Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

I wouldn't go so far as to say that site is 'objective' but it is far better than the last one. The inability of the 9/11 movement to get discourse published in academic and/or mainstream periodicals certainly diminishes the movements credibility- youtube videos and websites do not costitute academic discourse. Here is my take on the previous link

The evidence used by the author to conclude 93 was shot down is:
-an eye witness' account/quotes describing a white aircraft, noises- explosions and/or engine before crash, and a plane in a steep dive.
- conflicted timelines
-quote from rumsfeld
-debris field miles away

I really don't think that anyone can infer from these lines of evidence that flight 93 was shot down. Only circumstantial evidence- including the eye witness testimony- has been used to infer flight 93 was shot down. Anyone single line of evidence could be explained in a number of ways. Collectively, these lines of evidence really do not corroborate the conclusion that 93 was intercepted. I just do not understand how you would could infer with confidence that 93 was shot down based on the limited amount of circumstantial evidence presented. Not one piece of the missile's, motor, airframe or tungsten/steel warhead has been found. AA missiles packing HE fragmentation or Annular blast warheads should have generated a large debris field that would be difficult to conceal. Yet no direct evidence has been found to indicate 93 was damaged by guns or missiles. Is the conclusion that 93 got shot down a rationale and intellectual honest interpretation of the data?

 

This doesn't prove anything because your math and science is incorrect.

You've not really shown how you calculated that estimate.. Just you saying the distance travelled is "significant"..

But you're off the mark.

You've not even accounted for gravitational acceleration in your explanation here.

Things don't fall at a constant rate.. They accellerate.. That's why your approach for just multiplying a small drop linearly in order to extrapolate the fall time for a much higher distance fails.

Here is the proper scientific way to determine how long something should fall:

t = the square root of (2d/g)

where t is time in seconds, d is the distance fallen and g is the gravitational accelleration constant (approx. 32.144 feet per second per second)..

So double your distance, that 60,000 feet, divide that by 32.144, you should get about 1866.6 roughly... Take the square root of that figure and you get 43.

It takes a solid object 43 seconds to fall 30,000 feet.

As you can see, your estimate of 300 seconds is nowhere even close.

That's because the objects gain speed as they fall until they reach terminal velocity, yet you calculated as though the rate is constant the whole time down and is the same rate as something that hasn't been falling (accellerating) for as long.

Interestingly, by using the twin towers fall time to extrapolate a free falling object, you must think the twin towers fell in free fall!

 

Well, I was never indicating that my measurements were exact hence all of the round numbers. But in the twoofer world of absolutes and black and white, I can see why you can't wrap your head around such things.

As for the towers, I used the fall rate. Thats all. Additionally, the towers were greater than 1,000 feet.

I know you'll try to make some sort of hay out of this since it is what you do; assume that everything has to be precise and harp on it for ages on end. Fine...whatever.

But it is good to see you admit and agree that if the plane were to have been shot down, the debris field would have been much larger.

he he he.

 

And still,

Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

 

And still,all the people on it are dead,and it makes ZERO difference whether the plane was on top of or under the ground,because there WAS evidence that a plane crashed there

 

If someone staged a plane crash, wouldn't you expect there to be evidence of a plane crash there?

 

Someone should totally attempt to scale the WTC towers using a clip from this.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5g_V8lSPQo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5g_V8lSPQo[/ame]

 

Just out of curiosity..

Do you think United flight 93 really did exist with seats booked out according to the manifest that's on record? And just disputing it crashed in that field?

Or is the whole flight 93 itself a myth?

If not what do you think might have happened to it if it didn't crash there?

 

Fine, start a thread about it. Keep this thread on-topic.

 

My guess would be as good as yours, I'm afraid.

 

Why would they need to 'stage' a crash?...what purpose would that serve?

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to accept a plane DID crash there,if only from some nefarious government super conspiracy?

 

It's not rounding off numbers we're talking about here; it's actually a complete lack of ANY valid caluclations. You've not proven anything.

Gravitational accelleration is not the "twoofer world" it's the real world and it exists and you must account for it.. The only one not wrapping their head around such concepts is you.

The fall rate.. Was that free fall?

Not at all.. You don't suppose there's a difference between 43 seconds and 300 seconds? It's only 1/7... That's not even close enough..

I think it's amusing that you're trying to pretend like you just rounded off and that it's simply not as precise as it could be.

Just be a man and admit you are nowhere even close and were so far off from the real world science that your figure is meaningless.

At the end of the day, you didn't PROVE that there must be at least a 20 mile debri field for that plane if it were shot down. You didn't explain how such horizontal distances of wreckage should be acheived, and in other directions as well, directions not explained by forward momentum..

The little math you did show was wildly innacurate and you didn't even specify any horizontal distances in any specific direction at all, just some nonsense about a car slowing down from rolling resistance friction, yes we can agree things will keep moving even while slowing down, how that necessitates 20 mile wreckage spread, you've not shown.

