The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[uke2se]

Ummm...and if you recall correctly, the Popular mechanics propoganda was dismissed;

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Yes, it was dismissed, as in hand waved. Not very convincing.

It's the same thing with every source that doesn't agree with a truther's particular point of view. It's "propaganda" or "disinformation". It's easy to hang onto a conspiracy theory when you simply disregard all the evidence that doesn't agree with you.

[Moridin]

Morien, do you know what Newton's first law and the first law of thermodynamics states? If so, explain these to be in your own words.

[Morien]

When you fly a plane at around 500 miles miles per hour (700-800 feet per second!), crashing it into the ground, parts will fly all over the place, even landing several kilometers away (for smaller debris).

Rubbish. As stated before, it was a plane crash...not a fucking meteor.

This is entirely consistent with the data we have. This has to do with wind, but also very much to do with the velocity of the plane on impact and Newton's first law.

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

The engine fan was one of the largest surviving pieces of the plan. Most of the aircraft was obliterated on impact, shattering into tiny pieces that were driven as much as 30 feet into the ground. Creg Feith, a former senior investigator with the NTSB says this is a typical outcome when a plane hits the ground at high speed. Most crashes occur at takeoff or landing, when the speed of the plane is relatively slow. You can liken crash debris to an egg. At a slow speed, dropped from your hand, the impact with crack the egg and you will have large pieces of shell. Take the egg and drop it from 20 stories up and t will have smaller fragments of shell and spread out by the impact.

So? We're talking airplanes...not eggs..

This scenario of heavy items being propelled ahead of the wreckage is not unusual, it also occurred when the landing gear and black box of Flight 77 were found deep inside the Pentagon, far from their original position in the aircraft.

The above two paragraphs taken from the excellent book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories can't Stand up to the Facts" (edited by Dunbar and Reagan, pp. 86-90)

In my opinion, this is on of the easiest 9/11 truther claim to debunk.

Dunbar and Reagan...[b]The Editors of Popular Mechanics[/b.]. Hmmm, see above, and;

Debunking employs some of the techniques of the 9/11 Commission Report, for sure. Whole areas of inquiry are simply disregarded....

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 2105006226

And;

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts, by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan—follows on from a Popular Mechanics article of the same name, and has the ambition to debunk the main points of the alternative theory. It mentions many of the key alternative theory arguments yet ignores or distorts the facts so blatantly as to be comical... if it weren't so dangerous.

http://tinyurl.com/2fxnhh6

[uke2se]

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

Seriously? Do you think we're trying to tell you the wind blew the engine away from the airplane?

[Morien]

Ummm...and if you recall correctly, the Popular mechanics propoganda was dismissed;

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Yes, it was dismissed, as in hand waved. Not very convincing.

It's the same thing with every source that doesn't agree with a truther's particular point of view. It's "propaganda" or "disinformation". It's easy to hang onto a conspiracy theory when you simply disregard all the evidence that doesn't agree with you.

Not exactly. Reasons were provided. This would have been noticed if you'd bothered to read the article, at which point, you are at liberty to rebut the claims therein...not with the usual generic dismissal (hand wave, not very convincing) of views that counter your own...

[Morien]

Morien, do you know what Newton's first law and the first law of thermodynamics states? If so, explain these to be in your own words.

Do you know how to rebut an argument without personalising it?

[uke2se]

Not exactly. Reasons were provided. This would have been noticed if you'd bothered to read the article, at which point, you are at liberty to rebut the claims therein...not with the usual generic dismissal (hand wave, not very convincing) of views that counter your own...

Mhmmm...Let's see. The article asserts that

- the Popular Mechanics article didn't address all of the conspiracy theory claims about 9/11.
- the Popular Mechanics article attacks claims that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold.

It does not say that Popular Mechanics got it wrong. So, it doesn't even manage to dismiss the Popular Mechanics article properly. Now, if you'd like to present evidence of why the Popular Mechanics article is wrong, go ahead. Just be aware that the link you provided does not do so.

