Notices
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 701 to 787 of 787

Thread: 9/11 science

  1. #701  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Ignoring the fact of course that what is piledriving is the combined weight of all the floors above as the building pancaked. Do you know anything about physics?
    No. I believe he does not. He seems the idiot troll, who sticks to an effective dogma conspiracy. Not worth the time, seeing as how he will not contribute anything of any merit nor use to the discussion. Only ignorant conspiracy bs
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #702  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He's not accounting for inertia, which is the dominant issue that's primarily driving the collapse. It's the fact that once the top portion was already in motion, the force required to stop its motion in an amount of time short enough to prevent it smashing through the next layer would far exceed the strength of the materials on that layer. And of course, most of those materials are only strong when they don't deform.
    Only problem is that there ain't no top part of the building. Do you see it, or anything, crushing the (uncompromised) structure below? NO. All that is visible is a front of explosions working from the top of the building down. there is no "piledriver" mass smashing anything. Just violent explosions ejecting material laterally -- and therefore preventing the material from contributing to any "piledriver" mass.
    The floors don't have to be intact in order to pile drive. Shards of rubble will do just fine. As long as the mass is there, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to suggest that the mass of the upper floors just vanished?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #703  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    and, for the record, david chandler is a bumbling moron
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #704  
    Forum Freshman starlarvae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    L-5
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He's not accounting for inertia, which is the dominant issue that's primarily driving the collapse. It's the fact that once the top portion was already in motion, the force required to stop its motion in an amount of time short enough to prevent it smashing through the next layer would far exceed the strength of the materials on that layer. And of course, most of those materials are only strong when they don't deform.
    Only problem is that there ain't no top part of the building. Do you see it, or anything, crushing the (uncompromised) structure below? NO. All that is visible is a front of explosions working from the top of the building down. there is no "piledriver" mass smashing anything. Just violent explosions ejecting material laterally -- and therefore preventing the material from contributing to any "piledriver" mass.
    The floors don't have to be intact in order to pile drive. Shards of rubble will do just fine. As long as the mass is there, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to suggest that the mass of the upper floors just vanished?
    Do you grasp the meaning of "ejected laterally"? The mass is blown out sideways. It is not available to contribute to the "piledriver" because it is blown over the edge and can be seen falling NEXT TO the remaining structure, not piling up on top of it. You can see it for yourself.

    Thought experiment: Two bags are suspended six feet above your head. One holds a one-pound lead ingot. The other holds one pound of confetti. I will cut the bottom from one of the bags, releasing its content onto your head. You get to pick. Which one should I slice open? Remember, the contents of the two bags are of equal weight. Now, do "shards" matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #705  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He's not accounting for inertia, which is the dominant issue that's primarily driving the collapse. It's the fact that once the top portion was already in motion, the force required to stop its motion in an amount of time short enough to prevent it smashing through the next layer would far exceed the strength of the materials on that layer. And of course, most of those materials are only strong when they don't deform.
    Only problem is that there ain't no top part of the building. Do you see it, or anything, crushing the (uncompromised) structure below? NO. All that is visible is a front of explosions working from the top of the building down. there is no "piledriver" mass smashing anything. Just violent explosions ejecting material laterally -- and therefore preventing the material from contributing to any "piledriver" mass.
    The floors don't have to be intact in order to pile drive. Shards of rubble will do just fine. As long as the mass is there, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to suggest that the mass of the upper floors just vanished?
    Do you grasp the meaning of "ejected laterally"? The mass is blown out sideways. It is not available to contribute to the "piledriver" because it is blown over the edge and can be seen falling NEXT TO the remaining structure, not piling up on top of it. You can see it for yourself.

    Thought experiment: Two bags are suspended six feet above your head. One holds a one-pound lead ingot. The other holds one pound of confetti. I will cut the bottom from one of the bags, releasing its content onto your head. You get to pick. Which one should I slice open? Remember, the contents of the two bags are of equal weight. Now, do "shards" matter?
    The entirety of the building wasnt "laterally ejected" perhaps 20% of each floor exploded out the side, that's a pretty fair estimate. 80% of the mass of the floors above is still far more than enough to "piledrive". Seriously, dude, you need to learn physics before you try to challenge the science
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #706  
    Forum Freshman starlarvae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    L-5
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He's not accounting for inertia, which is the dominant issue that's primarily driving the collapse. It's the fact that once the top portion was already in motion, the force required to stop its motion in an amount of time short enough to prevent it smashing through the next layer would far exceed the strength of the materials on that layer. And of course, most of those materials are only strong when they don't deform.
    Only problem is that there ain't no top part of the building. Do you see it, or anything, crushing the (uncompromised) structure below? NO. All that is visible is a front of explosions working from the top of the building down. there is no "piledriver" mass smashing anything. Just violent explosions ejecting material laterally -- and therefore preventing the material from contributing to any "piledriver" mass.
    The floors don't have to be intact in order to pile drive. Shards of rubble will do just fine. As long as the mass is there, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to suggest that the mass of the upper floors just vanished?
    Do you grasp the meaning of "ejected laterally"? The mass is blown out sideways. It is not available to contribute to the "piledriver" because it is blown over the edge and can be seen falling NEXT TO the remaining structure, not piling up on top of it. You can see it for yourself.

    Thought experiment: Two bags are suspended six feet above your head. One holds a one-pound lead ingot. The other holds one pound of confetti. I will cut the bottom from one of the bags, releasing its content onto your head. You get to pick. Which one should I slice open? Remember, the contents of the two bags are of equal weight. Now, do "shards" matter?
    The entirety of the building wasnt "laterally ejected" perhaps 20% of each floor exploded out the side, that's a pretty fair estimate. 80% of the mass of the floors above is still far more than enough to "piledrive". Seriously, dude, you need to learn physics before you try to challenge the science
    I don't care to join you under your bridge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #707  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He's not accounting for inertia, which is the dominant issue that's primarily driving the collapse. It's the fact that once the top portion was already in motion, the force required to stop its motion in an amount of time short enough to prevent it smashing through the next layer would far exceed the strength of the materials on that layer. And of course, most of those materials are only strong when they don't deform.
    Only problem is that there ain't no top part of the building. Do you see it, or anything, crushing the (uncompromised) structure below? NO. All that is visible is a front of explosions working from the top of the building down. there is no "piledriver" mass smashing anything. Just violent explosions ejecting material laterally -- and therefore preventing the material from contributing to any "piledriver" mass.
    The floors don't have to be intact in order to pile drive. Shards of rubble will do just fine. As long as the mass is there, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to suggest that the mass of the upper floors just vanished?
    Do you grasp the meaning of "ejected laterally"? The mass is blown out sideways. It is not available to contribute to the "piledriver" because it is blown over the edge and can be seen falling NEXT TO the remaining structure, not piling up on top of it. You can see it for yourself.

    Thought experiment: Two bags are suspended six feet above your head. One holds a one-pound lead ingot. The other holds one pound of confetti. I will cut the bottom from one of the bags, releasing its content onto your head. You get to pick. Which one should I slice open? Remember, the contents of the two bags are of equal weight. Now, do "shards" matter?
    The entirety of the building wasnt "laterally ejected" perhaps 20% of each floor exploded out the side, that's a pretty fair estimate. 80% of the mass of the floors above is still far more than enough to "piledrive". Seriously, dude, you need to learn physics before you try to challenge the science
    I don't care to join you under your bridge.
    Ha! nice one. Didn't expect that cop-out response. S'all good though, enjoy your ignorant youtube propaganda that ignores all relevant science in favor of the conspiracy theory. I'll take my informed opinion of your dogmatic view any day
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #708  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It would be nice if they put the debris somewhere that everyone can see it.
    If 30+ cars-worth of plane debris was dug out of the ground, there's no way that could be missed. You can't miss the many piles of dirt around the hole they dug, but they expect us to not notice there aren't any piles of plane debris.

    I wish people weren't so livid about the possibility of human remains.
    There weren't any until the FBI planted small body parts by the next day. 9/11 truth researcher, Dominick DiMaggio, interviewed Wally Miller and he said it was the FBI who brought him the small body parts. Miller showed Dom a close-up photo of a half severed arm lying in the middle of a dirt road that was photographed on 9/12. Dom says there's no way they could have missed that the first day, meaning it was obviously planted by the 2nd day.

