Official Jim Fetzer 9/11 theory thread

[ChumpDumper]

I've seen many crash sites similar to United 93..posted some here...so what?Lies by omission, dan.

[Nbadan]

Lies by denial Chumpy....but you keep holding on tight to your 911 Commission Report bible...

[ChumpDumper]

Lies by denial Chumpy....but you keep holding on tight to your 911 Commission Report bible...You keep holding on tight to....

Well, nothing.

That's what you got after a full decade of two-hour YouTubes and lying about emailing conspiracy celebrities.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, funny that the more your beloved 911Commission Report and NIST report continues to fall apart the more desperate you get..

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, funny that the more your beloved 911Commission Report and NIST report continues to fall apart the more desperate you get..Eh, I admit I was skeptical of the official story once too -- but when I actually started looking into the claims being made by truthers like you, it became more and more clear that they had nothing but innuendo and unwarranted arrogance.

The official story explains pretty much everything.

The crap people like you post explains nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

Indeed I did.

I did it and I told other posters about it before you bragged about knowing him, in fact.

He posted the exchange in this very thread.Gee, dan -- no comment about this?

:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

So what exactly is the conjecture? That none of the crashes actually occurred? Or that they did occur but were part of some elaborate government plot? It seems as though the "Truther" movement and its associates continually create loose theories which leave out a fair amount of evidence and then rely on the straw man of total acceptance of the 9/11 Commission Report as a response when their theories are picked apart.

[Useruser666]

Why? I get paid to do that...even if I wanted to spend the time doing the math for you it would roughly lead to an KE over 12 and RG would say well, that that's still blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah, blah....

...there I saved us both a lot of trouble....

I don't see how any of that answers my question or is relevent to it. Math is also part of my job, but that wouldn't keep me from answering a simple question.

How does the 40 degree angle affect the formula?

If you don't know the answer, then just say so. You could say, "I don't know, but I think it would."

Possible answers:

1. It does because of ......
2. It doesn't affect it.
3. I don't know, but I think it does.
4. .......

[RandomGuy]

Surely in your vast research, you have found studied the crash in question extensively since it is quite similar to United 93.

I'm keen to see if you know about it.

Rest assured I do.

I'm about here, and am still scolling down.

Without getting to the bottom of the page, I am going to guess that dan didn't find it or post anything about it.

[ChumpDumper]

Even dan's "good friend" (:lmao) Jim Fetzer brought it up, though he tried to gloss it over as much as possible.

It's the closest crash to United 93 I have seen. Of course there are differences in terrain and the like, but the main resemblances are striking.

[Agloco]

Why? I get paid to do that...even if I wanted to spend the time doing the math for you it would roughly lead to an KE over 12 and RG would say well, that that's still blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah, blah....

...there I saved us both a lot of trouble....


lol KE over 12.

I think you're full of crap. You consistently alternate between being intellectually lazy and dishonest. Perhaps loading up a few pre-canned rationales as User666 suggested would go a long way to helping get all of the feet that are currently stuck in your ass out of it.

[Nbadan]

I don't see how any of that answers my question or is relevent to it. Math is also part of my job, but that wouldn't keep me from answering a simple question.

How does the 40 degree angle affect the formula?

If you don't know the answer, then just say so. You could say, "I don't know, but I think it would."

Possible answers:

1. It does because of ......
2. It doesn't affect it.
3. I don't know, but I think it does.
4. .......

Why? I already said that a 40 degree angle would have an impact on RG's calculation...

How do YOU think a 40 degree angle is going to affect a crashing airliner? There is certainly going to be some damper effect and solving your problem is as simple as factoring in the exact angle (debatable), the exact airspeed at the time of impact (debatable), and the negative 5 degree angle of the plane, and multiplying then this factor to RG's KE of 14 (debatable)...certainly no complicated math there, even you could probably do that math, but that's not what your really after is it? You just want to drag this stupid point out because it takes away from so many other weaknesses in the official story...


...and if you still don't like that answer, so what.....I'm not the one making generalizations using calculations which may or may not be true ..

[Nbadan]

lol KE over 12.

I think you're full of crap.


The good doctor is chapped because he can't tell the difference between .05 and .5...I tutored doctors who were smarter....

[ChumpDumper]

The good doctor is chapped because he can't tell the difference between .05 and .5...I tutored doctors who were smarter....Speaking of doctors, what did Dr. Fetzer say when you emailed him?

[Agloco]

The good doctor is chapped because he can't tell the difference between .05 and .5...I tutored doctors who were smarter....

lol chapped

You're a much better comedian than mathematician....seeing as you've still to figure out the difference between a typo and a "mathematical error".

[Agloco]

Why? I already said that a 40 degree angle would have an impact on RG's calculation...

How do YOU think a 40 degree angle is going to affect a crashing airliner? There is certainly going to be some damper effect and solving your problem is as simple as factoring in the exact angle (debatable), the exact airspeed at the time of impact (debatable), and the negative 5 degree angle of the plane, and multiplying then this factor to RG's KE of 14 (debatable)...certainly no complicated math there, even you could probably do that math, but that's not what your really after is it? You just want to drag this stupid point out because it takes away from so many other weaknesses in the official story...


...and if you still don't like that answer, so what.....I'm not the one making generalizations using calculations which may or may not be true ..

You maintain that a 40 degree angle would impact the calculations yet you won't work out the specific factors involved.

If you knew, I'm sure you'd be quick to show us up. Instead you continue to offer nebulous replies.

You're full of crap.

[Useruser666]

Why? I already said that a 40 degree angle would have an impact on RG's calculation...

How do YOU think a 40 degree angle is going to affect a crashing airliner? There is certainly going to be some damper effect and solving your problem is as simple as factoring in the exact angle (debatable), the exact airspeed at the time of impact (debatable), and the negative 5 degree angle of the plane, and multiplying then this factor to RG's KE of 14 (debatable)...certainly no complicated math there, even you could probably do that math, but that's not what your really after is it? You just want to drag this stupid point out because it takes away from so many other weaknesses in the official story...


