Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Well....I'm certainly not knowledgable about shooting down a B757 by an F-16. I would venture a guess, though, that unless the B757 was at a VERY low altitude when an air-to-air missile from an F-16 hit it, the engine pieces would be a whole hell of a lot farther that about a third of a mile!!

(Hint....one SM = 5280 feet divided by 3 = 1,760 feet)

Hardly a great distance, even for an airplane impacting the ground, at an oblique angle...INVERTED...at a very high speed.

Problem is, I have an NTSB readout of the UAL93 DFDR showing the Nav Radio and FMC/AutoPilot modes all the way until end of recording.

The recorder stops when power stops. Main Bus #1, typically, which is directly powered by the #1 Generator, which is driven by the #!, or left, engine.

Should an engine and/or it's generator fail, in flight, then essential power will automatically be shifted from the other generator to supply the busses.

Additionally, in normal emergencies, such as an engine generator failure, the APU can be started (up to a maximum altitude of 35,000 feet) to supply full 90 KW power to the affected busses. (The APU can also be used for pneumatics, in flight, but certain altitude limitations apply....as I recall, it was 18,000 feet for both Elec and Air, 25,000 feet for just Air, and 35,000 feet for Elec only. It's been a few years, but this is stuff you memorize as part of getting a Type Rating on the airplane).

BTW, when a Main Generator fails, or just drops offline, the high-demand non-essential items are automatically 'shed'. This includes the galleys and the PES, and certain cabin lighting.

The APU has its own starter battery....whereas the Main Engines utilize an air starter, the APU can be started electrically. Its starter system is independant of the other airplane's electrical system, and there are only so many failed attempts available.....

Point is, even if a heat-seeking a-t-a missile from an F-16 hit UAL93, there would be tell-tale signs in the DFDR...a short power interruption, as the relays shifted. If an engine was hit by a missile, it would explode into shrapnel all over the county!!!

There would have no time, nor would they know how anyway, to start the APU. IF the engine is gone, then the hydraulics on that system are gone as well. Check valves prevent complete fluid loss, but these guys (the camel jockeys) would die any way they could, anyway.

SO....to summarize....we have the 'NO Plane at Shanksville' theory. But, you GF, just implied a possible F-16 shoot-down of UAL93, which means THERE IS a plane in Shanksville, just not as depicted in the 'official' story (or the movie).

But, then, others say there isn't enough debris....when, many many sources show that, in fact, debris was found, and DNA matches were made, all consistent with UAL93....but no evidence of a shoot-down.

Not in the DFDR, not on the CVR. and not by eyewitness testimony.

Many trial balloons get floated, by many people who either A) don't know any better or B) just have a book to sell, on their pet idea.

What I see, in the various 'theories' to explain UAL93 is....a hodgepodge of half-truths, un-knowing speculation, and outright un-truths all blended together, and pieces are picked and chosen according to the 'believer's' whims.....like a buffet of choices.

"I don't like cheese or ham, so I won't put those in the Chef's Salad"....

Well, it's not a "Chef's Salad" if it has no cheese or ham!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
What I see, in the various 'theories' to explain UAL93 is....a hodgepodge of half-truths, un-knowing speculation, and outright un-truths all blended together, and pieces are picked and chosen according to the 'believer's' whims.....like a buffet of choices

Please tell me what I've posted that you feel is a half-truth, untruth or unknowing speculation?

Yes, my theory that UA 93 was shot down can't be proven... yet. I've read stories about Vietnam vets in the area who distinctly heard an air-to-air missile right before UA 93 went down. An F-16 was definitely at the scene. Some even say they know the identity of the pilot who fired the missile.

But my point is, it can be proven that the government's story is an untruth.

A blatantly cynical untruth, no less, with an outrageous story of the brave and heroic passengers who banded together and defeated the evil hijackers, saving who knows how many lives in the process. Almost sounds like a Hollywood movie.

Instead of assailing conspiracy theorists for not including ham or cheese in your Chef's Salad, will you ever start wondering who added the arsenic?

reply to post by SpaceBits


Sorry, SpaceBits....missed the post I am now replying to, very good info.

Yes, if you wish to put a final paint color on an aluminum part, for the exterior, you'd use a weaker znc chromate....or, I think they use aluminum today called 'AllClad'....for the outer skins.

Interior parts, though....they would have a stronger green zinc chromate layer of paint....up to a limit, since all paint has a weight to it...

Interior pieces that may be subjected to nimor hydraulic fluid leaks or spillage, for instance....would have a thicker application of chromate, would be my guess....

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Hey, GF....you're online now, I went back to YouTube to find the link I mentioned.....I think it was to you....about UAL93 debris.

I tried to link it, best I could do was email it to myself!!!

But, here is the YouTube eleven digit code.....xkivdEGph9A...