    That's why the Coroner Wally Miller said how eerie it was he never said a "drop of blood" at the scene. No way 44 people got turned into scrambled eggs without there being a drop of blood at the scene.

    The whole thing was staged. Why do you think the "United plane broke up into thousands and thousands of small pieces," yet only one piece of was ever photographed showing the United logo colors?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #709  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    My apologies for busting in from the peanut gallery, but as a lurker here I feel inclined to note that the Flight 93 story angle is getting a little stale.
    I would like to see some discussion of the building collapse, by some participants who are not flailer's like starlarvae.
    There is lot's of video evidence to be disseminated.
    Here seem's to be a good source;http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive.
    Oh, hey, let's see some equations and math and stuff too, okay?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #710  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Sadly, the conspiracy theorists don't use any science. So, there really is no scientific discussion taking place. Damn near all of the points brought up are appeals to incredulity, or "lack of evidence" appeals followed promptly by a deman for evidence from the forumites unfortunate enough to be attempting a discussion.

    Starlarvae had ONLY an appeal to incredulity and false authority. His argument is, in a word, crap. Just because he says "it was explosions, you can clearly see them!" doesn't mean crap if there I no support for that concept. There is no visual support of the idea that each floor had explosives on it detonating in sequence to only appear as if the collapse was due to structural failure of a middle section of, what, 3 floors? The visual evidence is that the structure collapsed due to failure accross 3 floors of support beams. Lateral ejection of material accounts for maybe 10% of the momentum. The rest was straight down.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #711  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Sadly, the conspiracy theorists don't use any science. So, there really is no scientific discussion taking place. Damn near all of the points brought up are appeals to incredulity, or "lack of evidence" appeals followed promptly by a deman for evidence from the forumites unfortunate enough to be attempting a discussion.
    You know what's even sadder? 80% of a 757 was said to have buried and all the science in the world has been unable to prove that official claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #712  
    Forum Freshman starlarvae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    L-5
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    There is no visual support of the idea that each floor had explosives on it detonating in sequence to only appear as if the collapse was due to structural failure of a middle section of, what, 3 floors? The visual evidence is that the structure collapsed due to failure accross 3 floors of support beams.
    Too juicy. Can't resist.

    Why won't NIST release its computer model of the WTC 7 collapse?

    As for the falling debris from the twin towers, let people arrive at their own empirical conclusions about what percentage of material is going over the edge and what might remain to push down on the uncompromised remaining structure. & BTW, once the smoke cleared, there was no stack of pancaked floors to be found. Maybe they "vaporized" like the jet engines at the Pentagon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

    And be sure to continue sprinkling your troll droppings with "propaganda", "conspiracy", "dogmatic", and such. It makes it easier for newbies to this topic to identify your motives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #713  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Ever notice how a lot of trolls have learned to deflect by calling those who rebut their bullshit... trolls? FFS... starlarvae... I'm sorry to say how obvious your silliness is to seemingly everyone but you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #714  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    There are so many variables to be considered in an analysis of the flight 93 crash.
    Density of the surface it crashed into, dirt can be very soft to almost hard as rock. And how do we adequately verify the state of the dirt at the crash site?
    Is there blackbox data available from the aircraft? Without knowing at least a decent approximation of the planes velocity we can't even solve for F=MA.
    A flight 93 analysis barks up the tree of inconclusiveness.

    With the collapse of the towers there is a whole mountain of video available. From that at least an approximation of aircraft velocities can be obtained. We can all use some trig practice, right?
    It's possible that WTC floorplans might be classified, but there should be some video of the construction phase somewhere. Steel is a well understood material.
    Really I haven't seen much math from either side of this debate, the theorist's or the debunker's. It's not like there's masses and velocities involved that require relativistic adjustments.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #715  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Conspiracy theories foul the genuine pursuit of truth. I suspect that 93 was simply shot down, as it should have been, half-an-hour after pilots made the distress call. But that solution would underwhelm everybody.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #716  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    A flight 93 analysis barks up the tree of inconclusiveness.
    The only thing that really matters is where most of the wreckage was said to be (underground) and the failure of any hard evidence proving it was down there, therefore the FBI lied and that equals a conspiracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #717  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Conspiracy theories foul the genuine pursuit of truth. I suspect that 93 was simply shot down, as it should have been
    So they foul the genuine pursuit of truth, but you offer up a conspiracy theory anyway?!

    Btw, nothing was shot down. If it was shot in the area and the bulk of the plane landed in that field, you'd have debris leading up to the crater, not the other way around. There was many witnesses who saw "the plane" fly over Indian Lake, contrary to the official flight path which flew in from the opposite side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #718  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Sadly, the conspiracy theorists don't use any science. So, there really is no scientific discussion taking place. Damn near all of the points brought up are appeals to incredulity, or "lack of evidence" appeals followed promptly by a deman for evidence from the forumites unfortunate enough to be attempting a discussion.
    You know what's even sadder? 80% of a 757 was said to have buried and all the science in the world has been unable to prove that official claim.
    That's not how science works. Youve been told that. Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves. Science supports the plausibility of the official report. You've been told that too. Quit obfuscating concepts to be what they aren't.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #719  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves.
    And I've disproved many aspects of the official story through science. You've been shown that.

    Science supports the plausibility of the official report. You've been told that too.
    Your "creative" science may!

    On the topic of science disproving things, I have another one for you. First I want to be clear on your position. Do you believe the following photo shows a true crater, or a filled-back-in-hole that just happens to look like a crater?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #720  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Conspiracy theories foul the genuine pursuit of truth. I suspect that 93 was simply shot down, as it should have been
    So they foul the genuine pursuit of truth, but you offer up a conspiracy theory anyway?!
    There is no conspiracy in forcing down a known suicide-mission plane, when this has happened in the past (cessnas and ultralights flying into the White House) and government made public & explicit policy to shoot down such threats. A conspiracy is a plan to deceive the public.

    I suspect that as the public (the media) eagerly developed a much-needed heroic narrative for 93, people in the know simply couldn't stomach voicing the awkward truth.

    Those who believe 9/11 a sinister government plot aren't going to like my theory either.

    EDIT: BTW I've read the crash site variously described as a field, an abandoned strip-mine, and as a landfill. My impression was that most of the wreckage fell in the adjacent forest, but news photographers naively focused on litter-filled excavations visible from the road.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #721  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves.
    And I've disproved many aspects of the official story through science. You've been shown that.

    Science supports the plausibility of the official report. You've been told that too.
    Your "creative" science may!

    On the topic of science disproving things, I have another one for you. First I want to be clear on your position. Do you believe the following photo shows a true crater, or a filled-back-in-hole that just happens to look like a crater?

    Honestly, I don't know. I've never seen an impact crater for myself. Look's pretty burnt.

    Here, I just did a quick search and came up with this site; http://joeidoni.smugmug.com/Aircraft...6_QP6pC#P-1-10
    The photo's of impact craters from this site are very regular appearing.
    Your photo of the flight 93 site shows an irregular crater.
    Sort of interesting, but in no way conclusive.

    As far as science only proving or disproving, I'd say it assigns probabilities.
    Really guy's, we can discuss the philosophy of science in another thread.
    We need to build a model and solve for F=MA.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #722  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by starlarvae
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    There is no visual support of the idea that each floor had explosives on it detonating in sequence to only appear as if the collapse was due to structural failure of a middle section of, what, 3 floors? The visual evidence is that the structure collapsed due to failure accross 3 floors of support beams.
    Too juicy. Can't resist.

    Why won't NIST release its computer model of the WTC 7 collapse?

    As for the falling debris from the twin towers, let people arrive at their own empirical conclusions about what percentage of material is going over the edge and what might remain to push down on the uncompromised remaining structure. & BTW, once the smoke cleared, there was no stack of pancaked floors to be found. Maybe they "vaporized" like the jet engines at the Pentagon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

    And be sure to continue sprinkling your troll droppings with "propaganda", "conspiracy", "dogmatic", and such. It makes it easier for newbies to this topic to identify your motives.
    Or, perhaps, when the massive amount of building that fell hit the bottom, it mushroomed out and spilled all over the surrounding streets as concrete dust and rubble. That's a pretty damned logical thought, dontcha think? Momentum, instead of stopping, shifted laterally when it COULD NOT continue dropping downward towards the ground. I would NEVER expect to see a nice "pancake stack" from a building that collapsed outside of a planned and controlled demolition, and those 3 buildings collapses were anything but controlled, at least as far as the physical and visual evidence show.