...and if you still don't like that answer, so what.....I'm not the one making generalizations using calculations which may or may not be true ..

Thank you! Finally!

By the way the angle that the plane travels as it hits the ground has nothing to do with RG's formula. There is no variable in RG's formula to factor in the angle of decent or what affect it would have on the formula. Since the speed of the plane was known at impact and the weight of the plane would not have a significant variance, the angle makes no difference.

[Agloco]

Thank you! Finally!

By the way the angle that the plane travels as it hits the ground has nothing to do with RG's formula. There is no variable in RG's formula to factor in the angle of decent or what affect it would have on the formula. Since the speed of the plane was known at impact and the weight of the plane would not have a significant variance, the angle makes no difference.

Perhaps Dan will now realize why I continue to say that he's full of crap.

Doubtful, but perhaps.

[TeyshaBlue]

Perhaps Dan will now realize why I continue to say that he's full of crap.

Doubtful, but perhaps.

Dan suffers from the inability to be wrong.

[Nbadan]

Speaking of doctors, what did Dr. Fetzer say when you emailed him?

I already posted that it was not the real James Fetzer. You're the one who kept insisting that it was. One more time for those who don't get it yet....that is not the real James Fetzer. How else could I be so sure of this if I did not write the real James Fetzer and get a response?

[Nbadan]

Thank you! Finally!

Finally. You must not read very well, I've been saying that all along. Unlike RG I refuse to be locked down to a certain number though because there are too many variables which are debatable and I don't wanna burn effort defending something so mundane.

[Nbadan]

Thank you! Finally!

By the way the angle that the plane travels as it hits the ground has nothing to do with RG's formula. There is no variable in RG's formula to factor in the angle of decent or what affect it would have on the formula. Since the speed of the plane was known at impact and the weight of the plane would not have a significant variance, the angle makes no difference.

Sure it does. All other things being equal, if you drop something at a 90 degree angle it will have a more significant impact than of you drop something at a 40 degree, 30 degree, or 10 degree angle. Moreso, your going to have larger amounts of debris scattered across a larger area than you would have with a direct impact. We can debate this all we want but the impact crater does not look like an impact crater for a plane that hit the ground at a 40'degree angle. Even more, some witnesses have reported that the plane struck on a wing which would have led to debris being scattered over an even larger area.

[ChumpDumper]

I already posted that it was not the real James Fetzer. You're the one who kept insisting that it was. One more time for those who don't get it yet....that is not the real James Fetzer. How else could I be so sure of this if I did not write the real James Fetzer and get a response?Simple.

You're lying.

Tell you what, dan -- 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?

[Useruser666]

Finally. You must not read very well, I've been saying that all along. Unlike RG I refuse to be locked down to a certain number though because there are too many variables which are debatable and I don't wanna burn effort defending something so mundane.

Zoom went the angle of my answer over your head!!!!

There are no variables significant enough to account for that would affect a large commercial jet striking the ground at over 500mph. If there is list them.

[Useruser666]

Sure it does. All other things being equal, if you drop something at a 90 degree angle it will have a more significant impact than of you drop something at a 40 degree, 30 degree, or 10 degree angle. Moreso, your going to have larger amounts of debris scattered across a larger area than you would have with a direct impact. We can debate this all we want but the impact crater does not look like an impact crater for a plane that hit the ground at a 40'degree angle. Even more, some witnesses have reported that the plane struck on a wing which would have led to debris being scattered over an even larger area.

RG's formula has nothing to do with debris fields. At the speed and mass of the plane, the angle would have to be around <1 degree, unless of course you can provide an example of a plane that lands on the ground at 500mph at a steeper angle. At the speed the plane was traveling the wing would not have any effect. It's like taping a beer can to your bumper and ramming it into a concrete wall at 60mph. The can might as well not have existed. You physics reasoning is like that of a cartoon and not reality.

The problem you have Dan, is that you don't know anything about the subjects that you form your concrete speculations for. Casual observations are one thing, but your stubborn defense of them is another.

[TeyshaBlue]

I already posted that it was not the real James Fetzer. You're the one who kept insisting that it was. One more time for those who don't get it yet....that is not the real James Fetzer. How else could I be so sure of this if I did not write the real James Fetzer and get a response?

Srsly. Stop digging.

[Nbadan]

Zoom went the angle of my answer over your head!!!!

There are no variables significant enough to account for that would affect a large commercial jet striking the ground at over 500mph. If there is list them.

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..

[Nbadan]

Srsly. Stop digging.

Who is digging. Your the one digging if you think that is Fetzer

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[Useruser666]

What we are debating is the debris field and that would have a significant impact both in size and amount, but I keeping moving those goal posts..

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.

[Agloco]

Sure it does. All other things being equal, if you drop something at a 90 degree angle it will have a more significant impact than of you drop something at a 40 degree, 30 degree, or 10 degree angle. Moreso, your going to have larger amounts of debris scattered across a larger area than you would have with a direct impact. We can debate this all we want but the impact crater does not look like an impact crater for a plane that hit the ground at a 40'degree angle. Even more, some witnesses have reported that the plane struck on a wing which would have led to debris being scattered over an even larger area.

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.

[Agloco]

Who is digging. Your the one digging if you think that is Fetzer

:lol

smh



You're lying.

Dan, you're also full of crap.

[Blake]

I wrote Jim Fetzer.

lol

[johnsmith]

lol Dan getting shit on.

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[johnsmith]

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 shit up on this site?

Or

It makes you wonder if Dan actually believes all the shit that he has posted over the years on here.

[ChumpDumper]

lol dan

[Nbadan]

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.

then he told you that this wasn't really him posting here I hope, otherwise, your full of shit...

[ChumpDumper]

then he told you that this wasn't really him posting here I hope, otherwise, your full of shit...When did you email him and what did he tell you?

lol your

[Nbadan]

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?

you gonna have another one of your trolls post a another fake exchange? Seriously?

[ChumpDumper]

you gonna have another one of your trolls post a another fake exchange? Seriously?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.

