| 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 (5,166 Views) | |
| Mick | May 31 2009, 04:06 AM Post #26 |
|
I am not claiming it is truth or not. I really do not care how much of the aircraft was recovered, it hardly matters. So what about Barron, why do you think what he said casts any doubt on whether or not he thought flight 93 crashed there? |
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 1 2009, 02:21 AM Post #27 |
|
what the fuck kind of debate are you trying to have? don't dodge the questions, you have truth on your side, right? |
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 2 2009, 02:24 AM Post #28 |
|
I am trying to concentrate on one thing, then move on. You on the other hand want to discuss several things at once; as well as being rude and profane when a person is not providing the answer you want. Can you be more specific about what questions you think I am dodging? If you are looking for me to commit to a percentage of the crash recovered, then I will not do it because I do not know how much was recovered. I just have not seen anything about the percentage of wreckage recovered that is false or that can not be attributed to mere inaccurate reporting. So what about Barron, why do you think what he said casts any doubt on whether or not he thought flight 93 crashed there? Edited by Mick, Jun 2 2009, 02:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 2 2009, 06:52 AM Post #29 |
|
so what leads you to believe a 757 crashed there?
|
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 2 2009, 12:23 PM Post #30 |
|
I think flight 93 crashed there because 757 parts were found there, United is missing one of their 757's and body parts belonging to the victims were found there. So you say flight 93 didn't crash there because Barron said it didn't and Barron said it didn't crash there because it didn't crash there? Sounds like a self-serving claim. Why do you think Barron did not think a plane crashed in Shanksville until the authorities told him? You think that the statement attributed to him on your video is evidence of that? Whether or not the FBI lied really has nothing to do with Barron's statement does it? Ditto for what Mark Robert's said. While I have heard of Mark Roberts, I do not recall ever reading anything he wrote. I am not prepared to discuss any Indian Lake witnesses because I have never read any of their statements or performed any research on them. I am only prepared to discuss the video you posted and I want to finish with Barron's statement as evidence before moving on. Edited by Mick, Jun 2 2009, 12:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 2 2009, 07:20 PM Post #31 |
|
i'm answered you on barron 15 fucking times. you say '757 parts were found there so that proves a plane crashed there'. i ask how much of a 757 was foung there? you say 'i don't know i don't care it doesn't matter'. i proved your source of arguments for flight 93 is primarily mark roberts website hence you bringing in his kinetic energy argument into the discussion and not wanting to discuss any potential energy and pulling the old jref card of 'do the math' and suddenly demand other people do the work on arguments you brought to the table. which i know you didn't bring to the table you read it at mark roberts website. you're trolling. i answered you about barron repeatedly and you ask again. i ask you questions and you've failed to answer every single one of them. there is no better example of trolling that this thread and your participation in it. |
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 3 2009, 03:27 AM Post #32 |
|
You did not answer my Barron questions 15 times. I think you have failed to answer it adequately even once. You have provided no proof that I have use any Mark Roberts source for my answers. Kinetic energy is not some rare and hardly used data in crashes, it is rather common. This makes your proof very poor. I never asked you to do any work on kinetic energy. I used it to show that the crashes can be expected to be different and asked if you agreed. Then you brought up potential energy and demanded that I provide calculations. I correctly stated that potential energy was not a factor as it is not actually energy expended, just energy that potentially exists. I have failed to answer "every single one" of your questions? You are a liar, here is my proof. I copied and pasted every sentence of yours directed at me that ended with a question mark in this thread. Your questions are identified as DD. My copied/pasted answers are directly below each of your questions. DD; should i expect the same? Mick; I will answer any questions that are asked of me. DD; ok the media is unreliable but the government isn't? Mick; 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. DD; 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; I do not agree that an object impacting the ground makes a crater whose depth tells us the deepest penetration. DD; does it look like a plane crashed there? Mick; I would have not known it was an airliner crash site unless I was told so. DD; why are you repeating questions? Mick; I am repeating questions in an attempt to get a direct answer. DD; did you really read my reply? are you skipping? do you need a nudge? Mick; All I was really hoping for when I asked for an answer to my original question was yes or no. DD; and yet you take a hole in the ground shaped like a plane to be proof of a plane crash? Mick; 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. DD; ok. then how do you know a plane was ever recovered then? Mick; I also think that parts of the 757 were in, under and outside of the crater. DD; 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? Mick; My analogy of a bullet shot into the ground was not meant to be proportional to an airplane crash. DD; do you believe that 90% of a 757 is somehow magically hidden underneath a crater that is 10 feet deep? Mick; I do not believe in magic DD; 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? Mick; DD; ok then whats your 'proof' that a 757 crashed there? Mick; 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. DD; we're not talking about an empty plane are we? Mick; When I claimed there was not 90 tons of aluminum in a 757, it was an attempt to educate you, I failed. DD; 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? Mick; 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? DD; 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? Mick; 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. DD; do you have any idea how much of the alleged crashed 757 was recovered? Mick; I do not have a precise figure for the