    I personally don't care why they don't give full disclosure of their findings, nor do I think its all that relevant to the theory
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves.
    And I've disproved many aspects of the official story through science. You've been shown that.

    Science supports the plausibility of the official report. You've been told that too.
    Your "creative" science may!

    On the topic of science disproving things, I have another one for you. First I want to be clear on your position. Do you believe the following photo shows a true crater, or a filled-back-in-hole that just happens to look like a crater?

    It looks like a scorched patch of earth, a notable divot in the ground compared to the surrounding field. It looks like what would be expected if a hole's walls collapsed in. It looks somewhat like a shallow crater, burned all around the impact area. It also resembles a wave in the ground, which could have been caused by anything. It's not exactly evidence of anything aside high heat at the site.

    As an aside, you haven't presented ANY science in ANY of your posts. You conflate terms to make them seem far more important or wild than they are. you keep saying "30+ cars worth of debris" as if its a trigger that that amount is a LOT of a debris, when in all reality, it isn't. We went over that, and you apparently ignored my comment on that. oh well.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #723  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    There is no conspiracy in forcing down a known suicide-mission plane, when this has happened in the past (cessnas and ultralights flying into the White House) and government made public & explicit policy to shoot down such threats. A conspiracy is a plan to deceive the public.
    There'd be a conspiracy to cover it up.

    I suspect that as the public (the media) eagerly developed a much-needed heroic narrative for 93, people in the know simply couldn't stomach voicing the awkward truth.
    Back to science, science disproves a shoot-down. If there was a shoot-down, there'd be debris leading up to the field. There was none.

    Santorum said there is no indication of the plane having been shot down.

    "From what we've observed on the ground, there was no airplane debris subsequent to the crash site," said Santorum.

    He said that it confirmed the FBI's observation that there wasn't a missile strike.

    Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/961094/deta...#ixzz1NOKAAsOo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #724  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Honestly, I don't know. I've never seen an impact crater for myself. Look's pretty burnt.
    It's hardly burnt. Here's a better look:

    Hi-res

    There's only a little bit of soot marks where the alleged right wing hit (remember is allegedly crashed upside-down).

    Have you ever seen a plane crash where the fuel damage stayed within the crater and not fan out across the ground, such as this real plane crash:



    Your photo of the flight 93 site shows an irregular crater.
    Sort of interesting, but in no way conclusive.

    As far as science only proving or disproving, I'd say it assigns probabilities.
    An irregular detail give evidence to a staged crash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #725  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    It looks like a scorched patch of earth, a notable divot in the ground compared to the surrounding field. It looks like what would be expected if a hole's walls collapsed in. It looks somewhat like a shallow crater, burned all around the impact area. It also resembles a wave in the ground, which could have been caused by anything. It's not exactly evidence of anything aside high heat at the site.
    So you believe this crater is really a filled-back-in-hole?

    As an aside, you haven't presented ANY science in ANY of your posts.
    You can deny it all you want. For instance, you still believe the ground was loose so the plane could easily burrow through even though I explained to you guys you can't have a 45ft-deep field of loose filled-back-in dirt. The refill trucks would get stuck in only a few feet of the loose soil. They have to pack down the refilled soil after each dumping of a couple feet of it. The whole "loose dirt" claim is one of the many lies of the Shanksville incident.

    You conflate terms to make them seem far more important or wild than they are. you keep saying "30+ cars worth of debris" as if its a trigger that that amount is a LOT of a debris, when in all reality, it isn't. We went over that, and you apparently ignored my comment on that. oh well.
    Not a lot of debris? You are teetering on delusional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #726  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Do you even see evidence that one cars-worth of debris coming out of that hole, no less 32?!

    Do you see any plane debris stacked up in piles around the crater like all those tons of dirt mounds?!

    All those dirt mounds look like enough dirt to fill back the excavated hole level, as if no plane buried there, huh?!
    http://killtown.911review.org/images...ebris-epa4.jpg
    I see MUCH more than 1 cars worth of debris in this container.

    Again, why are we beating this topic?
    Because you don't even answer my questions correctly. You're talking about a dumpster with no visible UA colored debris that you can't even tell where the dumpster was parked and have no idea where that debris came from (i.e. from above ground, or allegedly excavated), not withstanding there's no where close to 32 cars-worth of debris in that ONE dumpster--what, 7 cars-worth maybe?

    Please answer my questions.
    Oh for fucks sake... You're seriously that stupid... I'm done with you, nothing gets through your head, and like magic, you expect me to answer all o your questions when rarely you are capable of answering my questions. I'm tired of talking in circles, and telling you the same thing over and over.


    Fun fact, did you know a 3000 pound car can be crushed into 1.5 ft cube?
    for 32 cars, in 1.5ft cubes, we have 108 cubic feet. 108 cubic feet of debris. That's not that much. that fits nicely in a 6ft by 6ft by 3ft space... is that a LOT of debris, Killtown? well? the size of a kiddy pool, that's what the debris would fit into, and thats a lot?

    i dont know about you, but that seems like a small amount to me. much less than "30+ cars worth of debris" sounds like
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #727  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    i dont know about you, but that seems like a small amount to me. much less than "30+ cars worth of debris" sounds like
    Here's what about 30 crushed cars looks like:



    Little far from looking "small" to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #728  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    i dont know about you, but that seems like a small amount to me. much less than "30+ cars worth of debris" sounds like
    Here's what about 30 crushed cars looks like:



    Little far from looking "small" to me.
    Small is a relative term. Is it larger than the material recovered from the site? If so, by how much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #729  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Small is a relative term. Is it larger than the material recovered from the site? If so, by how much?
    I don't know. Please show me the alleged recovered debris from the alleged hole and let's compare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #730  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    A conspiracy is a plan to deceive the public.
    There'd be a conspiracy to cover it up.
    Remaining silent when someone farts in the elevator, is not conspiracy. While senators praise the heroism of average Americans, with God Bless America and mourner's wailing in the background, only an asshole would interject. Americans needed their encouraging story then.

    You could say I "conspired" also, by remaining silent on this when talking with Americans. Discretion is built of white lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    If there was a shoot-down, there'd be debris leading up to the field. There was none.
    Your second statement is nearly decisive. Because I work on the assumption no one actually lied outright, or conspired to deceive, the stated location(s) of plane parts is true. This is not quite decisive because we don't what happens when fighters bring a passenger jet down by force. Does a remarkable mass of debris necessarily fall elsewhere? The opinion of a military person would be helpful.

    I *guess* that air-to-air missiles would be used. I *guess* that these would either seek a hot engine, and disable it, or seek the center of their target image so probably pass through the fuselage.

    If 93 *was not* shot down, we might ask what went wrong. Considering the timeline and established procedure, it really should have been downed.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #731  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    My apologies for busting in from the peanut gallery, but as a lurker here I feel inclined to note that the Flight 93 story angle is getting a little stale.
    I would like to see some discussion of the building collapse, by some participants who are not flailer's like starlarvae.
    There is lot's of video evidence to be disseminated.
    Here seem's to be a good source;http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive.
    Oh, hey, let's see some equations and math and stuff too, okay?

    I tried discussing Steven Jone's (The physics professor at BYU) version of the collapse with some people on another thread, comparing NIST's reports on the fires with Alex Jone's theory of nano-thermite, but then the whole thread just died. I don't want to kill this thread too, so I've been restraining myself from discussing it here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...28393&start=30

    NIST's report on the fires can be found here.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    There are so many variables to be considered in an analysis of the flight 93 crash.
    Density of the surface it crashed into, dirt can be very soft to almost hard as rock. And how do we adequately verify the state of the dirt at the crash site?
    Is there blackbox data available from the aircraft? Without knowing at least a decent approximation of the planes velocity we can't even solve for F=MA.
    A flight 93 analysis barks up the tree of inconclusiveness.
    The National Transport and Safety Board reported the speed of impact as being 563 mph. I think that number comes from the black box.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...light_93#Crash





    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It would be nice if they put the debris somewhere that everyone can see it.
    If 30+ cars-worth of plane debris was dug out of the ground, there's no way that could be missed. You can't miss the many piles of dirt around the hole they dug, but they expect us to not notice there aren't any piles of plane debris.