[Nbadan]

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.

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...

[ChumpDumper]

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...:lol You're missing the point on purpose to avoid answering the question.

[Nbadan]

We're still waiting for you to explain how a 40 degree angle changes the KE of the airplane.

...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...

[ChumpDumper]

...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.In other words, you were avoiding the question.

You do that a lot.

[Nbadan]

:lol You're missing the point on purpose to avoid answering the question.

Am I? Did the plane crash at a 90 degree angle or not?

RG's video sure implies that...

bhN6P-cnP0w

[ChumpDumper]

Am I? Did the plane crash at a 90 degree angle or not?

RG's video sure implies that...

bhN6P-cnP0wThat's not a plane, dan.

We all know you aren't that stupid.

[Nbadan]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[Nbadan]

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


ACARS (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/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf

The actual content of the messages is already known and hardly interesting ("beware cockpit 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:

http://www.911myths.com/images/8/82/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

According to ACARS, Flight 175 took off at 8:28. According to the FAA, Flight 175 took off at 8:43.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol dan throws more shit at the wall to avoid answering questions.

[ChumpDumper]

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.Sorry dan, printers and audible signals don't work in a plane that has been destroyed and was too far away from the ground station to receive the messages in the first place. Whoever wrote this crap you ripped off is stupid.

[Galileo]

I just talked to Fetzer and have lunch with him every week. OK, what exactly do you want me to clear up, boys? One thing I do know, he says Chumpdumper is an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, what exactly do you want me to clear up, boys? You just cleared up what I wanted, thanks.

Ask him to come back though, I'll be more civil even if he isn't.

[Useruser666]

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 don't know how I can be any clearer on this. You originally said that the angle would have an effect on RG's formula. The angle has NO effect on RG's formula simply do to the fact there is no variable in it to account for the angle.

Example: A + B = C How does X affect this formula? It doesn't, it's not in the formula.

Now you claim about the angle of impact will have some deciding factor. If you simplify that the angle has an even ability to redirect force, so 40 degrees / 90 = ~45% of the force remains at the impact and 55% is redirected, that is still a SIGNIFICANT amount of force. This does not even consider the properties of the ground to absorb more force due to the penetration of the aircraft.

As I posted earlier, please name a single aircraft that lands at a 40 degree angle at over 500mph. The recent story on the wing suit "pilot" is a prime example of why speed needs to be lowered as the angle during landing is increased. I believe he had to use his suit and flair to lower his decent speed and land in the cardboard boxes. If he didn't he would have been traveling too fast and been hurt.

I do not understand why you believe a few pictures are some sort of smoking gun that proves a vast conspiracy. And that leaves us with the biggest problem with all of this, which is the true elephant in the room. To believe your argument at all, you have to believe that there wasn't a plane that crashed there. I honestly don't see how anyone can possibly come to that conclusion without drowning in denial.

[Agloco]

...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...

So the KE wasn't wrong, yet it would have been quite a bit smaller than RG's estimate?

You're full of crap.

[Agloco]

We're still waiting for you to explain how a 40 degree angle changes the KE of the airplane.

Not holding my breath here, but I'm putting this to you again.

Perhaps if you'd answer the question of "if" rather than "how" first, it would simplify matters.

Does KE have an angular dependence Dan?

[Galileo]

Jim Fetzer - Rolf Lindgren Interview MP3 Download (AUDIO)

Album: : August 23, 2007

CLICK ON "STREAM SONG" TO LISTEN HERE:

http://azmp3s.com/url?id=NTgxNTM1M3wxODk5NTA5

[ChumpDumper]

Just to make it clear, Galileo is saying he talked to Fetzer and Fetzer told him he posted here.

Correct, Rolf?

[RandomGuy]

initial impact KE would have been quite a bit smaller than RG's estimate of 14

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/internet-memes-only-counting-to-firetruck.jpg


The KE of the plane would be the same regardless of the approach angle.

[ChumpDumper]

The KE of the plane would be the same regardless of the approach angle.Winner!

[Galileo]

Just to make it clear, Galileo is saying he emailed Fetzer and Fetzer told him he posted here.

Correct, Rolf?

No, its a radio interview, genius.

:bang

[ChumpDumper]

No, its a radio interview, genius.

:bangSo you haven't talked with Jim about me and lied about what he said about me?
I just talked to Fetzer and have lunch with him every week. OK, what exactly do you want me to clear up, boys? One thing I do know, he says Chumpdumper is an idiot.

I'd believe that too.

[Galileo]

So you haven't talked with Jim about me and lied about what he said about me?

I'd believe that too.

Jim said you were a grade-A idiot.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Jim said you were a grade-A idiot.

:lmaoSo you talked with him and he said he posted here using his own name as a screen name.

[Galileo]

So you talked with him and he said he posted here using his own name as a screen name.

NOYB.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

NOYB.

:lmaoSo you didn't and you just lied about it.

[Galileo]

Jim Fetzer - Rolf Lindgren Interview MP3 Download (AUDIO)

Album: : May 6, 2008

LISTEN TO AUDIO HERE:

http://azmp3s.com/url?id=MTIzNTkzMTh8MTMyODE4NjE=

[Nbadan]

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/internet-memes-only-counting-to-firetruck.jpg


The KE of the plane would be the same regardless of the approach angle.

RG is playing with words again...of course the KE would be the same at any approach angle, but it would not be the same KE that goes into the impact of the plane at any angle, otherwise where is the energy coming from that is spreading the debris field..

[Useruser666]

RG is playing with words again...of course the KE would be the same at any approach angle, but it would not be the same KE that goes into the impact of the plane at any angle, otherwise where is the energy coming from that is spreading the debris field..

Wrong, the energy from RG's formula is not affected by the angle. The debris field is formed from the transfer of energy at/after the impact.

None of this really matters, because you are saying there wasn't an airplane that crashed there.

[ChumpDumper]

Right -- it was a plane-shaped object exactly the size of a Boeing 757 that hit the field, leaving the debris of the real plane and the body parts and personal effects of all the people who were on the real plane that actually landed in Cleveland seven minutes later.

