the impact on the right in the video. So the camera is north of the impact.
The entier body of the trees from the impact point on the right all the way to the split in the trees should be damaged, but it is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Video point 2:06. Also the 2:00 shows the crater on the right of the screen, and only one tree is seem smoking, and a lot of full green trees behind them and around them. Maybe three damaged, but nowhere near the damage seen in the picture.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

OK let's say you're an average 'joe' and I'm an evil shapeshifting reptoid pervert with a penchant for white knee high socks and egg whisks....well, let's just say I'm the perp...ok?

So, I plan a fake air crash in shanksville. Now, unless I have every expert in my pocket I'm looking to fool them, not you, correct?

So I fake the scene with as much believable debris as I can. I factor in that if I keep everything within the crater those pesky experts are gonna smell a rat, so I make sure the debris is spread as far as it should be. I even go to the expense of commissioning a company to spread the debris in real time using a process I not only don't know exists, but I don't want to know exists!! All I care about is fooling those people on the ground (those stubborn bastards I couldn't bribe or intimidate and who wouldn't come along with my global plans for.... something) and those watching in other countries who know what this crash site should look like.

But you know, the one thing I didn't think of? I didn't think of those people who have absolutely no experience, training or expertise in air crash investigation, but will insist that all my meticulous planning is wrong.

Well bugger me with a stuffed owl.

What in god's name is wrong with white knee high socks? If a lady has tan legs, then that is all kinds of sexy.

Hold your horses, rider! I never said a plane did not crash there. I am saying I have a problem with the evidence and witness reports. That does not lead me to conclusion, it leads me to want to answer the questions.

A way to spread 'speckle' debris....a C-130. No, not saying that happened!
I know you said you did not want to know...but I am mean like that.

 

[Corsair 115]

At least that is how I read the transcripts.
Is there an audio of that event, BTW? I've only found transcripts.

No, by law audio recordings of the CVR are not allowed to be released publically. Only transcripts are permitted. This web site explains the reasons as follows:

The CVR recordings are treated differently than the other factual information obtained in an accident investigation. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Congress has required that the Safety Board not release any part of a CVR tape recording. Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR tape and its transcript. The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated: under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of cockpit voice recordings are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident or, if no hearing is held, when a majority of the factual reports are made public.

And debris were scattered over a vast distance, up to 8 miles away. I find that hard to believe.

Why? What's the basis for making it hard to believe - what assumptions are at work? Wouldn't the distance the debris travelled depend greatly on the prevailing weather conditions and the nature of the debris?

The mushroom cloud does not look like a terrible explosion to me, and yes, I've seen many.

Wouldn't whether nor not the cloud indicates a terrible explosion depend greatly on the size of the cloud and how long after the explosion any images were taken?

A massive explosion would have effected the ground more.

That would require a frame of reference, would it not? There would have to be some kind of expectation about what size of an explosion does to what kind of terrain - in which case, where do the expectations come from?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why would it be hard to understand how debris could end up 8 miles away? Of course we wouldn't be trying to mislead people into thinking that debris was heavy plane parts and things of that nature would we? What debris specifically are we talking about at 8 miles. Because if we're talking about paper, then it's pretty dishonest to try to imply it is something that wouldn't likely be able to blow for miles.

So I am still wondering what is the exact debris that was raining down on the people at the lake (and I guess a lucky miracle they didn't get killed by the debris?) and what is the actual debris found 8 miles away? Anyone can say these things to try to add drama. But what are we really talking about here.

And if one did read the CVR transcript they would see that there clearly were alarms going off.

 

[T.A.M.]

No we cannot. Who said the plane was forced down? Maybe I am reading too much into that statement. How exactly was it 'forced' down?
I was under the impression that they chose to dive into the ground because they feared people would get into the cockpit.
At least that is how I read the transcripts.
Is there an audio of that event, BTW? I've only found transcripts.

1. I think by forced down, he means the arab hijackers forced the plane down by diving.

2. The original audio was not released to the public at the request of the family members, but was played in court at the Moussaoui trial, which is where the transcript originate.

