• 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?

Devil's Advocate said:
I'll just cut through the 'blah blah blah' circles and get to the points.
And why would I ask questions about the testimony? And ask how long it would take debris to get there? To A) Eliminate the testimony that had errors, perhaps their time was off, or B) Come up with a way it could have happened another way. It is called thought, JC. Working a scenario.
I'm not trying to figure out things for you. I am trying to resolve problems that I have with the Flight. I have not said there was a conspiracy here.

The black smoke caused me a problem, yes. And why did it cause me problems? Because I've never seen anything but black smoke from a jet crash before. I was looking for other people's thoughts on it. And I got some good ones. Others started in on me, so I wanted them to prove it wrong if they were so sure I was. What is so hard for you to understand here?
I did the same thing about the crash, looking for people that may understand the FDR that can tell me what I cannot find. Others may know.
Is such a thought alien to you that others may know something that you do not?

Ok then, so whether you like me asking questions or not will not change the fact that I will ask them. I do not care if you like the way I ask them, nor do I care about the assumptions you make about them.
So calm down, or go jump in topics where no one asks questions that make you feel uncomfortable to keep your blood pressure down.
Click to expand...

Thank you for adding just more 'blah blah blah'

Why would you ask questions about their testimony? To find out what happened. Not to guide yourself on a carefully planned path to get to what you are obviously trying to conclude. That's not called thought, it's called cherry picking. You conveniently overlook so many blaring obvious issues that explain all the things you question, but then get super picky about details that contradict your implications and conclusions. Again, that's not called thought, that's called leading yourself.

I know you're not trying to work things out for me. You're trying to convince yourself of a conclusions you have already made by being selective about what evidence you want to see and what you don't. The type of debris can conclude the reliability of the testimony and the probability of debris reaching the lake in the time it did. So you don't ask questions about that at all. But when it comes to the color o smoke, something you know nothing about, you question it like no tomorrow. Again, how convenient.

You use the FDR to say there were no audible warnings. But you completely overlook the CVR which clearly proves there were. So then you move on to them being different. Again, not questioning that it could be something you don't understand. You're right, what is so hard to understand here?

Ah but there you go pretending to be the victim again. You're just asking questions, what' wrong with that? Gosh, and luckily we're all so stupid that we wouldn't know any better. Clearly you're just asking questions. How could anyone possibly think otherwise? It's a mystery!

Whether of not I like you asking questions?

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Keep telling yourself that. Yeah, we just HATE when people ask questions here, right everybody? Hey everyone look! It's a questioner!! We can't have that!

LOL!

If you don't like that people are questioning you or that people are pointing out your assumptions and cherry picking, maybe you should try a forum where people won't question you. After all, I am just asking questions. Aren't you? Why don't you like me asking questions? Wow, this is so much easier when we just pretend all we're doing is asking questions and anyone who disagrees must hate questions. Don't worry, we'll never catch onto your shtick, we're just not smart enough. *wink wink*
 
The crater should have looked something like this:
Click to expand...

That's if we were dealing with a solid object. An aircraft is hollow and full of air. The pressure of impact would cause the plane to literally explode.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Thank you for adding just more 'blah blah blah'

Why would you ask questions about their testimony? To find out what happened. Not to guide yourself on a carefully planned path to get to what you are obviously trying to conclude. That's not called thought, it's called cherry picking. You conveniently overlook so many blaring obvious issues that explain all the things you question, but then get super picky about details that contradict your implications and conclusions. Again, that's not called thought, that's called leading yourself.

I know you're not trying to work things out for me. You're trying to convince yourself of a conclusions you have already made by being selective about what evidence you want to see and what you don't. The type of debris can conclude the reliability of the testimony and the probability of debris reaching the lake in the time it did. So you don't ask questions about that at all. But when it comes to the color o smoke, something you know nothing about, you question it like no tomorrow. Again, how convenient.

You use the FDR to say there were no audible warnings. But you completely overlook the CVR which clearly proves there were. So then you move on to them being different. Again, not questioning that it could be something you don't understand. You're right, what is so hard to understand here?

Ah but there you go pretending to be the victim again. You're just asking questions, what' wrong with that? Gosh, and luckily we're all so stupid that we wouldn't know any better. Clearly you're just asking questions. How could anyone possibly think otherwise? It's a mystery!

Whether of not I like you asking questions?

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Keep telling yourself that. Yeah, we just HATE when people ask questions here, right everybody? Hey everyone look! It's a questioner!! We can't have that!

LOL!

