Flight 93

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by zephirop

So what part of the official story don't you believe? And if you believe it all, as you obviously do, what are you doing on the David Icke site trying to prove it, why not just get on with your life, safe in the knowledge that your government is good and kind?

What tha laikin at -art tha from Rovvrum or summat?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

The more mass an object has, the more damage it can do, the smaller the object the less damage it will do, also the forces exerted upon it are less, hence the reason smaller lighter objects survived seemingly unscathed.

Makes sense to me.

What do people think of the rudder mark? I'm not sure it is that, it could be a 'vent' made by the explosion, but if it were...

I mean could the upper part become sort of compressed enough to leave 'shadow marks' before exploding?

[zephirop]

Originally Posted by labouysse

What tha laikin at -art tha from Rovvrum or summat?

lol, No I'm not from Rotherham, the very idea...

I'm from the capital of South Yorkshire...

[shakey1]

Very entertaining thread. I made up my mind very early into my rabbit hole, alternative explanations/conspiracy theories explorations pertaining to the fallacies of, and a little later on, the agenda(s) behind 9/11. I don't believe I'm wrong in my assumption that the official U.S. story on the attack and the reporting by the main-stream media is simply criminally lacking in truth or merit, but I suppose everyone will come to whichever conclusion they come to regarding 9/11 in their own time, if ever.

Jackson Browne "Rosie" - YouTube

Jackson Browne "Rosie" - YouTube

"Looks like it's me and you again tonight, Rosie" (JB)

[rosie789]

PSA Flight 1771:

PSA Flight 1771: Eerily Similar To Shanksville - YouTube

PSA Flight 1771: Eerily Similar To Shanksville - YouTube

The plane hit at over 700mph

''The plane was completely intact until it crashed, and was traveling at an approximately 70-degree angle toward the south.''

The size and the terrain in which the plane landed were different. Flight 93 landed in a disused mine with recent topsoil and hard bedrock not too far beneath.

But it does show the seemingly bizarre trail of debris, the small crater etc.

If you want to see the entire documentry of which this an extract from:

Blackbox - 01 - SkyCrime - Part 1 of 5 - YouTube

Blackbox - 01 - SkyCrime - Part 1 of 5 - YouTube

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Makes sense to me.

What do people think of the rudder mark? I'm not sure it is that, it could be a 'vent' made by the explosion, but if it were...

I mean could the upper part become sort of compressed enough to leave 'shadow marks' before exploding?

I think the imprint was always going to be there as the plane for the most part made contact with the surface, the cockpit broke off as did an engine, the rest of the plane buried itself under the soil.

The soil was relatively loose so when the aircraft struck at the speed it did, for the most part it buried itself, given the angle though it made one engine bounce off and the cockpit also was not buried.

You might find this interesting:

A plane did indeed crash in Shanksville - YouTube

A plane did indeed crash in Shanksville - YouTube

Just think about if you drop a rock into some loose soil or dry sand, it will bury itself under the surface, leaving a faint imprint of where is entered, that is what I think we see with flight 93.

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by shakey1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPAX...eature=related

"Looks like it's me and you again tonight, Rosie" (JB)

That really is not my kind of music. Guess again.

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I think the imprint was always going to be there as the plane for the most part made contact with the surface, the cockpit broke off as did an engine, the rest of the plane buried itself under the soil.

The soil was relatively loose so when the aircraft struck at the speed it did, for the most part it buried itself, given the angle though it made one engine bounce off and the cockpit also was not buried.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Yp5...eature=related

Just think about if you drop a rock into some loose soil or dry sand, it will bury itself under the surface, leaving a faint imprint of where is entered, that is what I think we see with flight 93.

Argh this is horribly embarrasing putting diagrams up in this situation because I'm not sure. But the plane would have squashed up against the bed rock, right?



Then yeah, maybe a little of the dirt filled back in after the explosion... It was probably a combination of all these things, but unfortunately I don't have an accurate model to simulate it.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Argh this is horribly embarrasing putting diagrams up in this situation because I'm not so sure. But the plane would have squashed up against the bed rock, right?



Then yeah, maybe a little of the dirt filled back in after the explosion... It was probably a combination of all these things, but unfortunately I don't have an accurate model to simulate it.

No, I appreciate your drawing, better than I could do, I think the plane would have quite easily went through the soil given the mass of the plane, although as said the cockpit and engine did not enter the soil.

If there was no hard rock until much further down, the jet would have kept going further without meeting an abrupt stop against the bedrock. it still would have disinterested though due to the speed. That's my thoughts anyway.