And debris were scattered over a vast distance, up to 8 miles away.
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.
The mushroom cloud does not look like a terrible explosion to me, and yes, I've seen many.

I think the thought is the wind carried much of the paper debris that went up in the explosion cloud, several miles away. the paper would not have to be wet if it never touched the grass in the first place.

Nor does the theory of an extremely powerful explosion seem evident because of the impact area evidence. The first shots (before the digging) looks like someone 'drew' the plane impact into the ground.
(I'm not saying they did that)
A massive explosion would have effected the ground more. Imagine an explosion powerful enough to launch debris miles away. Also I find it hard to believe that the impact made a perfect plane sized hole.
Things that hit the ground that hard tend to leave ground damage many times the size of the object that hit it.
Inertia, kinetic force, etc.

I believe the area was previously a landfill, and hence the ground underneath very soft and moveable. I think that a large portion of the plane actually went several yards underground.

TAM

 

[DGM]

Hi DA:
At the 1:57-2:02 mark than again at 2:16 you could see the woods smoking. The video resolution kind of sucks.

 

[rwguinn]

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/aerial_diagram.jpg

Note the damage, and the road south east of the impact.
On the video, you'll see the 'split' in the trees from the road path, and see the impact on the right in the video. So the camera is north of the impact.
The entier body of the trees from the impact point on the right all the way to the split in the trees should be damaged, but it is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Video point 2:06. Also the 2:00 shows the crater on the right of the screen, and only one tree is seem smoking, and a lot of full green trees behind them and around them. Maybe three damaged, but nowhere near the damage seen in the picture.

Check http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/beat-reporting/works/737-2/
for the 1991 Colorado Springs crash. A 737 went pretty much straight in--very close to the same angle--into a City park. Not the lack of burnt stuuff on the ground in the few pictures there.
Most of the fuel sprayed into the air, and burned off there. very little on the ground.
The park it went into is surrounded by houses. People could be seen in the aircraft through the windows. Most of the debris was in the ground, except for the stuff that went airborne at the crash.
Very similar occurences. Nopbody shot either one down.

We've been through all this before--see Killtown thread--It takes a special kind of idiocy to maintain that anything other than a high-speed crash of ain airplane in a near-inverted condition occurred at Shanksville

 

[Corsair 115]

On the video, you'll see the 'split' in the trees from the road path, and see the impact on the right in the video.

Sorry, I see no such split in the trees from the road path, at least not after 1:36 of the video.

Also the 2:00 shows the crater on the right of the screen, and only one tree is seem smoking, and a lot of full green trees behind them and around them.

The YouTube video is of low quality, so it's hard to see much of the necessary detail. But the shot at 2:00 is to me obviously done on a long lens, and long focal lengths compress the apparent depth of a shot. It makes the background seem much closer to anything in the foreground than it really is. The shot at 2:06 looks like it was shot on a wider lens than the prior shot given that much more of the surrounding terrain can be seen.

There's a shot from the movie Poltergeist which strikingly illustrates the way lens focal length affects how a shot looks. Towards the end, the camera is behind the mother as she begins to run down the hallway. As she does so, the hallway appears to lengthen. That's a simple camera trick done by starting with the camera lens zoomed in which compresses the background and makes the hallway end seem close to the mother. Then as she runs the camera dollies in as the lens is simultaneously zoomed out to a wide angle setting. The mother is kept at just the right distance to make her appear the same size throughout the shot, but the hallway appears to lengthen as the lens is moved to a wide angle setting.

Another point to consider is that there are edits in the video. It is quite possible that the different shots were not all from the same vantage point. A cameraman is going to get different shots from different angles if at all possible so as to give the editor choices in editing. So one should not assume at all that the shots at 2:00 and 2:06 are from the same camera position, especially with a cut in between them. We also don't know how much time transpired between each of the individual shots; there could be differences of minutes to hours between them. The editor who cut that segment would be able to say how much different footage was assembled together to make that report. But one most definitely should not assume the shots were taken close together timewise, or that the shots of background scenery are even in chronological order.