So in a nutshell, not me being fussy, simply pointing out that your claim that you PROVED a shotdown impossible using math is completely wrong.

You've not proven anything.

I didn't say what the debri field should or should not be.. All you do is claim I say things that I didn't... It gets old.

 

Answer my question first.

 

How about this... Many people claim they are very sad because they have a loved one who died on a plane ride, these loved ones being the victims that United identified as booked for that flight, and which coroners identified as well post humously.

So if there's no plane crash, do you think maybe they are lying about these people having died, or were they just killed in some other way?

 

I'd error on they were killed some other way.

 

I don't know.......now answer mine.

 

Fine, if you want to play silly little games, I "don't know" either.

 

Yes, that would be an error.

 

It's NOT a game...I actually DO NOT know

I CAN admit that,you know.

 

I used round numbers; not "rounded off" or whatever argument you're failing to make by that statement. I'll leave your demented obsession with me to your own mind. I could care less.

Yes, I didn't bring GA into my original post since the supposed shoot down of Flight 93 would equate in massive disparities between falling bodies, start points, etc...

Proven time and again that the towers did not fall at free fall.

Again, some of that is true; but not all of it.

Is there a road map that goes along with that statement?

My calculations rule out a shoot down.

Again, they were not precise calculations but the debris field would have been much larger had there been a shoot down.

I referenced the horizontal spread but no, I didn't do those calculations on the horizontal spread since some of the plane would be going faster than other parts, some would have been decimated by the alleged missile play, some hurled further into the air than other pieces, etc...

That's your opinion which, like mine, is worthless. I don't follow you around calling yours worthless however like some chinchilla you've taken to imitating.

 

You used made up numbers.

When shown you were wrong, this concept of "round numbers" is your argument you're failing to make, trying to copout of acknowledging that your numbers are not just "round" but wrong.

Yet you only say there are these disparities based on the critical figure about how long it took to fall... You don't think how long it takes to fall is BASED ON gravitational accelleration?

Of course it is.. So you're just ignoring gravitational accelleration in order to exaggerate the time it takes things to fall. Disingenious.. In the real world things fall to the Earth faster thanks to the laws of physics you want to ignore to make your case.

So then why were you using the non-free fall, LONGER ammount of time they took to fall in order to extrapolate out to deduce how long the plane had to fall?

Because you're being dishonest. You know the towers fell slower but had to apply those figures to a free falling object in order to trick others into thinking you made a case.

You claimed I was "making a hay" about your precision, again misrepresenting where I stand and saying I need exact figures, when I clearly said it's not that they're not exact, it's that they are COMPLETELY out of the ball park entirely.

Now, I'm saying that's a big difference.

You exaggerated the fall time by a whopping 700%.

That time you claim establishes a 20 mile debri field.

When you go back and plug in the actual correct number, you don't seriously think that would change the 20 mile result?

Of course it would.. (That is provided there were actually some kind of calculation you actually did). And if you think it wouldn't, it only further demonstrates that your result isn't based on math but just what you want it to be.

Read the post of yours I was replying to there if you want to see yourself trying to downplay being so far away from the real world as merely just not being "precise" and using "round numbers".

Do you have the calculations to go along with your statements?

What calculations?

The only ones you've got is the one about the fall time of 300 seconds which has been shown wrong, and then your guess as to how much speed a car will still have after you take your foot off the gas, and that's it.

Show us your work, and show us the total horizontal distance covered for the different directions.

You can reiterate your unsupported allegations all you want, but you need to actually prove it.

Not type out a few made up/irrelevant numbers and sit there insisting that "proves" your case.

So you didn't do those calculations.. Exactly the point.

So don't sit here and lie and say you did these calculations and they prove your case when you clearly didn't.

Can you go one post even without misrepresenting me? I didn't say your opinion was worthless; I said your "calculation" (or lack of) is WRONG.

I'm not following you around so much as I saw that nonsense and intellectual dishonesty, and had to call you on it.. You made up numbers and say you've mathematically proven something.. No, you haven't.

 

Too long didn't read; don't care. Heal! I did see this part...

Only because people reading roughly know how tall they were and because of your pathetic movement and people you hang around with like KooKoo and 'fraud they know roughly how long the towers took to fall. The only reason I brought it up; you tried to parlay it into some self-aggrandizing of course; how very twoofer of you. And you wonder why your movement is nowhere and will go nowhere. he he he.

 

It makes a great difference as to the validity of the "official" story being credible or not.

 

Do you deny a plane crashed at shanksvillle?

And frankly,the official account is more credible than anything you've come up with

 

I deny that any plane was buried there, as claimed by the FBI. Why make that BS up in the first place? Answer: BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE OF IT BEING SHOT DOWN WAS CAREFULLY CONTROLLED BY THE FBI. That's why they claim it was buried. They had already removed most of evidence suggesting anything else happened.

If they claim 93 crashed in the Delaware Bay, and is at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, would that be a credible story? Or would it not make any difference to you?