If you don't like that people are questioning you or that people are pointing out your assumptions and cherry picking, maybe you should try a forum where people won't question you. After all, I am just asking questions. Aren't you? Why don't you like me asking questions? Wow, this is so much easier when we just pretend all we're doing is asking questions and anyone who disagrees must hate questions. Don't worry, we'll never catch onto your shtick, we're just not smart enough. *wink wink*
Click to expand...

*yawn*

You like to assume way too much.
I have drawn to a conclusion? What was my conclusion, JC? I do not know about explosions? Who am I, JC? What do I do for a living? Now, when you realize you cannot answer those questions without a pathetic pseudo-quip, then maybe you'll pay attention.

About the smoke, seeing that you keep bringing it up, have I brought it up since I agreed with the reasoning given earlier in this thread? No.
Why didn't I, JC?
Because I got what I was looking for. Alternate explanation. Sounds scary, doesn't it?

Playing the victim?
If I propose a scenario based off data, it is for discussion or debate, not a demand or agenda. I am not closed minded, JC. I like to see things from other perspectives. And to be a victim one must be injured. I cannot be injured by you or anyone else here.

What warnings did the CVR show?
Does that mean the FDR is wrong?
If so, is the whole FDR wrong?
No? How can you be sure? Some of it was, according to you.
What parts are wrong?
How can you tell which were right?

And I'm the one cherry picking? I bring up one point at a time and work it from various angles seeing where to place it in the story.
Like I have concluded that the people at the lake had to have been mistaken about the time the debris started raining down.
Now, if you want to talk about issues and debate them, do so.
Do not accuse me of 'cherry picking' anything. I am not taking testimony or data out of context.They say what they say. I am bringing up points that I have trouble with and am debating it. Do you understand now?
 
DGM said:
That's if we were dealing with a solid object. An aircraft is hollow and full of air. The pressure of impact would cause the plane to literally explode.
Click to expand...

Just a side note to this. In that telephone interview with the coroner, i forget his name, he mentioned that the plane hit and bounced into the trees. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but i thought it was an interesting observation.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Just a side note to this. In that telephone interview with the coroner, i forget his name, he mentioned that the plane hit and bounced into the trees. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but i thought it was an interesting observation.
Click to expand...

Is that interview on file somewhere? If so, do you have a link?
I do not see how that could have been true. Are you sure he did not say parts of it?
 
3bodyproblem said:
Just a side note to this. In that telephone interview with the coroner, i forget his name, he mentioned that the plane hit and bounced into the trees. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but i thought it was an interesting observation.
Click to expand...
Parts. Some of the larger parts were found in the woods, which makes sense. The coroner, Wallace Miller, has mentioned seeing part of the cockpit in the woods, although I don't know if that was confirmed. The largish sections of fuselage that appear in the Moussaoui trial exhibits were in woods.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
*yawn*

You like to assume way too much.
I have drawn to a conclusion? What was my conclusion, JC? I do not know about explosions? Who am I, JC? What do I do for a living? Now, when you realize you cannot answer those questions without a pathetic pseudo-quip, then maybe you'll pay attention.

About the smoke, seeing that you keep bringing it up, have I brought it up since I agreed with the reasoning given earlier in this thread? No.
Why didn't I, JC?
Because I got what I was looking for. Alternate explanation. Sounds scary, doesn't it?

Playing the victim?
If I propose a scenario based off data, it is for discussion or debate, not a demand or agenda. I am not closed minded, JC. I like to see things from other perspectives. And to be a victim one must be injured. I cannot be injured by you or anyone else here.

What warnings did the CVR show?
Does that mean the FDR is wrong?
If so, is the whole FDR wrong?
No? How can you be sure? Some of it was, according to you.
What parts are wrong?
How can you tell which were right?

And I'm the one cherry picking? I bring up one point at a time and work it from various angles seeing where to place it in the story.
Like I have concluded that the people at the lake had to have been mistaken about the time the debris started raining down.
Now, if you want to talk about issues and debate them, do so.
Do not accuse me of 'cherry picking' anything. I am not taking testimony or data out of context.They say what they say. I am bringing up points that I have trouble with and am debating it. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

*Burp*

Please oh wise one, tell me what I am assuming. Please enlighten me.

Why would I know or care what you do? Are you saying you are a professional that has some expertise on this? Because earlier you said you didn't. So tell us what your expertise is then. lay it on us.

Playing the victim. PRETENDING that people are questioning you simply because you are asking questions. Pretending to be a victim of some unwarranted attack or something. So if you cannot be uninjured by anyone else, stop playing victim and pretending you are being attacked and making absurd claims that people don't like you asking questions.