It was added last April, form RKOwens4...got his username wrong once.

Maybe he's full of it, but you see and think what you wish!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
What I see, in the various 'theories' to explain UAL93 is....a hodgepodge of half-truths, un-knowing speculation, and outright un-truths all blended together, and pieces are picked and chosen according to the 'believer's' whims.....like a buffet of choices

Please tell me what I've posted that you feel is a half-truth, untruth or unknowing speculation?

Originally posted by weedwhackerWell....I'm certainly not knowledgable about shooting down a B757 by an F-16. I would venture a guess, though, that unless the B757 was at a VERY low altitude when an air-to-air missile from an F-16 hit it, the engine pieces would be a whole hell of a lot farther that about a third of a mile!!

I believe it was at 2500 feet. Is that low enough?

Yes, the theory that UA 93 was shot down can't be proven... yet. I've read stories about Vietnam vets in the area who distinctly heard an air-to-air missile right before UA 93 went down. An F-16 was definitely at the scene. Some even say they know the identity of the pilot who fired the missile.

But my point is, it can be proven that the government's story is an untruth.

A blatantly cynical untruth, no less, with an outrageous story of the brave and heroic passengers who banded together and defeated the evil hijackers, saving who knows how many lives in the process. Almost sounds like a Hollywood movie.

Instead of assailing conspiracy theorists for not including ham or cheese in your Chef's Salad, will you ever start wondering who added the arsenic?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Heh, heh! Arsenic.....and old lace? (That would be Georgy Boy's Mother...)

GF, you are the first source to ever provide....well, let me say, the first time I've heard a person say that they had Vietnam Vets say that they heard air-to-air missiles. This is big, since tonight is the first time I've heard of this.

I'm not being sarcastic, hope it doesn't seem so. Just, in all the lore from that day, I've seemed to have missed that bit of information.

Going out on a limb here, so please don't flame me....but did the missiles used in the 1960s and 1970s sound the same as the missiles that would be mounted on an F-16 in 2001???

It's a valid question, I'm not arguing, just asking. See, I have a lot of knowledge, but not ALL knowledge. I've NEVER heard, directly with my own ears, a fighter jet firing a missile. So, chalk me up as ignorant on that count!!

I will invite more flames, by mentioning....the speed of sound versus the speed of light. AND, how the disparity could....COULD...result in a misconception on the part of the observor. Just throwing out thoughts, for all to ponder.....

reply to post by GoldenFleece


AND...GF, if an F-16 did fire, on an order to shoot down, the UAL93 B757 at 2500 feet. Then, perhaps it did happen, and the entire 'FLIGHT 93' heroic bit is a fantasy, to cover up for the shoot-down.

Easy enough for the AF to cover the shot, on Cheney's orders....the pilots told (ordered) not to say anything. Plausible.

BUT....consider this.... if this is what actually happened, over Shankesville, then why the people coming out and saying there was no airplane? I mean, if a B757 was shot down, there would be an impact, and debris, etc.

Second thought.....could this....UAL93....be the seed for all the other theories??? The Gov't couldn't bear to admit that thewy shot down a civilian airliner, and THAT cover-up leads to others poking around????

Could it be that simple?? Am I going to get a bullet in the back of my head in a few minutes????

EDIT: I also think, we were told, that if intercepted there would always be two fighters....one would appoach on the Captain's side, to be noticed, and to asses conditions in the intercepted airplane's cockpit. Of course, they'd try to communicate....if the appropriate Center vectored them to the target airplane they'd know the frequency....or they'd try on the Emergency frequency......as well.....

The intercepting aircraft, if not in radio comm (daylight VFR) will rock its wings, as a signal. If the intercepted aircraft does not reply the interceptor will attempt to assess conditions in the cockpit by moving closer, and, if possible, use hand signals.

That is not verbatim, it's what I remember from my training.

If the intercepted aircraft does not respond, the interceptor seeks further orders....in a nutshell. (My words)

These procedures imagined either a hostile airplane violating airspace, or an incapacitated crew, or a NORDO airplane. in the case of NORDO, then the signals....wing rocking would be well understood to mean 'follow me'...and so forth.

[edit on 6/20/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

GF, you are the first source to ever provide....well, let me say, the first time I've heard a person say that they had Vietnam Vets say that they heard air-to-air missiles. This is big, since tonight is the first time I've heard of this.

Captain Weedwhacker, that's 'cause you're not with those run-of-the mill 9/11 investigators anymore.

You're with the very best:

FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors

The Philadelphia Daily News
November 18, 2001
By WILLIAM BUNCH 
[email protected]

SHANKSVILLE, Pa. - Ernie Stuhl is the mayor of this tiny farming borough that was so brutally placed on America's psychic map on the morning of Sept. 11, when United Airlines Flight 93 slammed nose-down into the edge of a barren strip-mine moonscape a couple of miles outside of town.