Just the way Dick Cheney planned it.

[Nbadan]

Wrong, the energy from RG's formula is not affected by the angle. The debris field is formed from the transfer of energy at/after the impact.

Right.....so all the KE energy was not used to break the plane into unrecognizable pieces and there should have been a substantial amount of recognizable body parts...

[Nbadan]

None of this really matters, because you are saying there wasn't an airplane that crashed there.


Speculate much? Who said that?

[ChumpDumper]

Right.....so all the KE energy was not used to break the plane into unrecognizable pieces and there should have been a substantial amount of recognizable body parts...:lol

Why don't you go ahead and figure out how much KE went into breaking the plane up and show your work. Or are you going to be a bitch about that, too?

All you were basically asked was if one number was larger than another. You couldn't even admit that. That's how much of a coward you are.


Speculate much? Who said that?What do you say really crashed there, dan?

[Nbadan]

Why don't you go ahead and figure out how much KE went into breaking the plane up and show your work. Or are you going to be a bitch about that, too?

Why? RG's point was that all the KE energy went into destroying the plane into unrecognizable pieces....we already know that this is false...

[Nbadan]

Simple logic dictates if one fact is wrong, then it is all wrong...

[ChumpDumper]

Why? RG's point was that all the KE energy went into destroying the plane into unrecognizable pieces....we already know that this is false...So you are going to be a bitch about it.

That wasn't RG's point at all. His point was one number was greater than the other. He was right.

lol "we already know that"

Sorry dan, your "research" into airline crashes is incomplete. I can only conclude you did it on purpose.

Because you are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Simple logic dictates if one fact is wrong, then it is all wrong...Except he was right.

Do the calculations, dan. You'll see one number is indeed larger than the other.

[Nbadan]

That wasn't RG's point at all. His point was one number was greater than the other. He was right.

RG's implication was that all the KE was used in the initial impact. He was wrong. You are wrong. Otherwise, what it the point? who cares what the KE was without the impact...

[ChumpDumper]

RG's implication was that all the KE was used in the initial impact.Not at all. Your inference was wrong. RG's point was the one number was larger than the other. He was right. You admitted it.

You're just stalling now. Everyone can see that.

You won't even say what you think crashed in that field because you know anything you say will be open to severe ridicule by me. You're afraid of my judgment. In this case, you definitely should be.

[Nbadan]

Since RG never really said, but just implied that there would be almost nothing recognizable if a plane crashed at 568 MPH, you could be right....I think we need to go all the way back to RG and have him prove his initial theory that not much would survive a plane wreck at that speed....why aren't you calling out RG to prove his implication?

[Nbadan]

Debris pics..

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/shankshole3.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/shankshole3.jpg

[Nbadan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/N575UA-2008-09-13-YVR.jpg/800px-N575UA-2008-09-13-YVR.jpg

[z0sa]

:lmao truthers
:lmao worse than creationists

[ChumpDumper]

Since RG never really said, but just implied that there would be almost nothing recognizable if a plane crashed at 568 MPH, you could be right....I think we need to go all the way back to RG and have him prove his initial theory that not much would survive a plane wreck at that speed....why aren't you calling out RG to prove his implication?You claim to have already done the research, but you've left out at least one important example of a crash similar to United 93.

There are only two reasons you could have done that: plain ignorance or deliberate omission.

I'm calling you out to tell me which one it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Simple logic dictates if one fact is wrong, then it is all wrong...

I just wanted to point out that this is not true in each case. It completely depends on the premise.

The premise is that a Boeing 757 was hijacked by Arab terrorists, crew passengers attempted to retake the plane and shortly thereafter the plane crashed in to a PA field.

If you specifically disprove one of those things such as it was a 757 that crashed then yes that is true.

Saying that the impact was at 55 degrees to horizontal when it was really 58 degrees or the like does not. Now if you could show that the KE at a particular angle could not have had a large enough normal component to leave a crater of that length/depth or the like and actually used specific measurements then you can make a case. Using gross generalizations and acting like the are exclusionary is dumb.

Dan, you are being dumb.

[Nbadan]

The premise is that a Boeing 757 was hijacked by Arab terrorists, crew passengers attempted to retake the plane and shortly thereafter the plane crashed in to a PA field

then let's change the premise...

Let's start with Todd Beamers 19 cell phone calls after United 93 supposedly crashed into that Pennsylvania field...

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-FBI-phone-records.pdf

Who was Todd calling from the grave? Why 19 times? How could these calls have been placed if the phone was torn to pieces?

[Nbadan]

Todd Beamer's memorial service was held on 09/16/01 at the Princeton Alliance Church in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Todd Beamer's wife, Lisa Beamer, a grieving mother of two and four months pregnant with her third child, registers TODDBEAMER.ORG four days later on 09/20/01, incorporates The Todd M. Beamer Memorial Foundation eight days later on 9/24/01 and then applies for the trademark "Let's Roll" ten days later on 9/26/01. Instead of acting like a wife and mother who should be experiencing untold grief, shock, and loss, her behavior turns a catastrophic personal tragedy into a cold and calculating cheap publicity stunt...


Considering that Todd and Lisa Beamer purchased their home in Cranbury, NJ, for $699,900 on 07/20/2000, it was interesting to note that they paid off their mortgage two weeks before 9/11 on 8/27/2001.

Middlesex County Land Records Search
https://mcrecords.co.middlesex.nj.us/records/index.jsp

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Lisa Beamer Discusses Her New Book Aired August 23, 2002


KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?

BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive.

(For those people who do not believe that heaven and hell are some imaginary place, this is perhaps one of the few times that Lisa Beamer has told the truth.)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...23/lkl.00.html

Ironically, Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage", was published in association with the literary agency of Alive Communications, Inc., 7680 Goddard Street, Suite 200, Colorado Springs, CO 80920.
http://www.alivecom.com/authors_deta...4&authorid=193

[Nbadan]

So the family was scraping bones to pay off their mortgage in one year, right?

not quite... if a family member is set to disappear, well, forever what is the last thing you would do with them?

