Reply With Quote
What we are debating is the debris field and that would have a significant impact both in size and amount, but keeping moving those goal posts..
Srsly. Stop digging.
What we are debating is the debris field and that would have a significant impact both in size and amount, but keeping moving those goal posts..
Who is digging. Your the one digging if you think that is Fetzer
Ok, who here would like to take the Jim Fetzer e-mail challenge?
The address is jfetzer [at] d.umn.edu
He attaches that address to all his articles and it is the contact address for Fetzer's 9/11 scholars for truth site, so I'm not exposing anything private.
http://911scholars.org/ (at the very bottom of the home page)
To me, he responded fairly quickly and politely. Let me know how he is with you. I'd actually like to see him back here if that is possible. I promise to play nice even if he doesn't.
No. I think you missed a word. I put it in red for you.
You talked about the formula he posted.
You are now talking about the debris field.
You are shifting the discussion from the formula.
I have only asked about the formula and nothing more.
You're referring to the impact force the ground "feels" per unit area.
We're still waiting for you to explain how a 40 degree angle changes the KE of the airplane.
As User666 alluded to, you don't understand the difference in these concepts.
You're full of crap.
smh
Dan, you're also full of crap.
lol Dan getting on.
I just can't understand why he lied about something that was so easily verified.
Of all the stupid things to bluff about, that takes the cake.
It almost makes you think that if he would lie about something so simple, what's to stop him from constantly making up on this site?
Or
It makes you wonder if Dan actually believes all the that he has posted over the years on here.
lol dan
then he told you that this wasn't really him posting here I hope, otherwise, your full of ...To me, he responded fairly quickly and politely. Let me know how he is with you. I'd actually like to see him back here if that is possible. I promise to play nice even if he doesn't.
When did you email him and what did he tell you?
lol your
you gonna have another one of your trolls post a another fake exchange? Seriously?let's have a few other posters here email Dr. Fetzer and verify either your claim that it is not Fetzer or mine that it is and he posted our exchange in this thread.
How would you like that?
lol you won't even say what other screen names you think are mine.
That's how much of a coward you are.
You're running scared now that you have been exposed as a liar. It's quite entertaining. And all because you bragged about emailing some dude you could have emailed as easily as I did.
I'm not sure how you can separate the two...either the plane impacted in a relatively small area and at a very steep angle or it impacted in a relatively large area, at a less steep angle, and spread the debris over a large area...depending on which you believe, if the plane impacted at a 40 degree angle then some of the KE was used to spread the debris over the area...RG's implication is that the plane impacted at a 90 degree angle and all the KE was used in just the impact...
...I was not posting that the KE of the plane was wrong, I was posting that the angle of impact, reported to be 40 degrees, would have spread the debris over a larger area and the initial impact KE would have been quite a bit smaller than RG's estimate of 14....but keep drawing at those straws...We're still waiting for you to explain how a 40 degree angle changes the KE of the airplane.
In other words, you were avoiding the question.
You do that a lot.
Am I? Did the plane crash at a 90 degree angle or not?
RG's video sure implies that...
That's not a plane, dan.
We all know you aren't that stupid.
your right....that car isn't hitting the barrier at a 40 degree angle...
Thank You.
Irrelevant to the question you were asked.
But you know that.
You're welcome.
Flight Explorer, which received requests for the illustrations from about 12 news agencies including all the major networks, also has learned that a United Airlines plane bound from Newark to San Francisco that crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa., at 10:10 a.m. had its flight path diverted. The flight was changed to arrive at Reagan National Airport, in Northern Virginia, Krawczyk said.
"When it got outside of Pittsburgh, it actually had a flight plan change to DCA," said Krawczyk said. "We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual."
United Airlines tracked a different Flight 93 than the FAA
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/82/..._UAL_ACARS.pdfACARS (Aircraft Conditioning and Reporting System) is the basic radio-based tool for communication between an aircraft and its company. On 9/11, United Airlines flight dispatchers sent several ACARS text messages to the planes they were responsible for, including Flight 93 and Flight 175.
On January 28, 2002, Michael J. Winter of United Airlines was interviewed by the FBI to help them with the interpretation of the ACARS messages. The full FBI report is appended at the end of this article and can also be looked here (scroll down to the very last interview):
http://www.911myths.com/images/1/1c/...302s_ACARS.pdf
The actual content of the messages is already known and hardly interesting ("beware pit intrusion" etc.), but what makes them toxic for the official story is the plane's approximate position that is attached to each message:
Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations (RGS) at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.
In other words: if the message denotes (for example) PIT, this means that the Pittsburgh RGS has received the strongest signal and that the plane is in the vicinity of Pittsburgh (usually up to 70 miles, depending on the distance to other RGS's).
Now these position informations reveal shocking news: Winter explicitly confirms that United 93 received the last ACARS messages when it was near Fort Wayne (Indiana) and, some minutes later, near Champaign (Illinois):
Messages #16 and #17 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Ft. Wayne, IN, FWA as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL FWA...". The messages were sent to the ACARS printer.
Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI...". Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.
The original ACARS messages can be found here:
According to ACARS, Flight 175 took off at 8:28. According to the FAA, Flight 175 took off at 8:43.
Last edited by Nbadan; 05-26-2012 at 03:42 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