    I wish people weren't so livid about the possibility of human remains.
    There weren't any until the FBI planted small body parts by the next day. 9/11 truth researcher, Dominick DiMaggio, interviewed Wally Miller and he said it was the FBI who brought him the small body parts. Miller showed Dom a close-up photo of a half severed arm lying in the middle of a dirt road that was photographed on 9/12. Dom says there's no way they could have missed that the first day, meaning it was obviously planted by the 2nd day.

    That's why the Coroner Wally Miller said how eerie it was he never said a "drop of blood" at the scene. No way 44 people got turned into scrambled eggs without there being a drop of blood at the scene.

    The whole thing was staged. Why do you think the "United plane broke up into thousands and thousands of small pieces," yet only one piece of was ever photographed showing the United logo colors?
    You know it's possible that both

    A) - A real plane was purposefully crashed in that field (with the conditions preset to ensure the wreckage would be mangled beyond recognition)

    And

    B) - The crashed plane had no passengers aboard, which necessitated the planting of severed body parts by one or a few well placed co-conspirators inside the FBI. (Not "The FBI" as an organization.)

    All the solid evidence you've presented so far supports that position. Why stage the scene when you can much more easily rig a real plane to fly by remote control and actually create the scene? Why kill an ant with a howitzer?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #732  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I found this awesome photo today from a discussion on a different site. Thought I'd post it for this thread.




    That is a horizontal truss shown during construction of the WTC. I think it is anyway...... You can see why the trusses might have been susceptible to being heated.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #733  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Small is a relative term. Is it larger than the material recovered from the site? If so, by how much?
    I don't know. Please show me the alleged recovered debris from the alleged hole and let's compare.
    you're passing the buck here. You know we have no photos of that, and have no access. Why do you ask for something you know you will not receive, and repeat that tactic over and over
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #734  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I found this awesome photo today from a discussion on a different site. Thought I'd post it for this thread.




    That is a horizontal truss shown during construction of the WTC. I think it is anyway...... You can see why the trusses might have been susceptible to being heated.
    That would appear to be a floating floor assembly from a WTC tower. I heard somewhere that floating floor assemblies were used because the tower displayed a significant amount of sway.
    I can see something like that collapsing fairly easily. But then there's not much mass involved in that structure, it's not a significant vertical support structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I tried discussing Steven Jone's (The physics professor at BYU) version of the collapse with some people on another thread, comparing NIST's reports on the fires with Alex Jone's theory of nano-thermite, but then the whole thread just died. I don't want to kill this thread too, so I've been restraining myself from discussing it here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...28393&start=30

    NIST's report on the fires can be found here.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5.pdf
    There's also this; http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.htm
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #735  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    you're passing the buck here. You know we have no photos of that, and have no access. Why do you ask for something you know you will not receive, and repeat that tactic over and over
    Right, I guess we'll have to rely on logic and reason. What logical and reasonable explanation can you give to explain why this amount of debris was never seen coming out of the 45ft hole that was supposedly caused by 80% of a Boeing 757?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #736  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    you're passing the buck here. You know we have no photos of that, and have no access. Why do you ask for something you know you will not receive, and repeat that tactic over and over
    Right, I guess we'll have to rely on logic and reason. What logical and reasonable explanation can you give to explain why this amount of debris was never seen coming out of the 45ft hole that was supposedly caused by 80% of a Boeing 757?

    I wasn't there. I don't know how much debris came out of that 45' hole. But, I can tell you one thing, I know WELL over that amount of debris could FIT into that hole. I have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy by some sect of the government to make us think that debris was in that hole when it wasn't. So, I can offer you the logical conclusion I have made. The government said that a plane crashed there. I have seen no evidence showing that to be impossible, even if the method of the crash wasn't explicitly as the government made it to be, and as such I believe a plane crashed into an empty field in shanksville, as reported by eyewitness and government sources alike.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #737  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I don't know how much debris came out of that 45' hole. But, I can tell you one thing, I know WELL over that amount of debris could FIT into that hole.
    So you think all of this debris...


    and all of these piles of dirt...



    BOTH fit in that hole???

    The piles of dirt themselves look like enough to fill back in the hole flush to me.

    I have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy by some sect of the government to make us think that debris was in that hole when it wasn't. So, I can offer you the logical conclusion I have made. The government said that a plane crashed there.
    I'm asking for a logical and reasonable explanation as to how that much plane debris could come out of that hole without anybody noticing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #738  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown

    BOTH fit in that hole???

    The piles of dirt themselves look like enough to fill back in the hole flush to me.

    I have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy by some sect of the government to make us think that debris was in that hole when it wasn't. So, I can offer you the logical conclusion I have made. The government said that a plane crashed there.
    I'm asking for a logical and reasonable explanation as to how that much plane debris could come out of that hole without anybody noticing.
    All or most of the aluminum would probably have melted. The molten liquid would then fuse with the surrounding dirt, so, they'd have to be counting that aluminum-mixed-with-dirt slag as part of the wreckage. That could definitely skew their % of wreckage recovered estimate, unless someone is able to accurately measure how much of the slag is dirt and how much is aluminum.

    The other thing to consider is the possibility that the displaced dirt displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, so that the total displacement of dirt was absorbed throughout the entire valley. It wouldn't happen in a low speed collision, but I can't say for sure it wouldn't happen in a high speed one. Think what happens to a lake when you dive into it. Nobody asks where the water went to make room for your body.




    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Wow. That article really nails the issue.

    Ultra thin chips of a substance which reacts similar to nano-thermite that hasn't been set off yet (similar total energy released when ignited in a laboratory, similar composition, similarly low ignition temp, and burns hot enough to melt iron in such a manner so it forms spheres). It also looks like nanothermite under a microscope, with the size of the grains being nano-sized, and it made up 0.1% of the mass of the dust samples, indicating there must have been a lot of it present.

    So..... what exactly is the question that is left for OS advocates? The odds that it is unreacted nanothermite residue aren't quite 100% (because nothing in science ever quite reaches 100% certainty), but it's damn close.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #739  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Wow. That article really nails the issue.

    Ultra thin chips of a substance which reacts similar to nano-thermite that hasn't been set off yet (similar total energy released when ignited in a laboratory, similar composition, similarly low ignition temp, and burns hot enough to melt iron in such a manner so it forms spheres). It also looks like nanothermite under a microscope, with the size of the grains being nano-sized, and it made up 0.1% of the mass of the dust samples, indicating there must have been a lot of it present.

    So..... what exactly is the question that is left for OS advocates? The odds that it is unreacted nanothermite residue aren't quite 100% (because nothing in science ever quite reaches 100% certainty), but it's damn close.
    It would be prudent to do some research(google) on the journal publishing the article, and the people generating the article.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #740  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    So you think all of this debris...
    <snip>

    and all of these piles of dirt...
    <snip>
    BOTH fit in that hole???

    The piles of dirt themselves look like enough to fill back in the hole flush to me.
    Yes. I think that. Dirt is rather compressible, and when its dug up it becomes stirred and rather airy. I believe that would all fit, Again, its a 6x6x3 foot rectangular prism. that isn't very much compared to the dirt piles next to the hole. As I said, its a relatively small volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy by some sect of the government to make us think that debris was in that hole when it wasn't. So, I can offer you the logical conclusion I have made. The government said that a plane crashed there.
    I'm asking for a logical and reasonable explanation as to how that much plane debris could come out of that hole without anybody noticing.
    That's impossible, but why would I ever have reason to believe that that happened? Why should I think no one saw the debris come out, because you said so?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #741  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Wow. That article really nails the issue.

    Ultra thin chips of a substance which reacts similar to nano-thermite that hasn't been set off yet (similar total energy released when ignited in a laboratory, similar composition, similarly low ignition temp, and burns hot enough to melt iron in such a manner so it forms spheres). It also looks like nanothermite under a microscope, with the size of the grains being nano-sized, and it made up 0.1% of the mass of the dust samples, indicating there must have been a lot of it present.

    So..... what exactly is the question that is left for OS advocates? The odds that it is unreacted nanothermite residue aren't quite 100% (because nothing in science ever quite reaches 100% certainty), but it's damn close.
    It would be prudent to do some research(google) on the journal publishing the article, and the people generating the article.
    True. However I noticed that Steven Jones is one of the people listed as a participant at the top of the paper.