According to Lisa Beamer's account in her book Let's roll!, she and husband Todd visited the Forum Romano in Rome on September 9, 2001.

Quote:

On Sunday (i.e., September 9) Todd and I viewed the ruins around Rome, including the Colosseum, the ancient Roman amphitheater where many early Christians were slaughtered by lions or gladiators.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4757/toddfakedphoto1small.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

then let's change the premise...

Let's start with Todd Beamers 19 cell phone calls after United 93 supposedly crashed into that Pennsylvania field...

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-FBI-phone-records.pdf

Who was Todd calling from the grave? Why 19 times? How could these calls have been placed if the phone was torn to pieces?

That's a phone in his name not the phone he called from. He was talking on an airfone while on the plane.

You are deserving nothing but contempt and scorn.

[Nbadan]

That's a phone in his name not the phone he called from. He was talking on an airfone while on the plane.

You are deserving nothing but contempt and scorn.

Read more carefully that is an FBI affidavit and those calls where from 9082024940 Todd Beamer's personal cell phone...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read more carefully that is an FBI affidavit and those calls where from 9082024940 Todd Beamer's personal cell phone...

Perhaps you should read your link more carefully:


Todd Beamer's Cell Phone

A couple of people have e-mailed me now about the item linked below, so I thought I would just save us all some time and briefly post my thoughts about the issues it raises.

This 9/29/2001 FBI lead sheet details phone calls made in relation to the cell phone of Todd Beamer, a passenger on United 93, the airplane hijacked on September 11 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Beamer is famously remembered for reporting that the passengers were planning to storm the cockpit and for issuing the call to that action: "Let's roll."

Todd Beamer cell phone log

The document is confusing. At first glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).

My best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage, or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.

More confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)

Even if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.

I'm open to hearing an explanation. If you have actual and specific knowledge of how to read this document, feel free to drop me a line and I'll update this posting.

If you're just guessing, well, you're welcome to speculate and/or investigate-and-publish away, but this post represents the sum total of my insight on the document at this time, and I don't currently have a lot of time to devote to this (either in terms of investigating further or debating it via e-mail). If I get better information, I will post it here. Happy hunting...

Have fun wearing reynold's wrap. This is boring and its just making me despise you so i am going to stop.

[Blake]

then let's change the premise...

Let's start with Todd Beamers 19 cell phone calls after United 93 supposedly crashed into that Pennsylvania field...

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-FBI-phone-records.pdf

Who was Todd calling from the grave? Why 19 times? How could these calls have been placed if the phone was torn to pieces?

Todd was calling Silverstein, letting him know it was ok to ” pull it”

[Nbadan]

My best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage, or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.

The whole point is that the 911 Commission never addresses these phone calls after united 93 goes down. So we are left guessing that these phone calls were incoming calls although we don't really know for sure. Perhaps the phone company screwed up and listed them outgoing calls, perhaps they didn't. Either way we cannot say conclusively one way or another , but they are another coincidink on a whole bunch of coincidinks that seemed to take place on Septeber 11, 2001..

[RandomGuy]

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 implied nothing of the sort.

The ONLY implication of that post was to say that there was a lot of energy available to shred debris into smaller chunks than one might normally see in most plane crashes, because mose plane crashes happen at lower speeds.

If the pieces were a lot smaller, then the plane crash would look nothing like most plane crashes.

I have stated this directly, and repeatedly.

The only way you can say this is if you either don't understand the physics or are deliberately misrepesenting them.

Which is it, lying or stupid?

[RandomGuy]

.

The whole point is that the 911 Commission never addresses these phone calls after united 93 goes down. So we are left guessing that these phone calls were incoming calls although we don't really know for sure. Perhaps the phone company screwed up and listed them outgoing calls, perhaps they didn't. Either way we cannot say conclusively one way or another , but they are another coincidink on a whole bunch of coincidinks that seemed to take place on Septeber 11, 2001..

Maybe, perhaps whatthefuckever.

You have no working, testable alternative theory.

All you have is "this looks fishy". You sound just like creationists trying to "debunk" evolution.

Go stand in the corner with the people who think that dinosaurs and humans lived together. Go on.

[RandomGuy]

Read more carefully that is an FBI affidavit and those calls where from 9082024940 Todd Beamer's personal cell phone...

Maybe that FBI affidavit emailed Fetzer.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Now Todd Beamer is the mastermind behind 9/11?

WTF is dan smoking these days?

[Agloco]

RG is playing with words again...of course the KE would be the same at any approach angle, but it would not be the same KE that goes into the impact of the plane at any angle, otherwise where is the energy coming from that is spreading the debris field..

It's much more likely that you're playing with concepts you don't understand.

You're full of crap.


of course the KE would be the same at any approach angle, but it would not be the same KE that goes into the impact of the plane at any angle, otherwise where is the energy coming from that is spreading the debris field..

Wrong. Your reference point is incorrect. Any high school physics text can explain this in a simple, easy to digest manner.


Right.....so all the KE energy was not used to break the plane into unrecognizable pieces and there should have been a substantial amount of recognizable body parts...

smh


I implied nothing of the sort.

The only way you can say this is if you either don't understand the physics or are deliberately misrepesenting them.

Which is it, lying or stupid?

It's a racemic mixture tbh.

[Agloco]

How are your physics classes coming along Dan?

Any more news from Fetzer on Todd Beamer?

[ChumpDumper]

Proposing a Better Explanation

Today, we don’t have an alternative to the official conspiracy that spells out how the events of 9/11 are explained as a result of a conspiracy among insiders. Yet, at the same time, we know it is impossible that those within the popular version of al Qaeda could have shut down the U.S. air defenses for two hours on 9/11, or destroyed the WTC buildings.

Is it possible to propose a compelling alternative conspiracy based on the involvement of insiders? Could certain corporations, government representatives, and other covert operatives have been involved? Requirements for such an alternative conspiracy to be compelling would include that it address more of the evidence and answer more of the questions about what happened, while not overly complicating the conspiracy.

