| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 22 2009, 11:12 PM (5,027 Views) | |
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 22 2009, 11:12 PM Post #1 |
|
|
 |
 
|
| noeffects | Mar 22 2009, 11:21 PM Post #2 |
|
!! Get off yo seats na !! tasty groove |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 24 2009, 03:35 AM Post #3 |
|
i just cant seem to ever get a duhbunker to commit to debating me on any shanksville topic ever.....
|
|
|
|
| jordin36 | Apr 1 2009, 02:53 PM Post #4 |
|
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-flight93-pg,0,2993172.photogallery?index=1 I like picture #8 and how it details the extent of the crash site and not just a smoldering crater. Judging from the amount of scorching of the woods it really seems like a much more widespread debris field. Some of the other pictures don't really show much as they are just pieces on the ground with no frame of reference to the crash site. But I still feel it's more credible than whats shown in the video clip which is over and over pointing out that the plane is not in the crater. That's because its in the woods. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 20 2009, 01:55 AM Post #5 |
|
What do you want to discuss? Can we start off with what experience Barron had with airliner crashes that would have left him or her with any certain preconceptions of what the crash site is supposed to look like? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 21 2009, 12:43 AM Post #6 |
|
theres no plane in the woods. thats ridiculous. the top of the trees were scorched and burnt due to the blast trajectory of what exploded on the drainage ditch. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 21 2009, 12:44 AM Post #7 |
|
well for starters when a 100 ton 757 crashes and the government claims to have recovered over 90% of it i expect to see 90 tons of debris at the site. i can see where penetration into the ground ends. its about 10 feet. i dont see 90 tons of debris. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 21 2009, 02:26 AM Post #8 |
|
I was hoping we could start with a claim made at 0:43 into the video. Can we start off with what experience Barron had with airliner crashes that would have left him or her with any certain preconceptions of what the crash site is supposed to look like? Or would you rather start with something else? Maybe if we discuss the claims made in the video in the order they were made it will be less confusing. If I ask a direct question of you, should I expect a direct answer? Do you really expect to see 90 tons of debris? If so, why? Edited by Mick, May 21 2009, 12:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 21 2009, 03:27 AM Post #9 |
|
to the best of my knowledge the locals who went to the scene expected to see what you find when 757's crash but none of them are airplane crash recovery personnel. these are just people who watched a huge plane disappear behind a treeline and then saw an explosion. since in all of aviation history there has never been an instance of an airplane 'vaporizing' people expect to find airplane debris. like engines and seats and tail sections and large pieces of fuselage.
nope i answered you.
no one here is confused. dont attempt to talk down to me.
yes. should i expect the same?
because the government says they recovered 90%+ of the 100 ton airliner. how much debris do you suppose that would be? |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 21 2009, 11:58 AM Post #10 |
|
So can we agree that all of the quotes from the non-expert civilian personnel about the condition of the crash site have little or no value about whether or not an airliner crashed there? Or are there any quotes in that video you think are worthy of being evidence to support any conclusion? I am not talking down to anyone, I am hoping to keep the discussion focused and civilized. I will answer any questions that are asked of me. If 90% of 100 tons is recovered, then 90 tons is what to expect. But it would be foolhardy to expect it to be piled into one location at the crash site for a photo op. I also did not see any government statements in the video about any percentage recovered, just some quotes from the news, which we all know can be unreliable. I have read claims of planes vaporizing before, but never from any knowledgeable source. They seem to be nonsense to me. I have not seen any evidence to show anything besides the liquid components of the plane or cargo vaporized. Edited by Mick, May 21 2009, 01:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 22 2009, 01:22 AM Post #11 |
|
no we cant. when people arrive to a plane crash they know it. they dont break up into groups to go into the woods to try to find the massive 757. you don't have to be an aviation crash investigating authoritive to recognize a plane crash. never in all of history have people showed up to a plane crash site and asked "what happened here?" or "wheres the plane?" people aren't stupid. they dont have to spend years taking courses and classes to be able to recognize a crashed 757.
correct. but i do expect to see it all together inside a hangar somewhere. it all had to go somewhere.
ok the media is unreliable but the government isn't?