    The academic community's treatment of him is just atrocious. Nobody attempts to refute his findings. They just make fun of him or point out that BYU decided to force him into early retirement. (I attended BYU for 2 years. It's a decent institution, but if there is any college that would have made a decision like that for a purely political reason such as not wanting to appear "anti-establishment" it's BYU)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #742  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    All or most of the aluminum would probably have melted.
    Why? How? Most of the plane supposedly buried and the earth supposedly caved in on itself, sealing the alleged hole.

    The molten liquid would then fuse with the surrounding dirt, so, they'd have to be counting that aluminum-mixed-with-dirt slag as part of the wreckage.
    Then where is the evidence of that? The FBI said they recovered 95% of the plane. I just see dirt piles with rocks mixed in.

    The other thing to consider is the possibility that the displaced dirt displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, so that the total displacement of dirt was absorbed throughout the entire valley.
    The ONLY displaced dirt is the dirt pushed off to the side of the crater in the direction of the damaged forest. The amount of pushed-off dirt looks to be the same amount that would fill back in the crater flush. That means NOTHING was buried.

    The whole thing was a hoax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #743  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Yes. I think that. Dirt is rather compressible, and when its dug up it becomes stirred and rather airy.
    I meant flush when you packed the dirt back in.

    I believe that would all fit, Again, its a 6x6x3 foot rectangular prism. that isn't very much compared to the dirt piles next to the hole. As I said, its a relatively small volume.
    Was there a smelter underground? I love how you try to make it seem like the recovered plane debris would be mega-packed down into small cubes, but the dug out dirt would be in airy piles.

    Why should I think no one saw the debris come out, because you said so?
    Show me the evidence someone did. That was 30+ cars-worth of plane debris the supposedly came out of the ground. I keep hearing there were so many people at the scene that staging it would be illogical. SOMEONE must of saw something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #744  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    All or most of the aluminum would probably have melted.
    Why? How? Most of the plane supposedly buried and the earth supposedly caved in on itself, sealing the alleged hole.
    Aluminum has a fairly low melting point, as metals go. About 600 degrees Celsius. Probably the impact crater would have been hot for some time after the crash.

    The molten liquid would then fuse with the surrounding dirt, so, they'd have to be counting that aluminum-mixed-with-dirt slag as part of the wreckage.
    Then where is the evidence of that? The FBI said they recovered 95% of the plane. I just see dirt piles with rocks mixed in.
    Good question. Either the FBI is exaggerating, or there would have to be some aluminum-dirt slag among the debris they claim to have recovered.

    The other thing to consider is the possibility that the displaced dirt displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, which displaced more dirt, so that the total displacement of dirt was absorbed throughout the entire valley.
    The ONLY displaced dirt is the dirt pushed off to the side of the crater in the direction of the damaged forest. The amount of pushed-off dirt looks to be the same amount that would fill back in the crater flush. That means NOTHING was buried.

    The whole thing was a hoax.
    [/quote]

    It's like if you dive into a large lake of water. The overall water level might raise some fraction of a millimeter, but there's no clear way of saying which specific drops of water moved where in order to make room for your body.

    It's possible that the dirt in the whole field did the same thing, and just raised slightly over a wide distance around the crash.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #745  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Yes. I think that. Dirt is rather compressible, and when its dug up it becomes stirred and rather airy.
    I meant flush when you packed the dirt back in.
    I know

    I believe that would all fit, Again, its a 6x6x3 foot rectangular prism. that isn't very much compared to the dirt piles next to the hole. As I said, its a relatively small volume.
    Was there a smelter underground? I love how you try to make it seem like the recovered plane debris would be mega-packed down into small cubes, but the dug out dirt would be in airy piles.
    the pieces would be small and buried in dirt without being surrounded by air. Same thing. Not my fault you don't understand the concept.

    Why should I think no one saw the debris come out, because you said so?
    Show me the evidence someone did. That was 30+ cars-worth of plane debris the supposedly came out of the ground. I keep hearing there were so many people at the scene that staging it would be illogical. SOMEONE must of saw something.
    I have no evidence. Im not going to tell you again. Quit asking me for what I dont have. What you said is illogical, evidence or no. Im arguing logic, not your bullshit conspiracy. I like the science, the possibility and probability of events. not the incoherent mumblings related to some conspiracy nutter. You have failed to convince me because you have provided no scientific basis for why the points you raise cant happen in some way to at least be close to what was claimed to have happened.



    Kojax, the metal would not reach temperatures high enough to melt aluminum... The dirt would absorb A LOT of the heat. Sorry
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #746  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    Kojax, the metal would not reach temperatures high enough to melt aluminum... The dirt would absorb A LOT of the heat. Sorry
    It's true that it would, but the absorption wouldn't be instantaneous. There would be a short period of time when the aluminum was very hot before the heat could be conducted away. The heat might not be just from the burning fuel. It could also come from the considerable friction involved in the impact.




    This engine looks like it has suffered considerable heat damage, in addition to being smashed. And the engine block would have been made out of highly heat resistant material.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #747  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Probably the impact crater would have been hot for some time after the crash.
    Most of the plane was supposedly under that, surrounded by cold soil.

    Good question. Either the FBI is exaggerating, or there would have to be some aluminum-dirt slag among the debris they claim to have recovered.
    And since there was no aluminum-dirt slag, nor debris, all evidence points to the FBI exaggerating (i.e. lying).

    It's like if you dive into a large lake of water. The overall water level might raise some fraction of a millimeter, but there's no clear way of saying which specific drops of water moved where in order to make room for your body.

    It's possible that the dirt in the whole field did the same thing, and just raised slightly over a wide distance around the crash.
    The ONLY evidence of displaced dirt on the outside is the small amount that was pushed off to the side in the direction of the damaged forest, the SAME amount that would fill the crater back in flush. PROOF nothing buried.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #748  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I know
    So proof nothing was buried.

    the pieces would be small and buried in dirt without being surrounded by air. Same thing. Not my fault you don't understand the concept.
    How do you know the pieces underground would be small if you have no evidence of them?

    I have no evidence.
    You believe most of the plane buried, but you have no evidence of that? That sounds insane.

    Im not going to tell you again. Quit asking me for what I dont have. What you said is illogical, evidence or no. Im arguing logic, not your bullshit conspiracy.
    You're arguing logic, but you have no logical explanation how 30+ cars-worth of debris could be missing coming out of the ground???

    I like the science, the possibility and probability of events. not the incoherent mumblings related to some conspiracy nutter.
    You forgot the add one more thing you like, ad-hom attacks. Where does that fit into science?!

    You have failed to convince me because you have provided no scientific basis for why the points you raise cant happen in some way to at least be close to what was claimed to have happened.
    I'm starting to think you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. But keep thinking most of the 757 was under that shallow crater if it makes your world happier. Some people rather live the comfortable lie, rather than the painful truth. Sweet dreams.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #749  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    This engine looks like it has suffered considerable heat damage, in addition to being smashed. And the engine block would have been made out of highly heat resistant material.
    kojax, that engine scrap is planted.

    Notice that engine scrap is only 3-4ft underground, yet we are told the plane burrowed down to a depth of about 40ft and the two black boxes were supposedly found at 15ft and 25ft. It was supposedly dug up on the 13th, the same day they supposed "found" the first black box at 15ft. Notice that engine scrap is not embedded in the dirt with no dirt caked on it. That's because they just lowed an old smashed dirt-free engine down in the partially excavated crater via the backhoe bucket. Notice no melted aluminum slurry. And notice none of the workers or their heavy equipment is sinking in the "loose soil."

    It was all staged to hoodwink us. That's why there's only one photo of what looks like plane debris being dug out of the "hole" and why they never bothered to show the plane's other engine, because there was none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #750  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I know
    So proof nothing was buried.
    proof of nothing

    the pieces would be small and buried in dirt without being surrounded by air. Same thing. Not my fault you don't understand the concept.
    How do you know the pieces underground would be small if you have no evidence of them?
    Logically, they would be small enough. More specifically, they would be open, not closed units. All that is recuired is them to be open for this to hold true.