A 77-year-old World War II veteran and retired Dodge dealer, he's certainly no conspiracy theorist.

And, when you ask Stuhl for his theory of what caused the jetliner to crash that morning, he will give you the prevailing theory - that a cockpit battle between the hijackers and burly, heroic passengers somehow caused the Boeing 757 to spiral out of control. "There's no doubt in my mind that they did put it down before it got to Washington and caused more damage," he said.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.

"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close."

If the mayor of Shanksville still seems conflicted about what caused the crash of Flight 93 two months ago, he is hardly alone. As the initial shock of Sept. 11 wears off, the crash some 80 miles east of Pittsburgh, and what caused it, is beginning to emerge as the greatest mystery from the worst terrorist attack in American history...

web.archive.org...:/dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/2001/11/18/local/SHOT15C.htm

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Oh.....K......GF,

Thanks for that (backing away slowly, looking for an exit).

hey, I'm just here, minding my own business.....hey, I ain't got nothing!!

That was probably a line from a movie....any movie, take your pick, formulaic.

Here's the deal, GF. I don't know you, you don't know me. BUT, we can talk over the fence, capiche?

You're on one side, I'm on da other!

BUT.....I'm creeping up to YUR fence, and peekin' over it!!! OOPS! I'll back off...don't shoot! don't shoot!!

OK, a little goodfellas....or godfather....I dunno, never saw any ov 'em!

I'd just like to know the real truth. If I've been sold a bill of goods for nearly seven years, I wanna know!....sorry....I want to know.

This particular thread, of all the ATS threads in all the gin joints....OK, I'll stop now...

This seems like a particularly good thread to keep this debate going. I like the Title (forgot the OP...have to look him/her up) but the quality of conversation has been great, so far.

(my pathetic attempt at humor notwithstanding).

GF, we started off on a bad foot, apologies....maybe a lot of us can be on edge, at times. I like your style, and hope to learn from you!

Jeez....I'm just writing now, to practice my own skills, and that's self-indulgent. Good night!

I'll bet you missed the Criminal Cabal trying to decide on a story.

And yes, that's the actual Reuters headline:

web.archive.org...

Jet may have been shot down, says FBI

SHANKSVILLE, Friday, September 14, 2001

Federal investigators said today that they have not ruled out the possibility that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, after three other hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

As speculation about what happened aboard the Boeing 757 intensified, FBI agent Bill Crowley told a news conference that it was too early in the crash investigation to rule out any possibility.

He declined to say whether evidence actually pointed to an explosion before the San Francisco-bound jetliner crashed 80 miles (128 km) southeast of Pittsburgh on Tuesday, killing 45 passengers and crew on board.

“We have not ruled out that. We haven’t ruled out anything yet,” Crowley said when asked about reports that a US fighter jet may have fired on the hijacked airliner to prevent it from reaching a target, possibly in Washington.

His remark prompted deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to say he would look into the matter.

“I have no information on it at all. In fact, that’s the first I heard, and I’m going to look into it,” Wolfowitz, the Pentagon official, told a briefing.

Much of the mystery could be settled if investigators locate the plane’s so-called black boxes, which could provide a tape-recorded account of what occurred inside the cockpit.

The plane had been en route to San Francisco from Newark, New Jersey, when it veered off course over northeastern Ohio and headed back southeast toward Pittsburgh.

Crash investigators said it appeared to be moving in an “easterly” direction when it plunged to earth.

The fact that Flight 93 was the only hijacked plane not to hit a US landmark has brought growing speculation about how the aircraft and its occupants met their fate.
The speculation has ranged from a struggle between passengers and hijackers to a bomb explosion.

Several passengers managed to telephone people on the ground to report the hijacking. Accounts described three hijackers claiming to have a bomb and a plan by passengers to overpower them. There were also reports that one man heard an explosion.

“If they are going to take the plane down, then we are going to have to do something,” Deena Burnett of San Ramon, California, quoted her husband as saying during a cellular phone conversation moments before the crash.

The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.

State Police Major Lyle Szupinka said debris found in the residential area seemed small enough to have been carried by air currents after impact. - Reuters

This line is rich: “Deputy US Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said he would look into the matter. “I have no information on it at all. In fact, that’s the first I heard, and I’m going to look into it.”

Could someone call Wolfowitz and ask him what he found out?






[edit on 20-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]

dupe post

[edit on 20-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]

I haven't read all the replies on this page so far but I'm under the belief that Flight 93 was "shot down" using the C-130H's (as we know it was there...BTW the same exact C-130H that was following Flight 77 before it impacted the pentagon) ability to disrupt the electronics system. I believe they are called EC-130H's.

