| 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! |
| Coroner Wally Miller | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 17 2008, 06:11 AM (2,513 Views) | |
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 17 2008, 06:11 AM Post #1 |
|
would love to track down the original source for this and obtain a full copy..... vs. |
 |
 
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 18 2008, 11:40 AM Post #2 |
Sir finds a lot
|
mythbusters should get a bigger budget. I don't understand the issues with recreating actual events. Someone has to have the money to put dummies made of material similar to the thermal resistances of the human body and fly a plane into the ground like suggested and see the effects. That's why I really hate the rich people out there who can fund the truth of the matter. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 22 2008, 12:27 PM Post #3 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Probably the same issues that rational people have with resuming Apollo flights to the moon just to placate the fools who say that the lunar landings were hoaxed. It would be a colossal waste of time, money and resources to recreate the flight 93 crash. There is no evidence that it was not flight 93 containing passengers and crew that crashed at Shanksville. What is stopping you from raising the money required from the alleged dozens of people who think flight 93 did not crash as claimed by the government? If all of these people, that are said to exist, are not chipping in to fund the truth; do you hate them too? Here is more of Wally Miller. This video is just as poor as the other two. It fails to use enough time to adequately give both sides of the debate enough time to describe what Miller meant by his statements. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIGDaBwf0Ko |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 22 2008, 01:06 PM Post #4 |
|
that's a lie and you know it. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 22 2008, 04:35 PM Post #5 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Its not polite to call someone a liar and fail to produce any evidence. |
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 23 2008, 12:13 PM Post #6 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
jimbob you have never been any use here. This isn't about the people. it's about the nature of the crash. I'm talking about a reenactment of the supposed level of descent and recreate it. Thanks for taking out whatever suites you best. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 23 2008, 02:08 PM Post #7 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
It seems to me you made it about the people when you said you hated them. Don't I get an answer to my question? So let's say you do get someone to finance your scheme. How are you going to decide what speed and attitude to use for the test? How much does the impact site have to replicate the Shanksville site to conclude that Flight 93 may have crashed there? Knowing that there are several different theories about the mechanism for creating the crater near Shanksville, how many crashes or test explosions do you think are needed? Let’s say that someone is able to crash some aircraft into the ground and it validates whatever theory you are supporting at the time. How do you suggest placating the rest of the CT people who disagree with your conclusions? |
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 23 2008, 02:42 PM Post #8 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
"What is stopping you from raising the money required from the alleged dozens of people who think flight 93 did not crash as claimed by the government? If all of these people, that are said to exist, are not chipping in to fund the truth; do you hate them too?" No need to respond to your issues. You are hitting semantics. I dont' care about funds, It's a moot issue and you know it. Our gov't has lost billions from the pentagon, so that really isn't an issue. What statistics would I use? Are you completely retarded or are you trying to out wit me. I would use the "official" fdr. I only think it would take one reenactment to do the job, but then again it still is pretty menial considering all of the money being spent now. You are asking me a lot of social questions involving people. I am an engineering student. I only care for the facts. I have questions in regards to the shape and size of the site along with limited plane debris. I dont' care about who agree and disagree with me. This kind of thing wouldn't be creating a huge schism like your really important questions seem to be implying. It's about the matter of the fact. Let the evidence speak for itself. At the angle that the FDR suggested, the plane will either create a similar or non-similar effect. What would constitute a non-similar effect? Large debris, changes in volumetric shape. Does none of that interest you. I still consider consider a 2 billion dollar investment in crashing a plane into a structurally duplicated building vastly cheaper than the route we took. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 23 2008, 03:02 PM Post #9 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
You seem to care about funds enough to want them raised and hate people for not raising them for you. Wasting more money because some may have been wasted already is not smart. I am not trying to outwit anyone here, just asking for your opinion. I have only asked two questions so far about people, I did not expect that to overwhelm you. You seem to care about more than just the facts if you are going to hate people for not financing your crash scheme. If you do not care who agrees or disagrees with you, then this scheme of yours might only be suited to satisfy your own interests. Can you put your engineering training to use for us and calculate for us how far an engine can bury itself in the ground, and how far another one can bounce if not contained in the ground? Can you show and explain the calulations? I used to be an engineering student a long time ago, but I ran out of money and never finished. Why do you say limited debris? How much would you expect to find after a high speed, steep angle crash like that? Edited by JimBob, Jul 23 2008, 03:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jul 24 2008, 08:31 AM Post #10 |