    I have no evidence.
    You believe most of the plane buried, but you have no evidence of that? That sounds insane.
    Does it? I believe what was reported. I believe it wasn't a massive contrived lie latent with conspiracy, because I see no evidence supporting that position. Thats pretty sane compared to your incoherent babblings.

    Im not going to tell you again. Quit asking me for what I dont have. What you said is illogical, evidence or no. Im arguing logic, not your bullshit conspiracy.
    You're arguing logic, but you have no logical explanation how 30+ cars-worth of debris could be missing coming out of the ground???
    There is no logical explanation for that. However, its also illogical to assume its missing. Its somewhere, YOU just don't know where, which means nothing to the plot of the events.

    I like the science, the possibility and probability of events. not the incoherent mumblings related to some conspiracy nutter.
    You forgot the add one more thing you like, ad-hom attacks. Where does that fit into science?!
    It doesn't. It fits into my personality. When I deal with someone who dogmatically sticks to their guns and argues for the sake of arguing, it devolves on my end to ad hom since the science is cleanly ignored.

    You have failed to convince me because you have provided no scientific basis for why the points you raise cant happen in some way to at least be close to what was claimed to have happened.
    I'm starting to think you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. But keep thinking most of the 757 was under that shallow crater if it makes your world happier. Some people rather live the comfortable lie, rather than the painful truth. Sweet dreams.
    Seriously dude. I argue it CAN happen, COULD have been there, and that there is no reason to believe that the report on the burying crash is wrong. You fail to show it is, and argue incredulity up and down the board. You have no sound logical basis, only a fallacious argument. Continue with the self-perpetuating bullshit conspiracy if you want. It changes nothing of what happened or what we will see about what happened. Whether or not there was a massive government conspiracy is not my concern. Whether or not there is a reason to disbelieve the governments report on an event that fits logically into the end results, is my concern. I see no reason to not believe what they've reported about the debris. Its logically consistent. You are not logically consistent. I have no reason to believe you.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #751  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    Kojax, the metal would not reach temperatures high enough to melt aluminum... The dirt would absorb A LOT of the heat. Sorry
    It's true that it would, but the absorption wouldn't be instantaneous. There would be a short period of time when the aluminum was very hot before the heat could be conducted away. The heat might not be just from the burning fuel. It could also come from the considerable friction involved in the impact.




    This engine looks like it has suffered considerable heat damage, in addition to being smashed. And the engine block would have been made out of highly heat resistant material.
    The heat would mostly come from the friction of impact. But even with that and the burning fuel, the dirt would carry the heat away fast enough to prevent it from reaching the required temperature. Trust me.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #752  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    I love how you try to make it seem like the recovered plane debris would be mega-packed down into small cubes, but the dug out dirt would be in airy piles.
    Do you think you should be trying to make a case when you clearly have almost no knowledge of materials science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #753  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    I love how you try to make it seem like the recovered plane debris would be mega-packed down into small cubes, but the dug out dirt would be in airy piles.
    Do you think you should be trying to make a case when you clearly have almost no knowledge of materials science?
    none at all whatsoever
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #754  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The heat would mostly come from the friction of impact. But even with that and the burning fuel, the dirt would carry the heat away fast enough to prevent it from reaching the required temperature. Trust me.
    I was originally skeptical of you saying this, but now that I've researched the topic a bit more I guess it makes sense. On the other hand, human remains also wouldn't have burned up in the fires unless a very high temperature was reached at least momentarily.

    Going off of this site, soil rich in sand and/or clay has a little over half as much thermal conductivity as water.

    http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/me...ection6/2.html

    And, if you have the patience to read through this report (I skimmed it by just searching for the word "soil" and reading the text around it), apparently the soil near Stony Creek (the town nearest the crash site) does have quite a lot of clay and sand in it. Hopefully Ophiolite could shed more light on this topic. It's certainly not my area.

    http://twp-york.org/features/Stony%2...Management.pdf

    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #755  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Do you think you should be trying to make a case when you clearly have almost no knowledge of materials science?
    Are you like Arcane's lapdog, or something? lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #756  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    I love how you try to make it seem like the recovered plane debris would be mega-packed down into small cubes, but the dug out dirt would be in airy piles.
    Do you think you should be trying to make a case when you clearly have almost no knowledge of materials science?
    none at all whatsoever
    Look who's talking!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #757  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    If there was so much heat that it melted parts of the plane into a slag, don't you think the media would have been told this fascinating fact and reported it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #758  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    If there was so much heat that it melted parts of the plane into a slag, don't you think the media would have been told this fascinating fact and reported it?
    Not if it's to be expected.

    660.32 C, or 1220.58 F (the melting point of aluminum) hardly strikes me as an exceptional temperature for a plane crashing at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) with fuel on board to create.

    The burning combustibles in the WTC reached temperatures in that range (and higher) and sustained it for quite a while before the collapse. I think I would need help understanding why the one thing is possible and the other isn't.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #759  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The heat would mostly come from the friction of impact. But even with that and the burning fuel, the dirt would carry the heat away fast enough to prevent it from reaching the required temperature. Trust me.
    I was originally skeptical of you saying this, but now that I've researched the topic a bit more I guess it makes sense. On the other hand, human remains also wouldn't have burned up in the fires unless a very high temperature was reached at least momentarily.

    Going off of this site, soil rich in sand and/or clay has a little over half as much thermal conductivity as water.

    http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/me...ection6/2.html

    And, if you have the patience to read through this report (I skimmed it by just searching for the word "soil" and reading the text around it), apparently the soil near Stony Creek (the town nearest the crash site) does have quite a lot of clay and sand in it. Hopefully Ophiolite could shed more light on this topic. It's certainly not my area.

    http://twp-york.org/features/Stony%2...Management.pdf

    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    I understand, and also feel it's important to make sure that the science is cleanly presented. I dont want to present half-assed arguments and facts that aren't necessarily true or logical to counter his argument. That's stooping to his level, and personally, I'd rather insult him and his lack of intelligence than present bad science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    If there was so much heat that it melted parts of the plane into a slag, don't you think the media would have been told this fascinating fact and reported it?
    It's not that fascinating, and happens quite frequently in high speed collisions. As kojax stated, it's to be expected that impacts at these speeds with poor heat conductors or smaller volume bodies create high temperatures and twisted, even partially melted or deformed, metals. Not necessarily slag, that's unusual due to the amount of energy needed, but the idea holds.



    I notice my post wasn't refuted at all. I expected you to give oddly contrived and illogical answers to it. Will it happen, or are my hopes too high?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #760  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'd rather insult him and his lack of intelligence than present bad science.
    I'd have to say that's even worse.

    In a contest for worse-ness between poor logical arguments and personal attacks, personal attacks would win. It wouldn't exactly be a landslide victory, but ... it would still win.





    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You do realize, however, don't you, that aluminum turning into slag was meant as an argument against Killtown's main point? If the aluminum became slag, then I could point to the silvery colored dirt in the picture above as representing some of the debris. Also, aluminum fusing with dirt would probably take up less space than intact rubble.
    If there was so much heat that it melted parts of the plane into a slag, don't you think the media would have been told this fascinating fact and reported it?
    It's not that fascinating, and happens quite frequently in high speed collisions. As kojax stated, it's to be expected that impacts at these speeds with poor heat conductors or smaller volume bodies create high temperatures and twisted, even partially melted or deformed, metals. Not necessarily slag, that's unusual due to the amount of energy needed, but the idea holds.

    You know.... now that the melting idea is starting to look less credible, I am inclined to sway toward Killtown's direction in this. Where indeed is all the rubble? If there was sufficient force to drive it all into the ground, I would think there would also be sufficient force to throw some dirt up around the hole, so we get a proper crater.

    I'm torn on the issue. If I take a machete and swing its blade into the dirt in my back yard, there won't be a huge crater. The blade will bury itself, but apart from the entry slit, the ground around it won't look substantially different than it did when the blade wasn't there.

    So, should we look at this crash as a giant machete blade getting flung into the dirt, or start looking for good answers to Killtown's questions? I'm also curious if the fuel should have exploded, or maybe getting buried would deprive it of its oxygen supply?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #761  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Don;t forget, though. a jetliner is a big, thin box of air. The structural pieces are only a small part of the total volume, unlike a machete.