If we examine the events of 9/11 in terms of what should have happened that did not, and what did not happen that should have, we can focus a little better on who might have been involved. At a minimum, the following statements of fact must be addressed by any alternative conspiracy.

• The many opportunities for U.S. intelligence agencies to track down and stop the alleged hijackers should have resulted in the attacks being stopped before 9/11.

• The four planes should not have been hijacked because the systems in place to prevent hijackings should have been effective.

• The U.S. chain of command should have responded to the attacks immediately but it did not.

• The U.S. national air defense should have responded effectively and some, if not all, of the hijacked aircraft should have been intercepted by military jets.

• The three WTC buildings should not have fallen through the path of what should have been the path of most resistance.

In addition to addressing these problems, an effective alternative version of 9/11 would better explain facts related to Flight 77 and the Pentagon, Flight 93, and ancillary issues like 9/11 insider trading.

For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes. However, it should also pay attention to the question of who benefited from the attacks, which the official investigations did not cover well. The benefits realized by al Qaeda should be compared to the benefits realized by those within an alternative conspiracy.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-05-31/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory

Of course, this guy doesn't have a theory either.

[Nbadan]

How are your physics classes coming along Dan?

Any more news from Fetzer on Todd Beamer?

Yeah, the Bush-got-one-right crowd is winning this debate...You've got Chumpy of all people posting the possibility of 'alternative' 9/11 theories...I'm not sure if there is anything to the Tod Beamer anomolies, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but until we are ready to talk about these types of 'alternative theory possibilities' without people needing a handful of zanex, relying on group-think, and without really factually proving anything themselves..

...where is the incentive to keep posting about this?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, the Bush-got-one-right crowd is winning this debate...You've got Chumpy of all people posting the possibility of 'alternative' 9/11 theories...I'm not sure if there is anything to the Tod Beamer anomolies, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but until we are ready to talk about these types of 'alternative theory possibilities' without people needing a handful of zanex, relying on group-think, and without really factually proving anything themselves..

...where is the incentive to keep posting about this?So you were never interested in the truth.

Figures. You lied your ass off about knowing Jim Fetzer for no reason at all.

[Agloco]

......but until we are ready to talk about these types of 'alternative theory possibilities' without people needing a handful of zanex, relying on group-think, and without really factually proving anything themselves..


A big part of your problem is that there is no alternative theory possibility. This is especially true from a physical standpoint, despite your claims.

If you want to indulge in alternatives, you may begin by explaining the alternatives to known classical mechanics theory you proposed earlier in this thread.

[Nbadan]

So you were never interested in the truth.

Figures. You lied your ass off about knowing Jim Fetzer for no reason at all.

Where did I post that I didn't want to know the truth? Who doesn't want to know the truth? Given your own doubts about some of the 'theories' outline in the 9/11 Commission report ....reasonable accusations of possible state involvement, evidence that the Bush administration knew more about the 9/11 plots than simply misinterpreting a CIA memo with Able Danger.....we could go on and on, aren't we really just debating the degree of conspiracy and possible negligence which was covered up in the 9/11 Commission report versus whether it was completely accurate or not.....

..Of course we are...

[Nbadan]

A big part of your problem is that there is no alternative theory possibility. This is especially true from a physical standpoint, despite your claims.

Of course there are....some are even actively supported by members of the original commission....and the Congressional Select committee...

....AND I haven't seen you disprove any of the theories I have posted in this thread...

[Nbadan]

You claim to have already done the research, but you've left out at least one important example of a crash similar to United 93.

There are only two reasons you could have done that: plain ignorance or deliberate omission.

I'm calling you out to tell me which one it is.

Why don't you post your theory and quit beating around the Bush....

...you think the plane buried itself into the ground and disintegrated into almost nothing..

[Nbadan]

If you want to indulge in alternatives, you may begin by explaining the alternatives to known classical mechanics theory you proposed earlier in this thread.

I stand by my point...the plane flipped at least once, all the (possible) KE energy was not expended in the original impact... meanwhile, RG's implication that at a 40 degree impact angle, at his KE, the plane would bury itself into the ground and disintegrated into nothing has never been proven...

......I posted pictures of planes which have crashed at much steeper angle into a swamp...plane didn't bury itself...chunks of plane recovered....and I posted pictures of a plane which crashed at supersonic speed....plenty of identifiable plane wreckage on the ground...

Where is your proof? Why do your implications get to be unsupported?

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you post your theory and quit beating around the Bush....

...you think the plane buried itself into the ground and disintegrated into almost nothing..Yep, the crash most similar to it that you somehow missed in all your years of research proves that is a very likely outcome.

I have a theory why you never brought it up.

[ChumpDumper]

Where did I post that I didn't want to know the truth? Who doesn't want to know the truth? Given your own doubts about some of the 'theories' outline in the 9/11 Commission report ....reasonable accusations of possible state involvement, evidence that the Bush administration knew more about the 9/11 plots than simply misinterpreting a CIA memo with Able Danger.....we could go on and on, aren't we really just debating the degree of conspiracy and possible negligence which was covered up in the 9/11 Commission report versus whether it was completely accurate or not.....

..Of course we are...The point I'm debating is that you and every other "truther" out there hasn't come up with an alternative theory that could even possibly be true. In over a decade. That's how intellectually bankrupt you are.

[Useruser666]

I stand by my point...the plane flipped at least once, all the (possible) KE energy was not expended in the original impact... meanwhile, RG's implication that at a 40 degree impact angle, at his KE, the plane would bury itself into the ground and disintegrated into nothing has never been proven...

......I posted pictures of planes which have crashed at much steeper angle into a swamp...plane didn't bury itself...chunks of plane recovered....and I posted pictures of a plane which crashed at supersonic speed....plenty of identifiable plane wreckage on the ground...

Where is your proof? Why do your implications get to be unsupported?

First off, it seems you are insinuating that a commercial airliner with passengers didn’t crash there. If that is accurate of the scenario you’re painting here, then I have no need to even read another post from you. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you are not being honest with yourself about this. You need to be honest with yourself before you can objectively form an opinion on this or anything really.