|
"crash scheme" ? . I would bet all-in and then some that you couldn't replicate a crash scenario to end up like the Shanksville site, given you use thee Official data . Not even close. Really? Iron Mountain. Is it really that much of a security risk to see this evidence? It would only be a security risk to is the perps. Have you seen Killtown's "Fairy Tail" ? fun. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 24 2008, 09:33 AM Post #11 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Why do you think the Shanksville crash could not be replicated using official data? What stuff I have seen of Killtown's does not impress me. Anytime someone starts with a conclusion then picks out only the evidence to support, it undermines their credibility. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 24 2008, 10:01 AM Post #12 |
|
quite frankly, I am not willing to link to all of the flight 93 threads just to provide evidence that you are being dishonest. you know how to get to that sub-forum and so does everyone else. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jul 24 2008, 11:11 AM Post #13 |
|
In that case you must also have some serious issues with the NIST WTC Twin Towers Collapse Report? MM |
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 24 2008, 12:26 PM Post #14 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
raising them for me? I'm not expecting money to be raised by people, it should just be funded. You keep saying wasting money. Do you have any clue about our economic situation, because if so you would stop using words like waste. Putting engineering knowledge to the debris is doable, but still hard to be exact on any scale. I don't know shear and bending stresses for impact, only for static weight. I'm sure there are multi dynamic variables that could be used, but I don't know about any "crash experts". You keep putting me in this hate category. You really are just rambling to put words on your post. That has no bearing on the stastical analysis, which should be the main point of concern here. on higher speeds I don't know what to expect, I just know the 100 % of other crashes that have empirical evidence of larger debris. It's then obvious that the angle has something to do with the debris size, but I still want more analysis. I am just hopeful that we can get past a whole bunch of b.s. mentality that you obviously have so that we can actually do tests. What you consider a waste is a joke because you should be spending your time elsewhere than on here asking me not to be mad at people for not funding something. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 24 2008, 12:42 PM Post #15 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
But what percentage of those other crashes you reference involved a medium sized airliner like a 757 or 767 diving steeply into the ground? Does it really do any good to compare flight 93 to an airliner that had a controlled flight into ground or other lower speed crash? |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 24 2008, 12:49 PM Post #16 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Is this part from the NIST report what you are referring to? "This reports describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapses of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings;" |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 24 2008, 03:42 PM Post #17 |
|
here's a question that no believer of the official 93 story has ever been able to answer. How did it dive steeply into the ground and yet send debris only to one area of the forest over yander? Why not in all directions? Some debunkers have said that the plane was travelling toward the woods and thats why, but it could not also be diving and put the shape it is alleged to have imprinted, into the sand/dirt. picture diving close to straight down and having most of your debris shot to the left of your impact hole... seriuosly... picture it. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 24 2008, 06:24 PM Post #18 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Unless the plane was diving straight down, then it will have some horizontal motion. Lets say it was diving at an angle of 60 degrees at 500 mph (correct me if you have more accurate figures). This means it is moving with a horizntal speed of 250 mph. Much of the debris will tend to scatter in the direction favoring the motion of the plane and be moved by the wind. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jul 25 2008, 07:33 AM Post #19 |
|
90 degrees , 60 degrees? What does the FDR say? Personally i think you should know given your "debunK skills" For you JimBob. It'z just another Fairy Tail...  "I've seen more wreckage after a kids party at McDonalds.....flight 93 crashed here they say.....no way." Gary-youtube comment lol |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 25 2008, 09:54 AM Post #20 |
|
that would be fine and dandy if the plane were "facing" (for lack of a better word) the woods. It was facing perpendicular to the woods though. |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 25 2008, 12:10 PM Post #21 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
Ok, how about 40 degrees and 563 mph? My example was a conservative estimate just to show that the plane and resulting debris still had horizontal velocity. You're right, it is just a sick fluffy video. Edited by JimBob, Jul 25 2008, 12:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 25 2008, 01:20 PM Post #22 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
What do you find sick? |
|
|
|
| JimBob | Jul 25 2008, 06:33 PM Post #23 |
|
Trolls R Us
|
The word sick was just a reference to the icon in the post above. I thought the video was all fluff and little substance. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jul 26 2008, 11:02 AM Post #24 |
|
"all fluff and little substance." that's perfect. Fluff? like the fluffy ground in Shanksville? Little substance? like the little substance of which you call flight 93?  zZzz  here is some Ween music to help u stay asleep Fluffy zzZz
|
|
|
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jul 26 2008, 11:39 AM Post #25 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/477968/1/#new |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic » |
10:29 AM Dec 5