[rosie789]

I mainly thought the official story had some merit because of the airfone messages, blackbox recordings as well as other eyewitnesses around the area. Plus the air traffic control recordings. That would be almost impossible to fake, nothing has really proved otherwise.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by rosie789

I mainly thought the official story had some merit because of the airfone messages, blackbox recordings as well as other eyewitnesses around the area. Plus the air traffic control recordings. That would be almost impossible to fake, nothing has really proved otherwise.

That's why I say the evidence is overwhelming, that the plane was hijacked and did smash into Shanksville.

[known skeptic]

It is cute how Milky, Pasta and Rosie have all become BFFs in such a short period of time. They should start their own forum. How much $ per post are they making?

Where Is the Wreckage of UAL Flight 93?
By Glen Stanish, ATP


...In my professional occupation, I, like many others, have been in a position to question major parts of the official story of 9/11. I have been an airline pilot for most of my professional life, having flown for major airlines such as TWA, American Airlines, a USAir regional, and most recently ATA Airlines. I have more than 22 years of aviation experience including 15 years of scheduled US airline experience. On 9/11, I was employed by American Airlines, one of the two airlines whose aircraft were allegedly used as missiles by "Islamic extremist hijacker pilots" who attacked us because "they hate our freedoms."

On one occasion, several months after 9/11, I was reading an article in American Free Press by investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn. The article stated that according to many eyewitnesses at the Shanksville, PA crash site, there wasn't any evidence that a well engineered and constructed B-757 had actually crashed at this location. Many witnesses reported never seeing any wreckage from this near 250,000 pound maximum gross take-off weight airliner.

As I was reading this article, it made me wonder how this could be. You see, as airline pilots and flight crewmembers, we are required by the FAA, as part of our training with the airlines, to cover what is termed CRM, or Cockpit Resource Management. This is required as part of the Initial Training as new hires as well as the required annual Recurrent Training for airline pilots.

CRM training is the study of airline accidents and incidents, their contributing causal factors, and what we as crewmembers could have done differently to have prevented a particular accident or incident. During the classroom instruction, in addition to reviewing Cockpit Voice Recordings as well as Air Traffic Control tapes, we are always shown videos, or photos or slides, or powerpoints or other video news coverage of these accident sites and the one constant is that after an airline accident, large pieces of aircraft wreckage remain. Let me give a few examples.

TWA 800 was a B-747 that departed NY's JFK bound for Paris in summer 96. During its departure, climbing through 14,000 feet or so, accelerating to cruise climb speed, it allegedly suffered a freak catastrophic center wing tank fuel explosion. The aircraft came apart in midair and came crashing down into the Atlantic. Do you think it was hard to find any large pieces of wreckage from this aircraft? No, not at all... See: www.airdisaster.com/photos/tw800/photo.shtml .

Then there is AA 965, a B-757, the same type of aircraft as Flight 93. This 757 slammed into the mountains of S. America after its pilots became disoriented and tried to recover from a GPWS warning. To see the wreckage left by this 757, that also slammed into terrain, a similar accident as Flight 93, see: www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa965/photo.shtml .

USAF B-737 that slammed into terrain and killed Clinton's staff member Ron Brown: www.airdisaster.com/photos/usaf21/photo.shtml .

Aeroflot Airbus A-310, similar in size to 757, lost control at cruise altitude above 30,000 ft when Captain demonstrating flight techniques to family members. Spun into the ground at a high rate of speed and descent: www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-ogqs/photo.shtml .

Delta L-1011 crash at DFW, windshear, microburst: www.airdisaster.com/photos/dl191/photo.shtml .

AA 1420 LIT: www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml .

Sioux City, IA, UAL DC-10 crashed after losing hydraulic systems: www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua232/photo.shtml .

USAir DC-9, CLT, windshear: www.airdisaster.com/photos/us1016/photo.shtml .

Avianca 52, Brooklyn, NY, fuel starvation: www.airdisaster.com/photos/avianca52/photo.shtml .

TWA 128, CVG, www.airdisaster.com/photos/tw128/photo.shtml .

Midair Collision UAL DC-8 and TWA Super Connie: www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua826/photo.shtml .

MO, Continental: www.airdisaster.com/photos/co11/photo.shtml .

More recently, AA587, NYC: www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa587/photo.shtml .

Athens, Greece, Helios B-737 crashed into terrain at a high rate of speed and relative descent, much like UAL 93: www.airdisaster.com/photos/5b-dby/photo.shtml .

These photos represent all accident types: single piece airframe high speed controlled flight into terrain, high speed - high descent rate - uncontrolled flight into terrain, low speed controlled flight into terrain, inflight break up due to explosion ie fuel tank explosion and inflight bomb explosion, and inflight break up due to airborne collision.