Secondly, there are several flaws in the stream of your logic that leave you with tainted results. You seem to have no idea how physics work in regard to the transfer of energy, how variables such as mass and velocity affect it, or how the scale of such variables work in the real world. From what you have stated, I get the impression that you think the plane should have stuck into the ground like a lawn dart or bounced around like in a cartoon or a movie. Well this is real life, not a cartoon. You can’t base what “you believe to be odd” from your experiences, because you don’t have any experience with a plane colliding with the ground at 500mph at 40 degrees. Trying to reaffirm this with a few cases pulled from the internet that loosely correlate is not a substitution for the knowledge of physics or experience of studying a similar event. You do this time and again with referencing a few pictures or the crash site and then making broad statements from such little evidence. You also misrepresent what others here are saying, either intentionally or subconsciously in an attempt to make it seem that you are somehow using logic or common sense in your argument.

Example: “the plane would bury itself into the ground and disintegrated into nothing has never been proven”

Who said this? Was it here? Where?

I would expect the plane to bury itself in the ground. It would not disintegrate into nothingness (duh!). Some of it would be burned away. Some would be unrecognizable, or fused with either itself or the ground. And other parts of it would be scattered about. In some way or another all of the plane could be accounted for. Again, to the layman this may seem amazing, but it’s really not.

Lastly, I have no idea why anyone whether being honest or dishonest would want to stretch reality so far into fantasy as the no plane argument does. I can’t understand why you want to push such a theory that is so full of holes and can be so easily dismissed when much easier and much harder to disprove alternatives exist. I would say that from what happened on 9/11 that the general feeling is that the US government either didn’t know anything about the terrorist plot, or knew too little do stop it. Now why couldn’t the issue of not being properly prepared be the criticism? Why do some need to develop complex conspiracy theories without any proof to back them up? You could have a good argument if you made any of the following statements:

1. US government was ill prepared to catch an attack plan because it was incompetent.

2. US government was ill prepared to catch an attack plan because the intelligence agencies responsible were under budgeted.

3. US government was ill prepared to catch an attack plan because an official ignored the warning or was too stupid to act appropriately.

The problem for anyone disputing those allegations is that they are hard to prove/disprove because it comes down to a judgment call. These are the easy answers and probably the most likely to have been the true underlying issue with the event. There is no need to think up some grandiose scheme involving energy weapons and magical technology that doesn’t exist. The use of common sense is lacking.

[Nbadan]

The point I'm debating is that you and every other "truther" out there hasn't come up with an alternative theory that could even possibly be true. In over a decade. That's how intellectually bankrupt you are.

There are many theories on 9/11 with great resources for you to research and debate the finer points such as the effect of KE on an airplane impact, I'll admit that some are nuttery than others, for all we know some of these could be disinformation spread by the very perpetrators to make the truth movement appear kookier than they really are..who knows? the way they manipulate the M$M it wouldn't surprise me...

.....but your being disingenuous if you really think there are no 'good' alternative 9/11 theories out there that deserve looks....

[Nbadan]

First off, it seems you are insinuating that a commercial airliner with passengers didn’t crash there.

Where did I insinuate this? I haven't insinuated anything like this...

[ChumpDumper]

There are many theories on 9/11 with great resources for you to research and debate the finer points such as the effect of KE on an airplane impact, I'll admit that some are nuttery than others, for all we know some of these could be disinformation spread by the very perpetrators to make the truth movement appear kookier than they really are..who knows? the way they manipulate the M$M it wouldn't surprise me...

.....but your being disingenuous if you really think there are no 'good' alternative 9/11 theories out there that deserve looks....OK then -- post the alternative theories you think deserve looks.

[Nbadan]

You need to be honest with yourself before you can objectively form an opinion on this or anything really.

Who is not being honest here? Someone who thinks that intimidation of witnesses, lack of resources and subpena power, states secrets and bogus classifications, a loaded commission complete with government stooges, and a unwavering deadline is the way to run an investigation into the death of 3000 Americans...

[Nbadan]

Trying to reaffirm this with a few cases pulled from the internet that loosely correlate is not a substitution for the knowledge of physics or experience of studying a similar event.

That's what I'm saying...by the way, that came from the crash report from the NTSB genius.....

[Useruser666]

Where did I insinuate this? I haven't insinuated anything like this...

You have insinuated that it wasn’t a plane that crashed there. You can’t be serious about this. See your own quotes below:

An (real) eyewitness who says first of all that this was no passenger plane that crashed in Shanksville, but also that the plane could not have been possibly been flying as fast as eyewitness Chumpy claims it was flying when it slammed into the ground...

Unless planes can go from almost nothing to over 500mph there is something wrong with the official Chumpy theory... and it gets worse...

Yes, the crater that officials claim was made by the crash of United 93 was already there before the crash according to a geological survey...


so, now your claiming that the plane reached a velocity of 563 MPH at an altitude of between 5000-10000 feet.....your an asshat..


I'm not the one making conjectures about airplane crashes...show me the proof

HAHAHAHAHA!!!


Did it? Did you personally see it crash?

A real look over the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB website shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact.

If that was the case, no matter the math, UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 40 degree pitch down angle. The pictures you posted of the UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 40 degree impact with a long ditch spreading wreckage as the FDR suggests.....

The pitch angle would create a horizontal wreckage crater...



I think that the pictures I posted already are a reasonable possibility that even at speeds higher than 568mph, your going to have quite a bit of debris, especially larger debris and at a 40 degree angle, that debris is going to be scattered over a much larger area than the pictures trollumpy has posted over and over again....
Why would these assumptions be wrong?

Sure it does. All other things being equal, if you drop something at a 90 degree angle it will have a more significant impact than of you drop something at a 40 degree, 30 degree, or 10 degree angle. Moreso, your going to have larger amounts of debris scattered across a larger area than you would have with a direct impact. We can debate this all we want but the impact crater does not look like an impact crater for a plane that hit the ground at a 40'degree angle. Even more, some witnesses have reported that the plane struck on a wing which would have led to debris being scattered over an even larger area.