    At such impact speeds, all the composite will shatter and disperse, only the metal bits will continue into the ground.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #762  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, what would that lead to? Would we still find the Flight Data Recorder 15 feet down, and the Cockpit Voice Recorder 25 feet down?

    The reason the plane shatters is because of the sudden change in air pressure inside the cabin. Is that correct? So there should be debris strewn about. Of course some of the debris were also found miles away from the point of impact.

    http://www.911research.com/planes/attack/flight93.html

    http://www.911research.com/planes/at...ght93site.html
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #763  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, what would that lead to? Would we still find the Flight Data Recorder 15 feet down, and the Cockpit Voice Recorder 25 feet down?

    The reason the plane shatters is because of the sudden change in air pressure inside the cabin. Is that correct? So there should be debris strewn about. Of course some of the debris were also found miles away from the point of impact.
    No, it's because the impact stresses exceed the design strength of the materials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #764  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, what would that lead to? Would we still find the Flight Data Recorder 15 feet down, and the Cockpit Voice Recorder 25 feet down?

    The reason the plane shatters is because of the sudden change in air pressure inside the cabin. Is that correct? So there should be debris strewn about. Of course some of the debris were also found miles away from the point of impact.
    No, it's because the impact stresses exceed the design strength of the materials.
    This.

    the shattering will occur both above and below ground. The nose of the craft is very strong, and will hit without shattering ON impact, but through furthered stress, allowing more of the plane to enter prior to a catastrophic shattering. Which, in and of itself, will not be across the entire plane at once, but will happen more like a traveling wave
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #765  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm just trying to understand what we should expect to happen. The outer surface of the plane is mostly aluminum, but it's full of air, which gives that aluminum plenty of room to crumple inward instead of holding its shape. Of course, it can only crumple inward if the air has enough pathways to escape out of its way, so it would have to get a whole lot of tears and holes in it to allow the air out.

    That means it's not unsurprising to see stuff like this:


    or this



    Because some pieces of the outer shell might get flung free by the escaping air.

    However, I think I understand that the air in the cabin isn't what causes the ceramic parts to shatter. It's just the energy of the impact, right? Each component feels a portion of the force communicated to it from the other components that have already been forced to stop quickly.


    Note: I'm not trying to present that as a definite explanation. I'm just positing it in an attempt to figure out what happened, so anyone else can explain why it's right or wrong, and perhaps offer a better description to replace it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #766  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Don;t forget, though. a jetliner is a big, thin box of air. The structural pieces are only a small part of the total volume, unlike a machete.

    At such impact speeds, all the composite will shatter and disperse, only the metal bits will continue into the ground.
    The official story is 80% of the 757 was dug out from the ground. I doesn't matter what size the pieces were. 80% of a 757 is 80%. The question is why is there so little evidence proving 80% of a 757 was really under that shallow little crater? If the photos of the scene are legit, it shows only about .5% of a 757 coming out of the ground and no piles of collected debris around the crater from being unearthed out of the ground. Only many piles of dirt are seen that look, IMO, to be the same amount to fill back in the excavated hole flush, thereby proving nothing was really buried.

    Is that all just a giant coincidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #767  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    the shattering will occur both above and below ground.
    But I thought the soil was so soft that the plane burrowed through it so fast and with such force that when it hit the bedrock about 45ft down, the tail appendages crushed forward to miss leaving tail scars in the ground and those tail-like scars in the ground were just a coincidence. What shattered above ground again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #768  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just trying to understand what we should expect to happen.
    If a 757 hit a field of loose dirt, there would be such a huge deep hole there would be no controversy that a 757 did crash there.

    That means it's not unsurprising to see stuff like this:

    or this
    kojax, these two pieces are planted. I've written about both of them:

    Top photo: IMPOSSIBLE: Only ONE debris shows UA livery and it's the largest photo'd

    Bottom photo (explained in 2nd half of post): Only ONE photo shows alleged Flight 93 debris being excavated...and Pat Curley is a moron
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #769  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    the shattering will occur both above and below ground.
    But I thought the soil was so soft that the plane burrowed through it so fast and with such force that when it hit the bedrock about 45ft down, the tail appendages crushed forward to miss leaving tail scars in the ground and those tail-like scars in the ground were just a coincidence. What shattered above ground again?
    Wow.... Nice.... is the outer shell a composite material?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #770  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just trying to understand what we should expect to happen.
    If a 757 hit a field of loose dirt, there would be such a huge deep hole there would be no controversy that a 757 did crash there.

    That means it's not unsurprising to see stuff like this:

    or this
    kojax, these two pieces are planted. I've written about both of them:

    Top photo: IMPOSSIBLE: Only ONE debris shows UA livery and it's the largest photo'd

    Bottom photo (explained in 2nd half of post): Only ONE photo shows alleged Flight 93 debris being excavated...and Pat Curley is a moron
    Funny, he didnt say they were part of the crash photos, only that it wouldn't be surprising to see a piece this size. Nice reading and comprehension skills you demonstrate
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #771  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just trying to understand what we should expect to happen.
    If a 757 hit a field of loose dirt, there would be such a huge deep hole there would be no controversy that a 757 did crash there.
    Not if the hole caves back in on itself. The plane didn't exactly build wooden reinforcements behind itself as it went down like people do when they're digging a mine shaft.

    I'm not saying it isn't suspicious, though. Finding both the CVR and the FDR buried at depths of 25 feet and 15 feet surprises me, when I consider the amount of debris that didn't even go underground, or the jet engine that appears to have been closer than 10 feet in the excavation picture we keep re-posting (or the other engine that was found 2000 feet away). It's not outside the realm of possibilities, but .... that's just because nothing is outside the realm of possibilities.

    A pink hippopotamus could walk by, and it would still be possible to argue both sides of the meaningfulness of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Funny, he didnt say they were part of the crash photos, only that it wouldn't be surprising to see a piece this size. Nice reading and comprehension skills you demonstrate
    He didn't need me to say it. He's probably seen them before, or he looked at the url. You can find them on the wiki page for flight 93.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #772  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Finding both the CVR and the FDR buried at depths of 25 feet and 15 feet surprises me, when I consider the amount of debris that didn't even go underground, or the jet engine that appears to have been closer than 10 feet in the excavation picture we keep re-posting (or the other engine that was found 2000 feet away).
    Wouldn't the CVR and FDR be much more dense and compact than most of the rest of the debris? They're basically built to survive a crash fully intact, so wouldn't we expect them to move much further through an impeding medium and with less deflection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #773  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Finding both the CVR and the FDR buried at depths of 25 feet and 15 feet surprises me, when I consider the amount of debris that didn't even go underground, or the jet engine that appears to have been closer than 10 feet in the excavation picture we keep re-posting (or the other engine that was found 2000 feet away).
    Wouldn't the CVR and FDR be much more dense and compact than most of the rest of the debris? They're basically built to survive a crash fully intact, so wouldn't we expect them to move much further through an impeding medium and with less deflection?
    That is a reasonable explanation for it. I wonder if the density helps them survive other crashes too? The engines would similarly be very dense, but it looks like neither of them was found at a similar depth. Do you think that has something to do with them being in the wings, or is it just a coincidence?

