This message was self-deleted by its author

[antitsa]

This message was self-deleted by its author (antitsa) on Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:22 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Ohio Joe]

1. I read this and had to think for a minute...

I realized I had no idea what an NTSB crash report would look like... I cannot recall ever seeing one. So I looked and found them for 93... So rather then me re-writing them, here they are:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

[SlipperySlope]

2. There were no NTSB crash reports for the 9/11 flights

Because they were considered a crime scene the investigation was managed by the FBI, and the NTSB never did official crash reports on them. Those reports you linked to just contained raw data, they weren't crash reports.

If you search the NTSB database for flight 93, here is the "report" you get:

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/07/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

[Ohio Joe]

4. The reports look pretty comprehensive to me

That the FBI took jurisdiction in a terrorist case sounds reasonable to me... That they got the NTSB to issue reports to them also seems reasonable. Is there information missing that is normally supplied in an NTSB report? Or is the format of the information the problem?

[SlipperySlope]

5. I didn't speculate about whether it was "reasonable", just affirmed there was no NTSB report

Maybe the best thing to do would be to compare it to a "real" NTSB accident report.

Here is a report for an accident that occurred in 2001 involving a major carrier that resulted in many fatalities:

- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf

And here is a sample from an incident that had no fatalites:

- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1004.pdf

This is just to give you a sense of what a full NTSB accident report looks like. I've read them before, they sometimes make interesting reading.

[Ohio Joe]

7. Giving it a quick look over...

The reports released seem to pretty much cover what they should. Analysis and conclsion should be done by the body investigating (in this case, the FBI). With the data supplied, I do not see much doubt as to the conclusion that would be reached if the NTSB had done that part themselves.

I don't know... I'm not certain what the OP is looking for, perhaps s/he will return with some more specifcs. Thanks!

[SlipperySlope]

8. No problem

Not sure what the OP wanted either.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. there is also a flight path study for 93

antitsa complained that the Specialist's Factual Report was tough sledding -- and it is.

The Flight Path Study can be obtained via this link.

From approximately 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column
inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive)
aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while
turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right
in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots
(563 mph) in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was
10:03:11.

antitsa's questions aren't very clear, so it's hard to know how to address them.

ETA: As slipperyslope points out, the NTSB didn't do a regular accident report. "The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs" provides a clue about the apparent cause of the crash.

[antitsa]

6. You're about halfway there. Which part struck first? What happened afterward? nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. halfway where?

Is there some part of what I quoted that you don't understand? Do you want me to speculate about the exact sequence in which the plane broke up? If so, why?

[antitsa]

10. Halfway to what I'm asking for. =)

What I asked for:

Can someone tell me how United 93 supposedly crashed?
And what supposedly happened to it afterward?

Yes, I would like to know how the plane supposedly broke up and where it all went afterward.

Why? Odd question to ask in the conspiracy section.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. "Why? Odd question to ask in the conspiracy section."

I thought "Why?" was the quintessential question to ask in the conspiracy section.

"How" it supposedly broke up? "Where it all went afterward"? Are you looking for a description of the debris field?

[antitsa]

12. Yes, what happened to it after it allegedly hit.

Didn't think my simple questions would be so complicated to understand, especially since I said "Describe it how you would see it in an NTSB crash report."

Since you described how it allegedly came in (563 mph, rolled to the right, 40 degrees), start with what part of the plane supposedly struck first and then continue from there.

Your "Why?" to why I want to know sounds like a "Nothing to see here, move along, folks" kinda "Why?"

If one is trying to debunk the official story, one needs to know what the official story is, agreed?

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. OK, then, your "allegedly" sounds like a "I've already made up my mind, thanks" kinda "allegedly"

Gee, this is shaping up to be useful.

Didn't think my simple questions would be so complicated to understand, especially since I said "Describe it how you would see it in an NTSB crash report."

Why would you expect anyone here to be able to describe the debris field at the level of detail of an NTSB crash report? That doesn't seem serious.

Since you described how it allegedly came in (563 mph, rolled to the right, 40 degrees), start with what part of the plane supposedly struck first and then continue from there.

Now I'm even more lost. In what respect would my speculative response to your still unexplained inquisition resemble an NTSB crash report?

If one is trying to debunk the official story, one needs to know what the official story is, agreed?

That's bizarre. Why would one be "trying to debunk the official story" without even knowing what it is? For that matter, why assume that there even is an "official story"? If you don't think what struck first can be deduced from the black box data (which, I suppose, you suspect was rigged), then why would you expect any of us to know?

It seems to me that if you were actually interested in establishing the truth about what "allegedly" happened in Shanksville, you would do your own research instead of demanding that other people do it for you. Am I wrong? If so, how?

[antitsa]

15. Sounds like you're not too confident about the official story. lol nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. way to miss the point

If you come up with plausible answers to my questions, by all means let me know.

[jberryhill]

13. What happened to it after?

After it hit the surface of a former strip mine - i.e. uncompacted soil?

Of course "it" ceased to be an "it" on impact.

Perhaps you can amaze your friends with this magic trick. Even you might not be able to figure this one out.

Go to a sandy area, such as a beach. Throw a quarter at the sand as hard as you can. Then, tell me where the quarter goes.

It's freaking magic, I tell ya.

[antitsa]

16. I don't want to guess on the story you support. Just tell me what happened. nt

[jberryhill]

18. "the story you support"

The plane hit the ground at a high rate of speed, IMHO.

[antitsa]

20. If you don't know the details, just say so. No shame in that. nt

[jberryhill]

23. Okay, so we agree on the overall synopsis

Perhaps you might offer some details of which you are aware, to fill out the general outline of "the plane hit the ground at high speed".