These were just a small sample of your insinuations about there being no plane or *not the plane in question involved in the crash (* don’t even try and go there). By the way:

Insinuation [n]

1. an indirect or devious hint or suggestion
2. the act or practice of insinuating

If you can’t come to terms with this then I will know for sure you are not being honest in this discussion.

[Useruser666]

Who is not being honest here? Someone who thinks that intimidation of witnesses, lack of resources and subpena power, states secrets and bogus classifications, a loaded commission complete with government stooges, and a unwavering deadline is the way to run an investigation into the death of 3000 Americans...

I am not someone who thinks anything about witness intimidation because I have never talked about it. That also applies to , lack of resources, subpoena power, state secrets, bogus classifications, a loaded commission, stooges....little green men, physic powers, and finally... Chupacabra attacks. Please keep your convoluted points to things I actually said when addressing me.


That's what I'm saying...by the way, that came from the crash report from the NTSB genius.....

Again you missed the point. First, I don't care if you read a report from the official site or if you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. It doesn't make you any more of an expert than the next person. Even if you were there in the field minutes after the crash, you still don't know what you are talking about.

I also find it funny that you swear by the NTSB report to back your claims when it suits you, while disparaging any "official" sources otherwise. Don't be a hypocrite too.

[Nbadan]

An (real) eyewitness who says first of all that this was no passenger plane that crashed in Shanksville, but also that the plane could not have been possibly been flying as fast as eyewitness Chumpy claims it was flying when it slammed into the ground...

maybe there were multiple planes, a drone and a plane, a drone and missile and plane...the possibilities are endless and eye-witness testimony supports this...

[Nbadan]

Unless planes can go from almost nothing to over 500mph there is something wrong with the official Chumpy theory... and it gets worse...

Can a plane accelerate from nothing to 568MPH at such a low altitude were the air is thicker? where is your proof?

[Nbadan]

I am not someone who thinks anything about witness intimidation because I have never talked about it. That also applies to , lack of resources, subpoena power, state secrets, bogus classifications, a loaded commission, stooges....little green men, physic powers, and finally... Chupacabra attacks.

Mainly because unlike your chupacabra attacks and little green men my conjectures are based on actual facts...I know that means so little to you FAUX News watchers....facts...ever hear of them?

[Nbadan]

I also find it funny that you swear by the NTSB report to back your claims when it suits you, while disparaging any "official" sources otherwise. Don't be a hypocrite too.

Until there is another investigation, it's the only facts we have...

[ChumpDumper]

There are many theories on 9/11 with great resources for you to research and debate the finer points such as the effect of KE on an airplane impact, I'll admit that some are nuttery than others, for all we know some of these could be disinformation spread by the very perpetrators to make the truth movement appear kookier than they really are..who knows? the way they manipulate the M$M it wouldn't surprise me...

.....but your being disingenuous if you really think there are no 'good' alternative 9/11 theories out there that deserve looks....


OK then -- post the alternative theories you think deserve looks.Well?

Should I start another thread for this?

[ChumpDumper]

Can a plane accelerate from nothing to 568MPH at such a low altitude were the air is thicker? where is your proof?Where the hell is this stupidity coming from?

That chick inside her minivan?

[Nbadan]

Well?

Should I start another thread for this?

We nee a whole nother forum for this...but no...

[ChumpDumper]

We nee a whole nother forum for this...but no...So you're going to post those theories here now?

[Useruser666]

Mainly because unlike your chupacabra attacks and little green men my conjectures are based on actual facts...I know that means so little to you FAUX News watchers....facts...ever hear of them?

Your "conjectures" are based on facts? LOL

I am telling you plainly and simply that you are wrong. I have already demonstrated it in regards to the talk about the formula. It's like you are looking at a picture of a blue balloon and telling me it's red. Then saying you are basing your opinion on facts because you looked at the picture, even though you are wrong.

I could also produce pictures of a “Chupacabra”. I could say it’s a Chupacabra and state I am basing it on facts; IE, the picture.

But that would be a joke.

FAUX News? There you go again. I do not watch what I assume you are referring to Fox News as. Even if I did, I believe I would have the mental capacity to not turn into some sort of brainwashed zombie that you seem to think is the product of watching a certain TV channel.

[Mickey Goldmill]

So you're going to post those theories here now?

I says shut the hell up scumbummer

[ChumpDumper]

I says shut the hell up scumbummerUnsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.

[johnsmith]

Dan is coming off super smart in this thread.


Dan, could you explain to us again how posting here makes a difference, and how you could potentially make money off of your threads?

That's fun for me to read.

[mouse]

/thread

http://www.only1egg-productions.org/Rant/images/wtc-7.gif

[Nbadan]

This is a stupid thread because it was based from the very beginning on a stupid premise...or rather..... two stupid premises...one... that a plane would bury itself into the ground and mold and shatter itself into unrecognizable pieces...although we've never seen this happen in a plane crash before even under similar circumstances...and premise number 2 ....that the real Jim Fetzer ever posted in this forum..

....Other than that....carry on...

[ChumpDumper]

This is a stupid thread because it was based from the very beginning on a stupid premise...or rather..... two stupid premises...one... that a plane would bury itself into the ground and mold and shatter itself into unrecognizable pieces...although we've never seen this happen in a plane crash before even under similar circumstances...You haven't looked enough. Keep trying.


and premise number 2 ....that the real Jim Fetzer ever posted in this forum..You have no way of knowing because you never emailed him. I have no idea why you lied about it. That was pretty much the stupidest thing you have done here.


....Other than that....carry on...So post those alternative theories you believe are worth looking at.

[Agloco]

maybe there were multiple planes, a drone and a plane, a drone and missile and plane...the possibilities are endless and eye-witness testimony supports this...


Can a plane accelerate from nothing to 568MPH at such a low altitude were the air is thicker? where is your proof?

You're still full of crap. I'll check back next month.