well we agree there. can we agree that when something impacts the ground and creates a crater that craters depth tells us the deepest penetration achieved by the impacting object? |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 22 2009, 02:27 AM Post #12 |
|
Well, then how many times has an airliner crashed like United 93 was supposed to have? If a lay person has not experienced such a catastrophic event (like flight 93) before, they may have no idea what to expect or not see what they expect to see. Did any of the persons quoted in the video have any experience with similar crash sites? This is important to know if we should expect to place any significance in their statements at all. Why would they be expected to know it was a 757 instead of any other medium sized airliner? I am familiar with aircraft, but it beats me how I can tell the difference between the high speed crash sites of 757, 767, 737 or Airbus medium sized airliners. Expecting someone to identify a 757 in small pieces in or on the ground is really setting the bar too high in my opinion What I am getting at is that I have not seen claims by the government that 90% of the aircraft was recovered, just news reports. While I know that the media and government are unreliable at times, I am wondering if any government officials actually made the claims repeated in the video. I do not agree that an object impacting the ground makes a crater whose depth tells us the deepest penetration. Something as simple as shooting a bullet or shotshell into the dirt will show you that. No one should expect the ground to be a homogenous layer of material. The aircraft is made from a variety of materials also; plastics, aluminum, steel, titanium and glass. All of these can react differently to the Earth when they impact. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 22 2009, 02:46 AM Post #13 |
|
 flight 427 was a 737 which nose dived from 6000' into the ground in aliquippa, pa. does it look like a plane crashed there?
its 100 tons of airplane. it doesn't vanish.
why are you repeating questions?
did you really read my reply? are you skipping? do you need a nudge?
i don't expect them to know its a 757. i expect them to know its an airplane.
and yet you take a hole in the ground shaped like a plane to be proof of a plane crash?
you're right. i expect them to say "holy shit!!! its a plane crash!!!"
ok. then how do you know a plane was ever recovered then?
ok. then how do you know a plane was ever recovered then? [ooops i just skipped too - must be contagious]
oh so you would end up with a hole 6 inches deep and a bullet at 100 inches with 94 inches of dirt covering it up?
if you have a bucket filled with sand and you push a brick down into it you will lose enough sand to accomodate the brick. if you shove 100 tons of aluminum or 90 tons for argument sake into the ground you have to accomodate 90 tons in that area. this is reality. 2 objects cannot occupy the same space. it is physically impossible. do you believe that 90% of a 757 is somehow magically hidden underneath a crater that is 10 feet deep? |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 22 2009, 01:42 PM Post #14 |
|
Looking at your small photo of flight 427; I would have not known it was an airliner crash site unless I was told so. It looks like a garbage dump in the forest. Of course it looks different than the flight 93 site. If flight 93 was moving at 500 mph at impact and flight 427 was at 300 mph (from what I read about them), then flight 93’s kinetic energy was about 2.7 times higher per unit mass. Taking into account the different aircraft, speeds and possibly ground composition, it is not surprising that photos of each site differ. I am repeating questions in an attempt to get a direct answer. First I asked, “Can we start off with what experience Barron had with airliner crashes that would have left him or her with any certain preconceptions of what the crash site is supposed to look like?” You answered with, “well for starters when a 100 ton 757 crashes and the government claims to have recovered over 90% of it i expect to see 90 tons of debris at the site.” After I repeated my request, you responded with “to the best of my knowledge the locals who went to the scene expected to see what you find when 757's crash…..” and “they dont have to spend years taking courses and classes to be able to recognize a crashed 757.” Then finally you say “i don't expect them to know its a 757. i expect them to know its an airplane.” All I was really hoping for when I asked for an answer to my original question was yes or no. Instead you go from expecting a lay person to know that a 757 crashed at Shanksville to not expecting them to know it was a 757. You are being remarkably inconsistent in your replies and appear to be goading me into something by your attitude. You could be more polite. I take a hole in the ground to be part of the evidence of a plane crash. Nowhere did I ever say it was the sole proof. My analogy of a bullet shot into the ground was not meant to be proportional to an airplane crash. It is rude of you to suggest otherwise. It was merely meant to demonstrate that an object can bury itself farther down than the bottom of the crater. I fail to see how you can not understand this. There is not 90 tons of aluminum in any 757, the empty weight is about 64 tons or so, not all of that aluminum. Hyperbole is not suitable here. I have never read any claims that the entire aircraft was contained in the crater, have you? I do not believe in magic and I also think that parts of the 757 were in, under and outside of the crater. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 22 2009, 02:00 PM Post #15 |