The EC-130H Compass Call is the only US wide-area offensive information warfare platform, Compass Call provides disruptive communications jamming and other unique capabilities to support the Joint Force Commander across the spectrum of conflict. Specifically, the modified aircraft uses noise jamming to prevent communication or degrade the transfer of information essential to command and control of weapon systems and other resources. It primarily supports tactical air operations but also can provide jamming support to ground force operations.

www.fas.org...

This always goes back and forth, back and forth. I for one am still on the fence, but my rational mind, the one that usually chalks coincidences up to 'yeah, so what, it could happen, otherwise it wouldn't have,' leads me believe the conventional 9/11 narrative (i.e. the one with bucketloads of *actual* evidence, not speculation and abstractions and bizarre assumptions), versus that the 'Truthers'.' The official story just doesn't seem to rely on outlandish ideas and kooky coincidences.

For instance, it is COMPLETELY within the realm of possibility that Atta's passport survived the crash. Further, HUGE numbers of ACTUAL experts (not just 'physicists') who publish in peer-reviewed publications are in COMPLETELY disagreement with 9/11 Truth 'experts' (numerous scientists believe in I.D. and creationism, so...). I keep seeing Truthers claim that such-and-such damage wasn't apparent, although there is SO MUCH photographic and video evidence in support of the gov't's version. I mean, these guys would be in front of FIRING SQUADS if this was real and they were caught. How could the conspiracy be SOOO opaque seven years after the fact?

Finally, given my recent readings on the topic, I have decided that the following book SHOULD exist, if it doesn't already. BTW, the title is MY intellectual property...
*Debunking Debunking Debunkers of 9/11 Debunking Debunkers*

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Another Griff evasion.

Talk about evasion. Why don't you tell us when American Airlines started to paint their planes green and red?

You have already stated here for all to see that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Now, tell us all, Griff, why you have either changed your mind or decided to continue to insult our intelligence by asking a ridiculous question.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
You have to refute NIST. You can't haven't. You know it.

Yes. We know it. You know why? Because NIST hasn't released their data yet. And I'm not talking about just the structural documentation. I'm talking about their data.

But, I'm sure I'll be accused of "evading" again.

Since we've been over it and you were not able to demonstrate that NIST's conclusions are invalid nor demonstrate to us any groundswell of objections to the evidence presented, the methodology, or the conclusions, you are left still having to make your case.




[edit on 21-6-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Griff, I think I did see ONE person who said they saw green. But, you do know what zinc chromate is, correct? To an amateur person, unfamiliar with airplanes and aviation, it could account for that person's comments, perhaps.

See jthomas. This is how we discuss things at ATS. If you're looking for vitriol and a circle jerk of ego stroking, I suggest you find JREF. There's plenty of that over there.

What hypocrisy, Griff. Tell us just what the purpose is of you knowingly asking a stupid question, to wit: "Since when is American Airlines painted green and red?", knowing full well what American Airlines colors ARE, and already stating that AA77 hit the Pentagon?

Do you really think insulting everyone's intelligence like that is earning you respect?

Is that how you "discuss" things on ATS?

I suggest you focus on backing up your claims when asked to.

Originally posted by jthomas
I suggest you focus on backing up your claims when asked to.

Oh come on!! The irony!!


I'm asking you right now to post definitive evidence from NIST, FEMA, ASCE, or any other federally-commissioned organization as far as what you think happened to those buildings.

Anyone reading this thread has seen me ask this time after time and you never back up your claims.


You are a joke, jthomas.

Originally posted by jthomas
focus on backing up your claims

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, tell us all, Griff, why you have either changed your mind or decided to continue to insult our intelligence by asking a ridiculous question.

So me asking a stupid question insults your intellegence? Thats rich.

And I admit it was a stupid question as I forgot about the primer being green. But, again you have shown all just what kind of person you really are. You'd rather sit there and stroke your ego than answer a "stupid" question without vitriol.

If vitriol is all you have, then I feel very sorry for you.

Originally posted by jthomas
Since we've been over it and you were not able to demonstrate that NIST's conclusions are invalid nor demonstrate to us any groundswell of objections to the evidence presented, the methodology, or the conclusions, you are left still having to make your case.

I'm working on it. I wasn't paid 6 million of the tax payers money.

That being said, I will show MY methodology and data. Unlike NIST whom you defend even though they have shown little data? Why is that?

And I'll welcome peer review. I said peer review. Not some debunker or skeptic or truther.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm asking you right now to post definitive evidence from NIST.

Hoe can we beleive NIST anyway?

Thier are the only agency that states the planes and fires casued the collaspe, most other agencies do not agree.

They did not recover any steel from buidling 7 for testing.

They have no regulatory powers for anything on 9/11.