I agree with you that, beyond that, there are likely many details.

[antitsa]

26. "beyond that, there are likely many details." <-- That's what I'm asking for.

Thought is was pretty obvious what I was asking for by this:

Can someone tell me how United 93 supposedly crashed?
And what supposedly happened to it afterward?
Describe it how you would see it in an NTSB crash report.

[zappaman]

29. "afterwards"?

what does that even mean?
pretty sure the pieces were dug out of the ground...."afterwards".
so, now I've contributed more to this thread than you have!

[antitsa]

30. Please don't troll my thread. Thanks. nt

[zappaman]

31. not trolling

but contributing to the discussion.
something you have yet to do.
oh, and it's not YOUR thread.

[antitsa]

32. Please don't troll my thread. Thanks. nt

[zappaman]

33. not trolling

but contributing to the discussion.
something you have yet to do.
oh, and it's not YOUR thread.

[jberryhill]

35. Don't you love that "my thread" stuff

Jeez, zapp, just write up a 50 page report, like the NTSB would do.

BTW, this is now MY subthread. Don't troll it.

[zappaman]

37. why can't you tell us what happened to the plane "afterward"?

c'mon, why can't you tell us?
after it shattered into a million pieces, what happened to it?
oh, and I'm not troliing.
but contributing to the discussion.
something you have yet to do.
oh, and it's not YOUR sub-thread.

[jberryhill]

49. A "million pieces"?

Link please.

Or did you count them yourself?

[zappaman]

52. I din't count them myself

but I got the information from when I worked at BUSHCO and...oh...I've already said too much...

[jberryhill]

53. Please don't troll your own subthread

[zappaman]

27. the plane was in the air

then it wasn't.
so, I've given you more than you have given this thread.

[antitsa]

28. Please don't troll my thread. Thanks. nt

[zappaman]

34. not trolling

but contributing to the discussion.
something you have yet to do.
oh, and it's not YOUR thread.

[jberryhill]

36. Game is at 21, right?

[zappaman]

38. maybe the poster should ask the NTSB

to describe how it would look in an NTSB report.
perhaps they are on the wrong website?

[antitsa]

39. Mods, can you ban zappaman & jberryhill from this thread, please?

I'm trying to have a serious and mature discussion.

I'd appreciate if you'd ban those who just want to be immature and troll from this thread.

Thanks.

[zappaman]

40. Please don't troll my thread. Thanks. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. uhhh..I think you are mistaken in your location.

This is DU3..there are no mods here.

But, on DU 3, the definition of a troll remains the same:

"an internet term for a person who, through willful action, attempts to garner attention and controversy through provocative messages"

[zappaman]

46. Thank you Dixiegrrrrl

for contributing to our thread!

[jberryhill]

47. Can you be more specific about what is a "provocative message"?

Would that include things like asking a question, not to get an answer, but for the purpose of drawing out responses in order to attack them?

Is that what you mean?

[zappaman]

48. Hmmmmmm

That might be it.
You may be on to something.
Is anyone even allowed to comment on this thread if they don't own it?
I would hate to be on someone else's thread and not mine...

[jberryhill]

50. mi enlace es su enlace

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. Hold on, let me consult my expert...

Why yes, I do believe that is what I mean.
The example that you mention, interestingly, is one of the "25 techniques of disinformation"
( which another DU member was so kind to post on another thread.)

Also, on DU2, as you remember, the mods did indeed take care of trolls, now the MIRT team does that here, when alerted.

[jberryhill]

45. Welcome to DU

You joined at a good time, since a lot of us are getting used to new features since the recent upgrade.

If you believe that a post has violated Community Standards, then you see that little "alert" link?

You click on that link and explain why the post should be hidden. If it is, then the poster in question is banned from the thread.

There are no "Mods" here at DU. There are forum hosts, who can lock a thread, but that's about it. Then there are juries, who evaluate alerts. Depending on the type of alert, it will go to the admins and the MIRT team, which has authority to ban trolls from the entire site!

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Waht happened was

it fell out of the sky
hit hard and smashed.

No need to thank me.

[antitsa]

21. Please don't troll my thread. Thanks. nt

[jberryhill]

22. When did it become "my thread"?

I see that kind of thing on relatively juvenile forums.

If you walk into a room and start a conversation with a bunch of folks, it is not "your" conversation.

There is no evidence of which I'm aware suggesting that Dixiegrrrl's description is inaccurate.

Clearly, you also agreed with me that the plane hit the ground at high speed.

What about that do you take issue with?

[antitsa]

24. Author: antitsa

Her not answering what I asked for and being snide about it. Which part of that is not trolling?

You should be more worried about the official United 93 story. So far, you OS supporters don't look too confident about it.

[jberryhill]

25. Just sweatin' bullets here, I assure you

[zappaman]

43. Seems to me she answered you fine

seems to me you just don't like the answer.

[zappaman]

41. found something called "wikipedia"

here is some of what it said...
"The hijackers breached the aircraft's cockpit and overpowered the flight crew approximately 46 minutes after takeoff. Ziad Jarrah, a trained pilot, then took control of the aircraft and diverted it back toward the east coast of the United States, presumably toward the United States capital of Washington, D.C. (The specific target there – whether the United States Capitol, the White House, or possibly some other building – is not known.)[1]

After the hijackers took control of the plane, several passengers and flight attendants were able to make telephone calls and learn that attacks had been made on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia. Some of the passengers then made an attempt to regain control of the aircraft. During the attempt, however, the plane crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C. A few witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting the event within an hour.

Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders recovered from the crash site revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers' intended target. Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 – the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175 – United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its hijackers' intended target."

[zappaman]

42. what do you mean by "supposedly"?

maybe if would help the discussion if you explained that.