This leaves us back at the beginning. There seems to be nothing strange about the crash site for UA93. The engine's location isn't odd at all. Light debris flying miles away isn't strange either. So, there's really nothing left to hang a conspiracy theory on.

[Morien]

Not exactly. Reasons were provided. This would have been noticed if you'd bothered to read the article, at which point, you are at liberty to rebut the claims therein...not with the usual generic dismissal (hand wave, not very convincing) of views that counter your own...

Mhmmm...Let's see. The article asserts that

- the Popular Mechanics article didn't address all of the conspiracy theory claims about 9/11.
- the Popular Mechanics article attacks claims that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold.

It does not say that Popular Mechanics got it wrong. So, it doesn't even manage to dismiss the Popular Mechanics article properly. Now, if you'd like to present evidence of why the Popular Mechanics article is wrong, go ahead. Just be aware that the link you provided does not do so.

This leaves us back at the beginning. There seems to be nothing strange about the crash site for UA93. The engine's location isn't odd at all. Light debris flying miles away isn't strange either. So, there's really nothing left to hang a conspiracy theory on.

Both of the two articles I provided have many claims regarding the questionable claims of the 911 commision report. If you wish to rebut them, quote and rebut the claims contained therein. Not what you think they claim...This, of course is open to (mis)interpretation...I'm sure you know what quotation marks are....

[uke2se]

Both of the two articles I provided have many claims regarding the questionable claims of the 911 commision report. If you wish to rebut them, quote and rebut the claims contained therein. Not what you think they claim...This, of course is open to (mis)interpretation...I'm sure you know what quotation marks are....

Why are you moving the goal-posts, Morien? We weren't talking about the 911 commission report. We were talking about the Popular Mechanics article which you dismissed, referring to that link of yours that doesn't say that Popular Mechanics got it wrong. How about we examine that line of reasoning before jumping to the next?

[Jumbo]

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away

Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)

No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.

It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.

The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph

Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....

Indian lake is a mile and a half from the crash site. The wind was blowing in the direction of the lake and Matthew McCormick discussing light debris strongly implies that was what was found there. Is there nay evidence of large debris found there?

CNN reporting 2 days after the crash talked of investigators finding tiny bits of debris 8 miles away.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

Again consistent with simple physics. Small items can get thrown further and really small things get blown on the wind.

The last claim about the aircraft attitude:
Page 2 of the NTSB report herehttp://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf states the following
"The airplane then pitched nose down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose down inverted attitude.

2000 ft is not far for the engine to travel (300 yards) Again the energy involved with the impact was considerable. Its nothing to do with wind in this case its simply the momentum of the impact being transferred to the engine.

[Morien]

Both of the two articles I provided have many claims regarding the questionable claims of the 911 commision report. If you wish to rebut them, quote and rebut the claims contained therein. Not what you think they claim...This, of course is open to (mis)interpretation...I'm sure you know what quotation marks are....

Why are you moving the goal-posts, Morien? We weren't talking about the 911 commission report. We were talking about the Popular Mechanics article which you dismissed, referring to that link of yours that doesn't say that Popular Mechanics got it wrong. How about we examine that line of reasoning before jumping to the next?

No moving of goalposts here..I'm merely requesting that you quote the claims that the articles I've listed state regarding the 911 commission report....not what you think they claim....How about you adequately state what it is they claim, without your interpretation....

For the record, this is what you stated they claim;

Mhmmm...Let's see. The article asserts that

- the Popular Mechanics article didn't address all of the conspiracy theory claims about 9/11.
- the Popular Mechanics article attacks claims that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold

I see that nowhere explicitly in the articles, which is precisely what I am saying...those are your interpretations of what they claim...This itself is subjective. Again I stated...you are quite capable of using quotation marks...please do.

[uke2se]

No moving of goalposts here..I'm merely requesting that you quote the claims that the articles I've listed state regarding the 911 commission report....not what you think they claim....How about you adequately state what it is they claim, without your interpretation....

You are definitely moving goal-posts, as we weren't discussing the 911 commission report. Are you having trouble keeping the 911 commission report apart from the Popular Mechanics article? They are not the same publication.