    The other fishy thing is that both recorders are located in the plane's tail section. This is taken from Killtown's site.



    http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogs...ack-boxes.html

    Perhaps the rest of the plane carved out a crater for them, and they just fell into it? As Meteorwayne was saying earlier: the plane itself is mostly empty space full of air. Either way, I'd like to understand a little better how it could happen. From the conspiracy lite & conspiracy heavy perspectives, finding them deeper down just means having more time to prepare a good way to plant them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #774  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That is a reasonable explanation for it. I wonder if the density helps them survive other crashes too? The engines would similarly be very dense, but it looks like neither of them was found at a similar depth. Do you think that has something to do with them being in the wings, or is it just a coincidence?
    I know hardly anything about jet engines, but as I understand it, the basic structure is a dense (ish) core with a much less dense surround (the fan part) and a fairly light but sturdy outer chassis. To me, it seems like a structure like that would experience a sort of 'feather' effect when hitting an impeding medium. I would expect the middle to penetrate deeply, but only if the outer parts came away from the core with minimal resistance. I'd imagine they'd be designed not to do so, given the forces they'd be expected to endure. So no, I wouldn't expect the engines to behave in the same way as the flight recorders.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogs...ack-boxes.html

    Perhaps the rest of the plane carved out a crater for them, and they just fell into it? As Meteorwayne was saying earlier: the plane itself is mostly empty space full of air. Either way, I'd like to understand a little better how it could happen. From the conspiracy lite & conspiracy heavy perspectives, finding them deeper down just means having more time to prepare a good way to plant them.
    Given the forces involved, the length of a plane seems like a fairly trivial barrier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #775  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    The recorders have very thick and sturdy shells, so that shock forces and impacts do far less damage to them than other parts of the plane that aren't built to effectively survive a 1000mph impact with a thick rooted steel I beam head on. Just to give an idea of what it would take to destroy a CVR and FDR
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #776  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That is a reasonable explanation for it. I wonder if the density helps them survive other crashes too? The engines would similarly be very dense, but it looks like neither of them was found at a similar depth. Do you think that has something to do with them being in the wings, or is it just a coincidence?
    I know hardly anything about jet engines, but as I understand it, the basic structure is a dense (ish) core with a much less dense surround (the fan part) and a fairly light but sturdy outer chassis. To me, it seems like a structure like that would experience a sort of 'feather' effect when hitting an impeding medium. I would expect the middle to penetrate deeply, but only if the outer parts came away from the core with minimal resistance. I'd imagine they'd be designed not to do so, given the forces they'd be expected to endure. So no, I wouldn't expect the engines to behave in the same way as the flight recorders.
    That makes sense. Behind that fan, the front of a jet engine is shaped like a funnel, to help compress the air as it comes in, so not the best shape for trying to ram an object down into the ground. Maybe that would even explain why one of them didn't go into the same crater as the rest of the plane.

    The other good explanation for those separate debris fields would be if the plane were shot down. Let's be honest with ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki aftermath of flight 93
    NORAD insisted that fighters would have intercepted Flight 93 before it reached its target in Washington, D.C., but the commission disagreed, concluding that "had Flight 93 not crashed in Pennsylvania, it would have arrived in the Washington area 10 to 20 minutes later"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...t_93#Aftermath

    I think 10-20 minutes from Washington is the window when you'd want to shoot down a plane if you're going to. It requires a dummied up CVR and a woman willing to make her husband sound more heroic than he actually had the opportunity to be, but it's not really a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that the government would been willing to avoid a fourth plane attack by taking down a plane full of civilians (who were already as good as dead anyway).

    It's a simple calculation: (civilians on the plane) + (potential victims at target site) or just (civilians on the plane)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #777  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Nice reading and comprehension skills you demonstrate
    Please let us know when you start acting like a grown-up and not a 3rd grader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #778  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Not if the hole caves back in on itself.
    Well it has to show evidence of that to be true, not just officials saying it did.

    If it caved back in, wouldn't the hole be much wider? And if it caved in, how did all that debris manage to stay on the surface of the crater?


    http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/P200059.html

    "[Wally] Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.'"

    Finding both the CVR and the FDR buried at depths of 25 feet and 15 feet surprises me, when I consider the amount of debris that didn't even go underground, or the jet engine that appears to have been closer than 10 feet in the excavation picture we keep re-posting
    That engine looks only 4ft deep.

    (or the other engine that was found 2000 feet away).
    The story of that engine changed three times which finally ended up as engine fan being found in the pond. But that too is only a story since there's no photo evidence of it. Plus there's a tall wall of trees in between the crater and the pond where the so-called engine fan would had to have maneuvered through. See my video: The Little Engine That Couldn't
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #779  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Nice reading and comprehension skills you demonstrate
    Please let us know when you start acting like a grown-up and not a 3rd grader.
    arcane was making the valid observation that you had misunderstood, accidentally or deliberately, a central point of the item you were commenting on. Since this speaks to your ability to accurately comprehend, interpret and pass a valid opinion on data, then it is both germane and mature to point it out.

    Responding like a petulant child, as you have done, further detracts from your credibility. Not a good idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #780  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Nice reading and comprehension skills you demonstrate
    Please let us know when you start acting like a grown-up and not a 3rd grader.
    arcane was making the valid observation that you had misunderstood, accidentally or deliberately, a central point of the item you were commenting on. Since this speaks to your ability to accurately comprehend, interpret and pass a valid opinion on data, then it is both germane and mature to point it out.

    Responding like a petulant child, as you have done, further detracts from your credibility. Not a good idea.
    Very well said, thank you.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #781  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.
    We all recall that this field was a former strip-mine, then landfill, right? I'm actually surprised there aren't discarded lawn chairs and grocery bags in there. Relieved though, as the finding of a mysterious pickle jar would have fueled untold conspiracy theories.

    The soil of any landfill would be very soft, especially if it hadn't been deliberately compacted (in preperation for a building foundation). This fill appears to be topsoil, likely from a neighbouring housing development.

    Re the heap volume: Naturally settled soil approximately doubles in volume when excavated. It fluffs up. So we can discard the observation that excavated heaps seem to leave no room for plane wreckage.

    ***

    The plane had two engines, one recovered apart from the main wreckage? Is that official?

    Still waiting for a military person's input on shootdown procedure and probable results.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #782  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.
    We all recall that this field was a former strip-mine, then landfill, right?
    No. It was a reclaimed strip mine.

    The plane had two engines, one recovered apart from the main wreckage? Is that official?
    Going by news reports, one engine was supposedly dug out of the ground (which I showed was planed by the backhoe bucket) and an engine fan was supposedly found in the pond behind a tall-wide-deep section of trees that this fan would had to zig-zag through, although there's no photographic evidence of this alleged fan.

    Still waiting for a military person's input on shootdown procedure and probable results.
    The forensic evidence doesn't fit a shootdown. If it did, there would be debris leading up to the crater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #783  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    landfill
    No. It was a reclaimed strip mine.
    Same thing. You "reclaim" the land by filling it. You take the best offers, typically from nearby developers who have mixed "fill" they want to cheaply dispose of. Due to costs of regulated dumping, and environmental laws, you might not get a straight answer on what this "fill" consists of.

    My point is: the land should look as though someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    The forensic evidence doesn't fit a shootdown. If it did, there would be debris leading up to the crater.
    If the plane was blown apart in air. Suppose a missile hit an engine? That's the normal means of downing aircraft, air-to-air, isn't it? We can only speculate, and I'm afraid those who know aren't at liberty to reveal much.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #784  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    landfill
    No. It was a reclaimed strip mine.
    Same thing. You "reclaim" the land by filling it. You take the best offers, typically from nearby developers who have mixed "fill" they want to cheaply dispose of. Due to costs of regulated dumping, and environmental laws, you might not get a straight answer on what this "fill" consists of.

    My point is: the land should look as though someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it.
    Are you suggesting the debris laying on the surface of the crater is trash and not plane debris? Because that would be evidence benefiting my contention that the scene was staged and no plane crashed there!

    If the plane was blown apart in air. Suppose a missile hit an engine? That's the normal means of downing aircraft, air-to-air, isn't it? We can only speculate, and I'm afraid those who know aren't at liberty to reveal much.
    There's no evidence a plane was blown apart before the crater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #785  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    Are you suggesting the debris laying on the surface of the crater is trash and not plane debris? Because that would be evidence benefiting my contention that the scene was staged and no plane crashed there!
    The soil could very well contain trash, yeah. It's "fill" by the loose definition of whoever was trying to save (or make) some money at the time. One normally tops it off with clean earth.

    Staged? I dunno, I've seen the front end of a 727 in a scrapyard. It would be possible to acquire the parts. But I can't believe people wittingly planned a deception.

    I can believe that some parties have their own well-intentioned reasons to remain silent over certain details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    There's no evidence a plane was blown apart before the crater.
    Right. However it does appear the plane lost an engine before impact. I think you indicated a dense barrier of trees seperates that engine from the main crash site.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #786  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I came back here becuase it seems some people have notices the conversation and I can't believe the turn it's taken, or how long the conversation has lasted. This is promising. I thought it had died months ago, or was deleted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #787  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    There are two interesting papers upon this topic, actually, which put forward the case for controlled explosions at the tower bases:

    1) Paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ssingJolt7.pdf. Authors: Prof. MacQueen and Szamboti.

    2) Paper: Momentum transfer analysis of upper stories of WTC-1. Author: Gordon Ross.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •