• 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?

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.

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleEngine.jpg[/qimg]

This is what the crater looked like:

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleCrater.jpg[/qimg]

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

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleCrater2.jpg[/qimg]

Wow, interesting find there, GU.
Now you get the fun part of trying to make the impact match the engine location. Plus, determine if the engine is facing the correct direction. Is it backwards?
 
*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.

My god, ...Why are you still bringing up stuff I already said I disregarded? I did not ignore anyone. I read everything that is said and I apply their thoughts. I don't read it and disregard it. I try to apply what they are saying.
No I do not reply to every post, why should I? This is not a popularity contest. I'm sure people would rather me understand them than have to affirm their thoughts. Unless they need a pat on the back.
Read in the very thread you just replied to that I thought the witnesses were mistaken about the time. Through this thread, with posts I replied to and the ones I did not, I applied all the thoughts on it and agreed with some of it.
Again, you assume too much.

About the alarms. That is exactly right. You don't know. That is the point. That is why you raise the questions and maybe someone that knows the answer will answer it. Maybe you get it now.
 
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.

Why on earth would the fireball from one of the WTC impacts look like the smoke plume at Shanksville?

-Gumboot
 
It wasn't a raging forest fire. The fire got put out quickly.


Not quick enough to prevent the fire burning a patch of forest, it appears. This was a raging jet fuel fire. Are you saying a raging forest fire can cause the trunks of burned trees to break, but a raging jet fuel fire cannot?

How long do you think it took the fire department to get to the site? Five minutes? Ten? Half an hour?

-Gumboot
 
Not quick enough to prevent the fire burning a patch of forest, it appears. This was a raging jet fuel fire. Are you saying a raging forest fire can cause the trunks of burned trees to break, but a raging jet fuel fire cannot?

How long do you think it took the fire department to get to the site? Five minutes? Ten? Half an hour?

-Gumboot

Can you get a larger picture of that scene? Perhaps you would be able to see if there are parts of those tree's laying to the sides of them.
If there are, you may be right. If there are not, maybe you're not.
It could be interesting to find out.
 
Wow, interesting find there, GU.
Now you get the fun part of trying to make the impact match the engine location. Plus, determine if the engine is facing the correct direction. Is it backwards?

Do you mean this one I doctored?

shanksvilleCrater2.jpg


I can move the engines out a little...:D

Do you mean the buried one?
 
Not quick enough to prevent the fire burning a patch of forest, it appears. This was a raging jet fuel fire. Are you saying a raging forest fire can cause the trunks of burned trees to break, but a raging jet fuel fire cannot?

How long do you think it took the fire department to get to the site? Five minutes? Ten? Half an hour?

-Gumboot

If you look at the high res picture here you'll see the trunks aren't even charred.
 
If you look at the high res picture here you'll see the trunks aren't even charred.
You don't know much about what happens to evergreens when they burn do you? Most of the foliage is at the top, have you ever thrown pine needles in a fire? The tops burn like hell boil the sap and the tree snaps off.
 
Add to it that the FDR indicated level flight was 15°, so how does that play into the reported 40°, if at all?
You're assuming the level comment is about the aircraft's pitch. It may in fact be referring to the aircraft's roll. There are two aspects to flying level - not climbing or diving, i.e. having a pitch attitude of 0°, and having no roll, i.e. the bank angle is 0°. An aircraft can climb or dive while still having its wings level.
 
You don't know much about what happens to evergreens when they burn do you? Most of the foliage is at the top, have you ever thrown pine needles in a fire? The tops burn like hell boil the sap and the tree snaps off.

Correct me if I'm wrong but those look like deciduous trees to me.
 
Simply in looking up shots of the WTC it is clearly obvious that smoke can appear differently in different cameras and from different angles.
And that's just the physical capturing of the image. Now add in the variations in colour introduced during the correction and reproduction of a photo. As someone who once worked in the graphic arts/publishing business, the issue of accurate colour reproduction is a major one.

A digital image file is in one colour model, RGB, while printed photos are in another colour model, CMYK. You've got issues surrounding the correct calibration of any monitor used to do image processing, you've got issues surrounding the conversion from one colour model to another, you've got issues in regards to what kind of light you view printed material under since different light sources can change the colours, you've got issues surrounding the type of inks and paper used, and so on.

Accurate colour reproduction can be a tricky thing.
 
If you look at the high res picture here you'll see the trunks aren't even charred.


If you look at the photos I sent you, you'll notice trunks that aren't charred too. The trunks of trees generally only burn long after the upper branches have burned. You're also ignoring the black trees to the left of the snapped ones, and the smoke behind.




You told me to look at the WTC pictures here.


No I didn't. I was talking to Devil's Advocate. He claimed the smoke was black in every single aircraft crash image he looked at (hundreds, apparently). I called him a liar.


Correct me if I'm wrong but those look like deciduous trees to me.

It's not really relevant. Although in a photo like that you can't tell a deciduous from an evergreen. Evergreens can be both broadleaf and needleleaf.

-Gumboot
 
GregoryUrich,


I was talking about the buried jet engine. Is it facing the right direction?
Is the upper part the front or the back of the engine? If that is like the engine found in the pentagon, wouldn't the upper part we're seeing be the intake side?
I could be wrong. It just hit me while I was looking at the pentagon engine because it looks similar.
 
GregoryUrich,


I was talking about the buried jet engine. Is it facing the right direction?
Is the upper part the front or the back of the engine? If that is like the engine found in the pentagon, wouldn't the upper part we're seeing be the intake side?
I could be wrong. It just hit me while I was looking at the pentagon engine because it looks similar.



There's no reason to think the engine's final resting position would exactly match the impact trajectory of the aircraft.

-Gumboot
 
No I didn't. I was talking to Devil's Advocate. He claimed the smoke was black in every single aircraft crash image he looked at (hundreds, apparently). I called him a liar.

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed personal attack
How are you going to try and play such a weak card?
Is it just jet fuel that is burning at the WTC? No.
I was talking about aircraft that hit the ground and you know it.


DA, keep in mind that the CT sub-forum is under a stricter interpretation of the membership agreement, which requires you to remain civil to other members. I have removed the offending sentence - in the future, please attack the argument, and not the person making the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top Bottom