For the record, this is what you stated they claim;

Mhmmm...Let's see. The article asserts that

- the Popular Mechanics article didn't address all of the conspiracy theory claims about 9/11.
- the Popular Mechanics article attacks claims that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold

I see that nowhere explicitly in the articles, which is precisely what I am saying...those are your interpretations of what they claim...This itself is subjective. Again I stated...you are quite capable of using quotation marks...please do.

So, what do you feel that the article you linked me says? Yes, that's my interpretation of it. Do you feel that it says that the Popular Mechanics article was wrong? If so, where does it say so, and what does it say was wrong?

Furthermore, you'll note that nowhere in my post that you quoted do I mention the 911 commission report. That's because we weren't discussing that.

[Morien]

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away

Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)

No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.

It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.

The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph

Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....

Indian lake is a mile and a half from the crash site. The wind was blowing in the direction of the lake and Matthew McCormick discussing light debris strongly implies that was what was found there. Is there nay evidence of large debris found there?

A 15mph wind blows a quarter ton engine (not 'light' debris as you claim) a quarter of a mile, if you view the evidence I submitted...again I state, this is highly unlikely

CNN reporting 2 days after the crash talked of investigators finding tiny bits of debris 8 miles away.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

'Tiny' bits of debris...would that include the quarter tone engine, blown approximeately a quarter of a mile?

Again consistent with simple physics. Small items can get thrown further and really small things get blown on the wind.

Yes...you may continue to tangentially and disingenuously talk of 'small things', it has not gone unnoticed.

The last claim about the aircraft attitude:
Page 2 of the NTSB report herehttp://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf states the following
"The airplane then pitched nose down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose down inverted attitude.

Not according to Don Rumsfeld, if you view the youtube evidence I provided.

2000 ft is not far for the engine to travel (300 yards) Again the energy involved with the impact was considerable. Its nothing to do with wind in this case its simply the momentum of the impact being transferred to the engine.

A quarter of a mile is a hell of a distance for a quarter ton engine to travel...., especially in a 15mph breeze as is eight miles way too far for even small debris to travel from the supposed 'crash' site.

[uke2se]

No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

Evidence was provided in the link I gave you which you hand waved.

It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.

Only lightweight material landed that far away. Provide evidence for it being any other way.

Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....

Evidence we have provided have been disregarded by you. A plane crashing into the ground is going to do so fairly rapidly. If it was 500 mph, 900 mph or 300 mph doesn't really matter to this discussion.

A 15mph wind blows a quarter ton engine (not 'light' debris as you claim) a quarter of a mile, if you view the evidence I submitted...again I state, this is highly unlikely

The only one claiming the wind blew the engine anywhere is you. The parts that were found far away was all lightweight material. The engine was found 300 yards from the crash site, which is not uncommon.

'Tiny' bits of debris...would that include the quarter tone engine, blown approximeately a quarter of a mile?

300 yards. Again, not unheard of in plane crashes.

Yes...you may continue to tangentially and disingenuously talk of 'small things', it has not gone unnoticed.

Because it's true.

Not according to Don Rumsfeld, if you view the youtube evidence I provided.

Rumsfeld got it wrong? Shock horror! It's amusing to me that to a conspiracy theorist, a politician is always lying, except when he's blowing the lid of the conspiracy he's part of.

A quarter of a mile is a hell of a distance for a quarter ton engine to travel...., especially in a 15mph breeze as is eight miles way too far for even small debris to travel from the supposed 'crash' site.

THE WIND DIDN'T CARRY THE ENGINE ANYWHERE. Jeez...

It's not unheard of that this kind of thing happens in a plane crash. If you'd read the link I provided instead of hand waved it, you would know that.

[Jumbo]

A 15mph wind blows a quarter ton engine (not 'light' debris as you claim) a quarter of a mile, if you view the evidence I submitted...again I state, this is highly unlikely

We are not saying the wind blew the engine a quarter of a mile. (1/4 mile is 440 yards anyway and the engine travelled only 300)

We are saying that the plane in motion has a certain amount of momentum by virtue of its having both mass and velocity. It impacts the ground. The engine breaks free and a proportion of the aircrafts momentum is thus transferred to the engine throwing it some distance from the crash site. The wind is not the dominant factor in this part of the crash. The 563 mph of the jet at impact is.