amount of United 93 that was recovered, do you? DD; now will you concede this? Mick; I failed to answer this question. DD; well then perhaps you lay out the potential energy between the two for us? Mick; I do not care to calculate the potential energies of the two aircraft in question because is does not matter. DD; according to the math you laid out the kinetic energy would be. how about showing the math behind the potential energy? Mick; I do not care to calculate the potential energies of the two aircraft in question because is does not matter. DD; don't dodge the questions, you have truth on your side, right? Mick; I am trying to concentrate on one thing, then move on. DD; so what leads you to believe a 757 crashed there? Mick; I think flight 93 crashed there because 757 parts were found there, United is missing one of their 757's and body parts belonging to the victims were found there. As you can see, I failed to answer only one question. I am not a troll. I am trying to keep the debate focused on one subject at a time while you have been trying to cloud the issue at hand by bringing up additional topics before the first one is resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. You are also very deficient in answering my questions When I asked, "So what about Barron, why do you think what he said casts any doubt on whether or not he thought flight 93 crashed there?" Why not respond with something about Barron, and not what other people said? Edited by Mick, Jun 3 2009, 03:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 3 2009, 03:43 AM Post #33 |
|
post #21 : 1. 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? none Quote: 2. So was he supposed to know it was a 757 or just some kind of plane crash? plane Quote: 3. Why should we care what his observations were if he was not able to identify the aircraft? 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. Quote: 4. Why should be care about the observations of any layperson on the scene if they were not able to identify the aircraft? 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 | Jun 3 2009, 12:46 PM Post #34 |
|
What evidence do you have that Barron did not know the crash site was an airliner crash site after he arrived? According to this link; http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp Barron was told by a co-worker that a plane had crashed. He was not first (as far as we know) informed by the media or authorites as you suggest. While he may have had some preconceptions of what a plane crash might look like, flight 93's crash site appearantly did not meet his, as evidenced by the quote attributed to him. This in my opinion makes his quote very poor evidence that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. Edited by Mick, Jun 3 2009, 12:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 5 2009, 01:46 AM Post #35 |
|
lol....
you post answers to your own questions and don't even realize it?
ok. he had to be told by someone else that what happened there was a plane had crashed. who is this coworker and how did they know?
so we agree. good.
if there was only 1 eyewitness who says they had no idea it was a plane crash then you would have a point. but there are more than 1 person who walked up to that crater immediately after the explosion occurred and did not think/know/believe it was a plane crash. correct? Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jun 5 2009, 01:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
| sap-guy | Jun 5 2009, 03:13 AM Post #36 |
|
When a plane impacts the ground it has (in everyday terms) zero gravitational potential energy, bacause it's at ground level. Kinetic energy is given by e=1/2*m*v2 where m is the mass and v the speed. For similar aircraft m will not vary, so the ratio of kinetic energy between planes impacting at 300mph and 500mph is 9:25. The faster moving plane carries nearly 3x the kinetic energy. Then the outcome will depend on the attitude at impact and the nature of the surface hit. A nose-down impact will concentrate the impact into a smaller area, like a javelin landing nose-down will penetrate the sports field. A flat landing will spread out the energy of impact, like a javelin landing flat will slide along the grass. And the plane/javelin will pentrate deeper into wet or loose soil than it will baked earth. Hope that helps Edited by sap-guy, Jun 5 2009, 03:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 5 2009, 10:44 AM Post #37 |
|
You didn't really read the link I posted did you. Barron did not watch the plane go into the ground; he was indoors, at the office. He said he did not believe the report at first, because he and his co-workers frequently joked. It was his co-workers who saw the plane crash then told Barron. He believed them after he saw smoke then called 911. The article implies that Barron thought it was plane crash. It was probably just not one meeting his expectations of what he thought it would look like, possibly because he had never seen one like it in person or in the media. There were no persons at the scene that day who stated positively that an aircraft did not crash there that day. All we see are expressions of shock and surprise at the condition of the crash site. Shame on those who twist the words of those first witnesses into something else. Edited by Mick, Jun 5 2009, 02:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 5 2009, 02:43 PM Post #38 |
|
You did a better job at explaining it than I was willing to. But no matter how well this is explained, it will make no diffference to the people supporting the theory that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. It makes no difference to them for one reason only; it does not support their claims. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2009, 02:57 PM Post #39 |
|
Oh my, what a broad brush you paint with.  |
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 6 2009, 02:17 AM Post #40 |
|
I should restrict my claim to those who post here then. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 6 2009, 11:21 PM Post #41 |
|
Paint on average has a flash point of about 242-300 degrees F. Which means that a fire above 00 degrees F will certainly burn paint. Jet fuel, or kerosene , or the most common JP 1, has a burning temperature of anywhere from 545 degrees F to 1185 degrees F. (BTW, Jp1-a, and most derivatives are a hydro-carbon.) So, just by this alone, most of the pain on the plane's skin would have been burned off in a matter of minutes, if not even seconds. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 6 2009, 11:26 PM Post #42 |
|
As long as you include the inverse of your claim. 