As we can see from these photos, it can be positively concluded and one can rest assured that Boeings and other airliner makes do >>>NOT<<<vaporize>>>ALWAYS<<< leave a large debris field.

Colonel George Nelson, USAF (ret): "With all the evidence available at the PA (Flight 93) crash site, it was ...certainly not the B-757 as alleged." www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/photo.shtml .

Eyewitnesses immediately after and within 15 feet of site reported never seeing any evidence of a plane at the time or anytime during excavation.

Bottom line...no "Letsroll" Flight 93, B-757 at Shanksville.

F/O Glen Stanish, ATP
TWA, AA, ATA, CAL
ALPA, APA

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=85422

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by known skeptic

It is cute how Milky, Pasta and Rosie have all become BFFs in such a short period of time. They should start their own forum. How much $ per post are they making?

Funny. I've never been further west than the Azores so dollars aren't much use to me

Oh btw I've watched many air crash investigations so I know about most of the flights above and they're not at all similar. The Iranian crash, flight 585 and the PSA flight are better comparisons, though this is quite a rare occurance and I can't find any other 570mph disused mine crashes.

[rosie789]

More about Airfones:

Notice that the one recovered from United Airlines Fight 93 is a GTE Airfone?

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...92419/untitled

It's quite upsetting to think that the failed 90s Airfone became the only connection perhaps they should've made them cheaper.

Thread on communication: http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=197753

This GTE airfone was pictured in 2000 on (probably) a United Airlines Flight.

http://www.ichizen.com/goat/goat_travel/index.htm



Artical about the removal of some Airfones from American Airlines, dated 2002.

http://news.cnet.com/Airline-grounds..._3-831093.html

[shakey1]

Originally Posted by rosie789

That really is not my kind of music. Guess again.

Elton John THE BITCH IS BACK - YouTube

Elton John THE BITCH IS BACK - YouTube

or if you prefer the Stones...

Rolling Stones - Bitch - YouTube

Rolling Stones - Bitch - YouTube

[swansong19]

Originally Posted by rosie789

they're not at all similar. The Iranian crash, flight 585 and the PSA flight are better comparisons, though this is quite a rare occurance and I can't find any other 570mph disused mine crashes.

Lol...oh my...lol

"Not at all similar." No, of course not. They're just huge jumbo jets crashing at high speeds. Nope. No similarities there. Move along, people.

And this "disused mine", stuff, I assume, is meant to imply that the ground "liquified" and swallowed the plane?

Have you ever taken a break from airline crash investigation to go swimming?

Ever belly-flopped into a swimming pool? Did the water just allow you to pass through easily and without impact or friction? Or did it feel vaguely like hitting something solid? And...the faster you were moving...the harder the impact, right?

Like Moses parting the Red Sea...the ground at shanksville just opened up...all cohesion disappeared...and the plane just slipped right in.

Btw...from where are you getting all your nifty diagrams and drawings?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by swansong19

Lol...oh my...lol

"Not at all similar." No, of course not. They're just huge jumbo jets crashing at high speeds. Nope. No similarities there. Move along, people.

And this "disused mine", stuff, I assume, is meant to imply that the ground "liquified" and swallowed the plane?

Have you ever taken a break from airline crash investigation to go swimming?

Ever belly-flopped into a swimming pool? Did the water just allow you to pass through easily and without impact or friction? Or did it feel vaguely like hitting something solid? And...the faster you were moving...the harder the impact, right?

Like Moses parting the Red Sea...the ground at shanksville just opened up...all cohesion disappeared...and the plane just slipped right in.

Btw...from where are you getting all your nifty diagrams and drawings?

My head + paint.

I don't think you got what I was trying to say.

I am aware that some of the aeroplane would have disintergrated on impact with soft ground such as the cabin but the momentum of the 570mph plane at a steep angle would have caused the vast majority of the debris to continue down, gradually crumpling itself before squashing up against any bedrock and finally exploding.

[rosie789]

''The aircraft crashed while on final approach to Dallas after encountering severe windshear. The plane landed in a field, careened across a highway crushing a car, and bounced onto the airfield where it hit two 4 million gallong water tanks.''

That's a totally different way of crashing. I have actually seen that ACI.

Most crashes are failed landing attempts anyway.

[whatsinaname]

Originally Posted by martg

no I don't think I'll bother, playing with shills get old very quick.
I don't need convincing and I don't need to convince

The only sensible option.

Just leave the shills to post endless drivel between themselves, whilst patting each other on the back now and again.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by whatsinaname

The only sensible option.

Just leave the shills to post endless drivel between themselves, whilst patting each other on the back now and again.

Of course you never do backpatting.