The wind comes into play carrying small debris which you find in place crashes (such as in flight magazines and meal containers and the like) from the site. With the impact momentum is transferred to these two. However by virtue of their small mass they are affected by the wind and the wind dominates in this case. Thus small items are carried a large distance away. While the engine which was not affected by wind is closer but is not at the point of impact for the reasons mentioned earlier.

I claimed the light debris was found at the more distant sites i did not claim the engine was light debris.

A quarter of a mile is a hell of a distance for a quarter ton engine to travel...., especially in a 15mph breeze as is eight miles way too far for even small debris to travel from the supposed 'crash' site.

Really?

The engine has a mass of 4536 kg. It hit the ground at 252 metres per second. It therefore has 144027072 J of energy.
To view how large this is If you imagine a totally elastic collision that would be a bounce of 3236 metres straight up!

Of course hitting soil will mean the collision is not completely elastic. If it end up with only 10% of the starting energy the rest being absorbed by soil then it would still be a bounce in excess of 300 metres. It just illustrates how violent an impact it was and why some objects could be found at the distance they were.

[Morien]

No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

Evidence was provided in the link I gave you which you hand waved.

And reasons were provided for the 'hand wave'...None of which you have rebutted, I note...

Only lightweight material landed that far away. Provide evidence for it being any other way.

Again, you need to study the evdidence provided..in this case, a map was posted. Consult it.

Evidence we have provided have been disregarded by you. A plane crashing into the ground is going to do so fairly rapidly. If it was 500 mph, 900 mph or 300 mph doesn't really matter to this discussion.

Who is the royal 'we'?..And reasons were given why this was rebutted. None of the evidence I have provided has been even read, it seems let alone rebutted adequately....

The only one claiming the wind blew the engine anywhere is you. The parts that were found far away was all lightweight material. The engine was found 300 yards from the crash site, which is not uncommon.

You have provided not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that it is not common, I note....

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.


Debris fields from Flight 93 were scattered across eight miles.
An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion

http://tinyurl.com/mqqnb


Again, the parts found away from the crash site were not lightwight material, as was shown in the evidence provided. Really, if you are not going to bother to adequately read and rebut the evidence provided, then don't bother.

'Tiny' bits of debris...would that include the quarter tone engine, blown approximeately a quarter of a mile?

300 yards. Again, not unheard of in plane crashes.

Not unheard of, as stated by you...without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up, again as noted....My evidence suggests it was far more than the 300 yards you claim. This would have been easily noticed...if you had read it....

Yes...you may continue to tangentially and disingenuously talk of 'small things', it has not gone unnoticed.

Because it's true.

So you say...My evidence insdicates that debris landed up to 8 miles away...I note again you have done nothing to rebut this, save the usual hand wave.

Not according to Don Rumsfeld, if you view the youtube evidence I provided.

Rumsfeld got it wrong? Shock horror! It's amusing to me that to a conspiracy theorist, a politician is always lying, except when he's blowing the lid of the conspiracy he's part of.

See, that's the whole point...You have provided nothing that substantiates the claim that Rumsfeld was wrong, bar the hand wave.

A quarter of a mile is a hell of a distance for a quarter ton engine to travel...., especially in a 15mph breeze as is eight miles way too far for even small debris to travel from the supposed 'crash' site.

THE WIND DIDN'T CARRY THE ENGINE ANYWHERE. Jeez...

Well...what did? You have provided nothing in explanation, I note....

[Jumbo]

Well...what did? You have provided nothing in explanation, I note....

Well apart from my post in which there is a simple argument made on the grounds of the energy carried by the engine which shows it had more than enough energy to travel a significant distance from the impact site.

[Morien]

No moving of goalposts here..I'm merely requesting that you quote the claims that the articles I've listed state regarding the 911 commission report....not what you think they claim....How about you adequately state what it is they claim, without your interpretation....