|
So to recap. A person sees an airliner fly towards the ground in a high speed dive and hears a crash. They rush to the crash site and see a large smoking crater. If they have never seen something like this before, is it surprising that they may be confused? Should we be using their claims of "where is the airplane" to support a theory that the aircraft never crashed there? Barron was quoted as saying, It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane." He was not quoted as saying there was no plane, just that it did not look like a plane. Since aircarft are mostly thin aluminum tubes with engines and wings, they sometimes look nothing like a plane after a crash. They can look like a trash heap to the inexperienced eye. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 27 2009, 03:57 PM Post #16 |
|
Why is that? We need at least two for a debate, where are you? de·bate (d-bt) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. 2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate. 3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. 4. Obsolete Conflict; strife. I can't do this myself. I need another point of view. If that point of view decides not to post, then there is no debate. If the only other person in the debate shares the same point of view, then there is no debate. If there is no debate in the skeptics section (where I seem to be restricted to now for some reason), then this forum is not any different from many other forums in that it becomes a place for like minded people to pat each other on the back. And that kind of forum is boring. |
|
|
|
| m0n3yman | May 27 2009, 05:29 PM Post #17 |
|
For reference of current location of Flight 93: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg I truly can't think of 1 reason why photographs of what they are storing in regards to Flight 93 can't be released. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 28 2009, 12:50 AM Post #18 |
|
but flight 93 came down from about 6000 feet allegedly and 427 came down from 32,000 feet. that doesn't affect the kinetic energy in any way? or don't you like those types of calculations?
i gave you a direct answer.
scroll up.
ok then whats your 'proof' that a 757 crashed there?
then dont bring it to the discussion.
listen you want to claim that there is 90% of an airplane under that 10 foot deep hole then fine. Just show me some proof. Did at least 1 seat maybe survive partially? I mean 90% of a 757 is a lot to account for.
we're not talking about an empty plane are we?
yes thats where they claim the plane "buried itself". you never heard that flight 93 "buried itself" in a field in shanksville? are you being serious?
well the only thing i can see outside of the crater is some flimsly looking metallic material which i believe to be aluminum but all the pieces seem to be inconsistent with the grey/blue color scheme of flight 93 as they all are silver. i looked through about 200-300 photos in wally miller's possession of the site and i couldn't find anything else that resembles anything to looked like it came from a plane. no big tires or massive landing gears, no seats or luggage, no recognizable pieces of fuselage or a tail section....... you know wally miller told me anyone can get a copy of those photos. all they have to do is ask and pay for the duplication. if anyone is interested in taking him up on that let me know. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 28 2009, 12:57 AM Post #19 |
|
well the witnesses i spoke to dont seem to report a high speed dive. viola was just over a mile away and said it was at treetop level. bob and doug told me they saw it flying with its wings vertical to the ground heading in that direction but did not describe it as 'diving' out of the sky. they were about 5 or 6 miles out when it passed in front of them. even viola saylor said to me and you can see it in the interview that for the plane to crash the way they reported it as crashing it had to pull up after it passed her and then nose dived into the ground. that it wasn't possible for the plane she saw to crash as reported it must have done another manuever after it passed her. of course this is aerodynamically impossible. and when we have witnesses 3 miles after the crash site who report hearing the engines roar over head or that it came over their house so fast it sounded like a missile before the explosion in shanksville or that they were in indian lake fishing when they saw it fly over the lake we should just ignore them because there is a hole in the ground and some aluminum scrap a couple miles before them?
i disagree. i've spoken with a couple people who worked the 427 site. you don't walk up to an airplane crash and not know what it is. they too are puzzled by the 93 site. and as for you not knowing the image of 427 was a crash site all you're doing is trying to justify your stance. i bet you print that pic out and show it to 10 random people and ask them what happened there and they'll say it looks like a plane crashed...... |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 28 2009, 01:32 AM Post #20 |
|
You are not giving a direct answer unless you can decide which version of your answer is correct. I will get to proof of the crash later in this discussion; first we need to keep discussing what those people said about the appearance of the crash site. You suggested that an impact crater’s depth tells us the deepest penetration achieved by the impacting object. My bullet analogy was the responce to how your statement was obviously wrong. You really expect me to not respond to that claim? I do not claim that 90% of the plane was in or beneath the crater; you just want me to make the claim. When I claimed there was not 90 tons of aluminum in a 757, it was an attempt to educate you, I failed. Unless you are able to convince anyone that it was carrying aluminum cargo instead of tons of people, fuel and goods, then you are going to have to concede that there is not 90 tons of aluminum to be expected at the crash site. Who is this “they” you are talking about? The press makes any claims they want to. Who in the government claimed there were 90 tons of aircraft buried in Shanksville in the crater? United’s 757’s are not all silver. You don’t really think that they waste the weight of silver pain on the interior skin of the aircraft do you? Kinetic energy is that due to speed, not height. You might be confused with potential energy. While more speed (thus more KE) can build up with greater height, it is not strictly height dependant. So you agree that the energy of the United 93 crash was far greater than the energy of the 427 crash and that comparing them is not a good idea if you want to use it to prove that United 93 didn’t crash in Shanksville? What calculations are you talking about? Got any for us? Can we start off with what experience Barron had with airliner crashes that would have left him or her with any certain preconceptions of what the crash site is supposed to look like? So was he supposed to know it was a 757 or just some kind of plane crash? Why should we care what his observations were if he was not able to identify the aircraft? Why should be care about the observations of any layperson on the scene if they were not able to identify the aircraft? Edited by Mick, May 28 2009, 01:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 28 2009, 04:00 AM Post #21 |
|
do you have any idea how much of the alleged crashed 757 was recovered?
i never said it was 90 tons of aluminum. you are creating straw men. there are seats and engines and alot more than just a skin to account for.
wow. now i know i'm debating mark roberts web page. this is pretty neat. anyways i went to your source of arguments so far [which all mimic mark roberts which is why you know the kinetic energy in terms of speed but not in terms of distance and are now demanding i do the 'math' you brought up....lol] and found that actually 95% of the plane was recovered. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html
there's another link where crowley from the fbi directly says it too : http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html
now will you concede this?
i know they're not. thats the point i was making. now show me something other than one picture that has grey and/or blue debris.
well then perhaps you lay out the potential energy between the two for us?
according to the math you laid out the kinetic energy would be. how about showing the math behind the potential energy?
2+2=5
none
plane
i did not expect him to say 'wow a united airlines boeing 757'. i expect to hear 'there was a plane crash. it was horrible. carnage. debris everywhere. just sickening to witness' or something along those lines.
well if people walk up to a plane crash and don't know its a plane crash and has to be told by media and authorities that its a plane crash then odds are it wasn't a plane crash. we the people are not as stupid as you would like to make us out to be. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 30 2009, 02:58 AM Post #22 |
|
I do not have a precise figure for the amount of United 93 that was recovered, do you? In post #13 you said, “if you shove 100 tons of aluminum or 90 tons for argument sake into the ground you have to accomodate 90 tons in that area.” Wasn’t this in reference to United 93? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html is a new one to me, I have never read it before. If you are claiming that 95% of the aircraft was recovered, then I do not have the data to dispute it now. So is your only problem that no one is showing you photos of the debris? What do you expect to learn from those photos? I do not care to calculate the potential energies of the two aircraft in question because is does not matter. What matters is the kinetic energy and the composition of the ground. Do you agree that the flight (crash) parameters of 93 and 427 were different enough to not appear similar? So did Barron ever doubt that an aircraft crashed at Shanksville? His statement just seems to convey his impression of the horrible scene there. So far I think your math (2+2=5) skills sums up your ability to determine what went on in Shanksville. Nothing in the video attributed to Barron indicated that he did not think an airplane crashed in Shanksville. He was just surprised at the appearance of it. I’m not suggesting he is stupid. I am suggesting that he is normal. I find nothing unusual a bout his quote. I wonder what else he had to say about his experience there. You are suggesting that Barron or others had to be told there was a plane crash there, got evidence to support this claim? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 30 2009, 03:38 AM Post #23 |
|
i do i posted it in the reply YOU DIDN'T FUCKING QUOTE. how convenient. |
|
|
|
| Mick | May 30 2009, 01:27 PM Post #24 |
|
I saw that number. I was just didn't know if you believed it, I guess you do. Then what do you need photos of the debris for? So did Barron ever doubt that an aircraft crashed at Shanksville? His statement just seems to convey his impression of the horrible scene there. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | May 31 2009, 02:27 AM Post #25 |
|
are you saying it isn't the truth? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
8:02 AM Nov 8