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 6 2009, 11:30 PM Post #43 |
|
And yet it didn't.... 
|
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 6 2009, 11:35 PM Post #44 |
|
You are correct with that formula. but you have to remember that this formula is for something traveling in a straight line. I'm not exactly sure what formula you would use, but I think this one would give you a better result. Don't quote me on this.  ω is the body's angular velocity r is the distance of any mass dm from that line |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 6 2009, 11:36 PM Post #45 |
|
I never said all. I said most. Please don't put words into my mouth, as I will not put words into yours. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 7 2009, 12:03 AM Post #46 |
|
I await your pic of a piece which has the paint burnt off it.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 7 2009, 06:34 AM Post #47 |
|
again you further prove that someone who went to a plane crash had to be informed it was a plane crash or else they wouldn't have known. i dont know why you keep beating this into the ground but we agree. barron could not recognize it was a plane crash and had to be told by someone.
or maybe its because there were no seats or big pieces of fuselage or a tail section or any other recognizable debris. maybe thats why it didn't 'live up to his expectations'. because a plane didn't actually crash there.
there also wasn't any persons at the scene that day who described anything consistent with a large airplane crash. no large fires. no smell of jet fuel. [don't link me to some phony disinfo book cited by mark roberts written way after the fact] epa confirmed the soil and well water were not contaminated which is impossible if a 757 crashed there.
you and your buddies twist their words all the time to support a plane crash. you take all the statements they made on 9/11 and throw them out the window to quote some book written way after the fact in which everyone says everything they need to say to make the official story believable. don't bring your holier-than-thou bullshit around here. no ones buying it. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 7 2009, 06:36 AM Post #48 |
|
shit i'm still waiting for someone to prove that piece was anywhere near the shanksville crater..... |
|
|
|
| Mick | Jun 7 2009, 10:49 PM Post #49 |
|
You really believe someone had to tell Barron that a plane crashed there after he saw the crash site? Nothing I have read seems to support your conclusion that he needed to be told after he arrived at the crater. The only time he seemed to have doubted that a plane crash happened was between the time he was first told about it and when he first saw the smoke. You think he would have called 911 if he did not believe a plane had crashed? My buddies? Who would they be? I am not quoting any book. I have listed every source I have quoted; two so far. I am trying to keep my posts limited to Barron's statements; you seem to be trying to throw in much more yourself. I think it is ironic that the person (you) who is throwing around profanity like it is going out of style and accusing others of lying and trolling would be trying to take the moral high ground. I have said nothing that is untrue or exaggerated. You on the other hand are accusing Barron of something you have no proof of. You really need to bring much more of Barron's thoughts to the forum before you accuse him of not believing an aircraft crashed in Shanksville. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 7 2009, 11:05 PM Post #50 |
|
yeah. a lot of people had to be told. one guy i spoke with, john mazslak told me there was no way there was a 757 in that hole. he arrived at the scene within the first 15 minutes. everyone there couldn't believe it was a 757 he said. so yeah, i think barro,n as did a lot of other people, had to be told even after seeing it.
oh so you're saying he never saw the crash site before being told it was a plane crash and he never saw anything before he called 911?
just because people believe what someone tells them doesn't make it true. i think your whole argument has become he didn't see the crash site, someone told him it was a crash site, so he went and called 911 and told them a plane crashed. right?
well i throw in much more because i know much more. i don't believe a 757 crashed there based solely on barron's words. i believe it based on a larger, much much larger, body of evidence.
where did i accuse him of not believing a plane crashed there? i haven't. no one has. personally it doesn't matter what he believes. what matters is what he saw or didn't see. i don't care if he believes 10 757's crashed there. what did he see? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
1:40 AM Nov 30