You are definitely moving goal-posts, as we weren't discussing the 911 commission report. Are you having trouble keeping the 911 commission report apart from the Popular Mechanics article? They are not the same publication.

For the record, this is what you stated they claim;

Mhmmm...Let's see. The article asserts that

- the Popular Mechanics article didn't address all of the conspiracy theory claims about 9/11.
- the Popular Mechanics article attacks claims that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold

I see that nowhere explicitly in the articles, which is precisely what I am saying...those are your interpretations of what they claim...This itself is subjective. Again I stated...you are quite capable of using quotation marks...please do.

So, what do you feel that the article you linked me says? Yes, that's my interpretation of it. Do you feel that it says that the Popular Mechanics article was wrong? If so, where does it say so, and what does it say was wrong?

I feel it says exactly what it says..If you believe anything is incorrect, or disagree, then post it and rebut it.......The common ruse used by those enamoured with the official version. Unable to defend it, and seeking to personalise the argument as a diversion to hide it....

Furthermore, you'll note that nowhere in my post that you quoted do I mention the 911 commission report. That's because we weren't discussing that.

Well, that's all that matters when it comes down to official response...not yours, or anybody elses...

[Morien]

Well...what did? You have provided nothing in explanation, I note....

Well apart from my post in which there is a simple argument made on the grounds of the energy carried by the engine which shows it had more than enough energy to travel a significant distance from the impact site.

Bullshit. It came straight down (see above)...Or, post evidence that states it didn't...Your explanation is poppycock....

[uke2se]

And reasons were provided for the 'hand wave'...None of which you have rebutted, I note...

No reasons were provided for the hand wave. None whatsoever.

Again, you need to study the evdidence provided..in this case, a map was posted. Consult it.

A map was provided in the link I posted as well. Only lightweight material traveled any significant distance. Prove otherwise using real sources, as opposed to truther speculation.

Who is the royal 'we'?..And reasons were given why this was rebutted. None of the evidence I have provided has been even read, it seems let alone rebutted adequately....

No reason was given why the information I provided was dismissed. We just went through this. The link you claim provides said reasons clearly doesn't. I've even given you the opportunity to point out exactly where the reasons were in the link you provided. Thus far you have failed to do so.

You have provided not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that it is not common, I note....

Yes I have. It's in the link you hand waved.

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.


Debris fields from Flight 93 were scattered across eight miles.
An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion

http://tinyurl.com/mqqnb

The author of this text doesn't evidence any of his assertions. We are supposed to take the author's word on faith - typical for trutherism. In contrast to this is Popular Mechanics who did a proper investigation and found the complete opposite to this text to be true. We also have a calculation of impact force in the post above yours. You are demonstrably wrong, and we have now shown this by providing sources to actual investigations as well as doing the fucking math for you.

Again, the parts found away from the crash site were not lightwight material, as was shown in the evidence provided. Really, if you are not going to bother to adequately read and rebut the evidence provided, then don't bother.

The parts found significantly far away from the crash site was lightweight material, as shown by the proper evidence provided, as opposed to truther speculation.

Not unheard of, as stated by you...without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up, again as noted....My evidence suggests it was far more than the 300 yards you claim. This would have been easily noticed...if you had read it....

The link I have provided which you hand waved provides evidence that it is not unheard of, as well as the fact that the engine was found approximately 300 yards from the impact site.

So you say...My evidence insdicates that debris landed up to 8 miles away...I note again you have done nothing to rebut this, save the usual hand wave.

You have provided no evidence. You seem to be under the misguided assumption that simply because a truther has put it on his webpage, it's true. The evidence I have provided draws from the investigations made by the people who were actually at the site, investigating it.

See, that's the whole point...You have provided nothing that substantiates the claim that Rumsfeld was wrong, bar the hand wave.

The evidence I have provided shows that he was wrong. Do you have any comment as to the odd behaviour you show when you trust Rumsfeld as infallible when you believe he is blowing the lid on the conspiracy he's involved in, and you don't trust him otherwise?

Well...what did? You have provided nothing in explanation, I note....

The evidence I have provided that you hand waved without any reason given explains this, as does Jumbo's post above yours.