What warnings did the CVR make? Alarms were going off indicating a the plane was going to hit. Does it matter if the FDR matches? Do you know it certainly doesn't? Do you know that it was supposed to record the warnings? Do you know if there are other facotrs involved that may be legitimate reasons why it didn't? And what are you implying? That someone put phoney sounds in the cockpit recordings? Or that someone erased data from the FDR? please tell us what you are getting at or how it has any importance.

How can I be sure? I can't. yet you seem more than sure on many issues. You seemed more than sure about the eyewitness accounts and that the debris traveled 2.5 miles in 2 seconds and that that would be impossible. Oh but no assumptions on your part. You just keep forgetting to ask questions.

You don't bring up one point at a time, you bring up selective points and then ignore other ones. I must have asked you about the debris 10 times while you kept using it as evidence of suspicion. You conveniently ignored all those questions. Just as you ignored people talking about the speed of sound and how debris can easily be hurled for long distance. Of course this is all dependent on the type of debris, but you conveniently stopped asking questions there and ignored them. Instead you talked about windspeed and tried to convince us that the debris could only blow around at the speed of the wind, provided the ground wasn't wet.

So various angles? Not at all. More like a few well planned angles. And I HAVE been debating the issues. Many of them you have conveniently ignored. And I will most certainly accuse you of cherry picking.

And believe me, I have understood from the very beginning. Go back to pretending to just ask questions and play victim because you know how much I just hate people asking questions. People asking questions just makes my blood boil ya know.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Is that interview on file somewhere? If so, do you have a link?
I do not see how that could have been true. Are you sure he did not say parts of it?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it must have been parts as well. But the way he said it I got the impression it was rather large pieces, much like Gravy pointed out. I just thought I'd bring it up because I was under the impression that most of it hit the ground and basically disintegrated until I heard him say it bounced. Oh and if it bounced the impression on the ground would probably be different than if is simply smashed and disintegrated.
As you can tell I haven't put much thought into the physics of flight 93 so I'm shutting up now.

Gravy may have the link, or someone must remember the thread it was in. I believe the link I got was on the Loose Change forum, and it had Wallace(Walter?) Millers name in the title. It's an interesting listen for sure.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
And that's about a 50 degree angle, is it not?
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about my lovely picture (you should see my oilpaintings). Yeh I guess you're right. Same idea though.

The engine looks like it when in at a 70 degree angle though, in the wrong direction.

shanksvilleEngine.jpg


This is what the crater looked like:

shanksvilleCrater.jpg


This is how it should look (artistic license soon to be revoked):

shanksvilleCrater2.jpg
 
Gravy said:
Parts. Some of the larger parts were found in the woods, which makes sense. The coroner, Wallace Miller, has mentioned seeing part of the cockpit in the woods, although I don't know if that was confirmed. The largish sections of fuselage that appear in the Moussaoui trial exhibits were in woods.
Click to expand...

Looks like something took the tops off of these trees.

shanksvilleTrees2.jpg
 
Last edited:
So now you're claiming that the way the engine was dug up is the direction is was in when it impacted? Seriously?
 
Devil's Advocate said:
A good explanation. However, how do you determine what is going to make it light or darker based on how the sun is hitting it? What makes it appear darker? Sun from behind, from the front, from the side?
Click to expand...


You determine it based on a knowledge of light, and how it works.



Devil's Advocate said:
Brightness and contrast of the camera makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

We know it was taken on a standard 2001-era consumer digital camera. That means a narrow exposure curve (low contrast) and automatic iris.




Devil's Advocate said:
The reason the plume gave me trouble is that I've never seen jet crash that did not have thick black smoke. Days worth of photos (hundreds) and never once was the smoke anything but black.
Click to expand...


That's really hard to believe. Simply in looking up shots of the WTC it is clearly obvious that smoke can appear differently in different cameras and from different angles. I don't believe it's possible for someone to look up "hundreds" of crash photos and never once see variation in smoke plumes.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
You determine it based on a knowledge of light, and how it works.

We know it was taken on a standard 2001-era consumer digital camera. That means a narrow exposure curve (low contrast) and automatic iris.

That's really hard to believe. Simply in looking up shots of the WTC it is clearly obvious that smoke can appear differently in different cameras and from different angles. I don't believe it's possible for someone to look up "hundreds" of crash photos and never once see variation in smoke plumes.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Please show me an undoctored picture of the WTC impact fireballs that looks like the Shanksville photo. Bear in mind it must be the initial smoke plume as evidenced by no smoke above it.
 
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless
So now you're claiming that the way the engine was dug up is the direction is was in when it impacted? Seriously?
Click to expand...

If you look more carefully, you'll notice it's not dug up yet.
Click to expand...

Read his question it doesn't matter if it's dug up yet. You can still answer him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom