evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[leftysergeant]

Quote:

If TC329 is correct that the FDR data is fudged, this may suggest a reason why it was fudged in the particular way it was. One engine getting shot off is consistent with eyewitness accounts of the final moments of the plane.

Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.

[lee5]

Originally Posted by metamars

No, the claim is not refuted, even if the argument is deficient. Besides all the variables being ignored that have already been mentioned, indicating that this is not a simple problem in dynamics, there's another really big one that's also being ignored. There's two jet engines on a 757, and even if one is blown off, I don't know why that would require that the other fail immediately.

I expect, then, a powered curvature added to the flight of the plane, due to asymmetry of the thrust. From the description of a radical bank by the witnesses, it's reasonable to assume that the wing that had dipped is the one that was missing an engine (due to a loss of lift where the wing section that attached to the missing engine was damaged). The asymmetry of thrust, in this case, would cause a powered curvature of flight in the direction of the side of the plane missing an engine, which is downwards, leading to a quicker impact than the separated engine.

If TC329 is correct that the FDR data is fudged, this may suggest a reason why it was fudged in the particular way it was. One engine getting shot off is consistent with eyewitness accounts of the final moments of the plane. The claimed fdr trajectory, wherein the plane is said to roll on it's back, obscures this. (Well, that's how it seems to me. Perhaps it's possible that having a single engine fail could cause a plane to roll on it's back, but I'm guessing not.)

Has it been determined which engine was detached? If so, we can check if the bank matches up with said engine as I expect.

I am no expert but I must ask....

If the engine was "blown off" causing the plane to roll, wouldn't it have had to been blown off a considerable amount of time before impact?

This would surely result in the engine falling much sooner than the plane right?

[leftysergeant]

Planes with their wings still attached do tend to travel farther than detached engines. Something about aerodynamic lift.

[Brainache]

The plane was nearly upside down and hit the ground at a crazy angle. One engine dug in, one engine bounced. Is this really that hard to understand?

[Disbelief]

Dom,

Can you answer post #211 please. I am trying to help you support your claim about the dirt displacement.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by lee5

I am no expert but I must ask....

If the engine was "blown off" causing the plane to roll, wouldn't it have had to been blown off a considerable amount of time before impact?

What is a "considerable amount of time?" I frankly haven't followed this closely enough to even know if TC329 (or anybody else) has tried to reconstruct a crash sequence, consistent with witness accounts, that would speak to this.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Planes with their wings still attached do tend to travel farther than detached engines. Something about aerodynamic lift.

If an engine gets blown off a plane, the wing section that gets blown off with it won't provide any aerodynamic lift to the plane, at all. Also, even parts of the wing that remains, if it's airfoil gets messed up, won't provide the same lift.

Come to think of it, what if the aerilon remains intact, but stuck in a position forcing the wing down? (Yes, you can also ask what if the aerilon remains, but stuck in a position forcing the wing up.)

[metamars]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.

Don't explosions tend to blow out fires, ala Red Adair and oil well fires?

Not sure what to say about the noise issue. I live 4 miles from an airport, jet planes in an out all day (not directly overhead, though), and never hear anything. I've also stayed in homes near airports, and when the jet flew overhead, you sure did hear a ruckus.

[TC329]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."


One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing.

"I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang and the windows of the houses all around rattled," area resident Michael R. Merringer told The Associated Press. His wife was with him at the time.

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by TC329

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."


One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing.

"I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang and the windows of the houses all around rattled," area resident Michael R. Merringer told The Associated Press. His wife was with him at the time.

Looks to me like you're.........

[funk de fino]

There was no shoot down, get over it.

[TC329]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

Looks to me like you're.........




http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...81288f1d44.jpg

so call laura, linda, michale, & lisa liars for hearing loud bangs before the plane impacted.


quoting people who heard the intercept take place a couple miles north of the crash site is not 'cherry picking'. furthest thing from.

[TC329]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

There was no shoot down, get over it.

there was.

so you get over it.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by metamars

If an engine gets blown off a plane, the wing section that gets blown off with it won't provide any aerodynamic lift to the plane, at all. Also, even parts of the wing that remains, if it's airfoil gets messed up, won't provide the same lift.

Also plane tha had an engine shot off would no longer be capable of maintaining a high speed. It would likely have hitground at terminal free-fall velocity, under 200 mph. The wreckage would have been in much larger chunks.

All the evidence indicates a high-speed ground impact, which isn't going to happen with a plane that was shot down.

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

I did not watch your video, and none of my questions have even been about it. All you need now is the width of the crater, and you should have part of your answer.

So, are you ever going to quit dodging and support your claim:

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Dom, it is your claim that not enough dirt was displaced, so it is up to you to prove it. To do so, you will need to calculate the amount of dirt that should have been displaced and compare it to the amount of dirt that actually was displaced. If not, retract your claim.

Just because I love your avatar so much.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Just because I love your avatar so much.

I thought it was my great personality.

Dom, you gave me a length of the crater of 20' and a depth of 8'. Can you tell me what the width was?

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by TC329

quoting people who heard the intercept take place a couple miles north of the crash site is not 'cherry picking'. furthest thing from.

They were mistaken. End of story. There was no shoot down.

"When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden -- like a stone," said Tom Fritz, 63. Fritz was sitting on his porch along Lambertsville Road, about a quarter-mile from the crash site, when he heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. "It was sort of whistling," he said. "It was going so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was." - Tom Fritz

“It was coming right at me, but something happened,” Lambert said. “I don't know what happened on the plane. It was going upside down and all at once it made the 45-degree angle and it went right down (where that big tree is).- Knoll and Nevin Lambert


"It came in, rolled slightly to the left and appeared to hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle," he said. "It seemed like an eternity, but it must have been only a few seconds. It evaporated into a huge fireball that turned into black smoke." - Karl Landis

"I actually thought it was going to hit a house here in town," "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Peterson called 9-1-1 and ran to the crash site but found only burning jet parts, pieces of clothing, and seat cushions.

-Eric Peterson

I heard this real loud noise coming over my head, I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke." -Lee Purbaugh"

We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, 'Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud."
-Viola Saylor

"When it hit it looked like an atomic bomb went off. It was just terrible." Walsh said he leapt into his truck and drove to within 300 yards of the crash site. "I wanted to see if I could help anybody. But there was just burning parts, that's all. I looked down the hill and saw nothing but a big crater. You could not tell it was an air crash, the debris was so widely scattered." - John Walsh

Interesting......

[TC329]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Also plane tha had an engine shot off would no longer be capable of maintaining a high speed. It would likely have hitground at terminal free-fall velocity, under 200 mph. The wreckage would have been in much larger chunks.

ok so now planes slow down when they're intercepted. 7 years of shoot down theories and someone never thought of that before or you're just making **** up. going by your track history.....you're just making **** up.

Quote:

All the evidence indicates a high-speed ground impact, which isn't going to happen with a plane that was shot down.

yes because a plane intercepted at 25,000+ feet which enters in a rapid decline is only going to decelerate as it plummets to the earth. i mean we can watch all those old wwII films and see planes get shot out of the sky and watch their velocity instantly decline.......oh wait it doesn't.

[Jonnyclueless]

TC, so you're saying that if a plane is going 500mph and shot down, it will increase speed as it falls? How fast will a 500mph plane travel when it's falling, can you show us some basic math behind this?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by TC329

ok so now planes slow down when they're intercepted. 7 years of shoot down theories and someone never thought of that before or you're just making **** up. going by your track history.....you're just making **** up.



yes because a plane intercepted at 25,000+ feet which enters in a rapid decline is only going to decelerate as it plummets to the earth. i mean we can watch all those old wwII films and see planes get shot out of the sky and watch their velocity instantly decline.......oh wait it doesn't.

Strange physics in your world...

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

TC, so you're saying that if a plane is going 500mph and shot down, it will increase speed as it falls? How fast will a 500mph plane travel when it's falling, can you show us some basic math behind this?

Shouldn't you clarify the question by laying out different scenarios? E.g., a scenario where the 2nd engine remains operating, vs. one where the 2nd engine also fails, immediately? Surely, a plane pointed downwards will hit the ground sooner if it's being accelerated by a jet engine, than otherwise. Correct?

Also, a scenario where the plane does not undergo tumbling or spiraling.

BTW, I'm curious as to what the maximum air speed in a steep dive is before the wings rip off. Or does that only apply to WW1 planes?

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by TC329

there was.

so you get over it.

no there wasn't. stop lying. Dom you have carried this lie for 4 years. Stop lying.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

Shouldn't you clarify the question by laying out different scenarios? E.g., a scenario where the 2nd engine remains operating, vs. one where the 2nd engine also fails, immediately? Surely, a plane pointed downwards will hit the ground sooner if it's being accelerated by a jet engine, than otherwise. Correct?

Also, a scenario where the plane does not undergo tumbling or spiraling.

BTW, I'm curious as to what the maximum air speed in a steep dive is before the wings rip off. Or does that only apply to WW1 planes?

Past MACH1 some planes start to break apart. But 747s have been over MACH1 and only had slight damage. So over MACH1, you may have some stuff fall off. But that being said a 747 went past MACH1, no body died!

For Flight 93 we know exactly how the plane flew into the ground, all engines running right up to impact on the wing. Oil pressure, fuel flow, EPR, RPM for three shafts, all recorded on the FDR. No shoot down. Sorry it is solid proof, and coupled with Millers testimony it is a solid fact.

Not one person who saw 77 impact saw an engine flying down. Flight 93 was seen in one piece by people, and confirmed by FDR. The FDR was found buried in the ground. DNA and people only found near the impact site.

Plus no missing missiles. No military planes with missiles there. No intercepts on FAA frequencies. The military made no contract and no identification of 93; the military did not know about 93 until after it crashed. Just a some basic research would make this clear.

TC's interview with Miller proves 93 was in one piece, poor TC had no clue how to interpret Miller's statement he does not have 35 years flying experience or experience as an aircraft accident investigator.

Funny stuff is the sound, and time, and booms. I have to mention hollow, hills, echoes, time! Time is relative. Observer time, aircraft time, and the big kicker is space. Gee, time and space and observation frame of reference. All the bs TC spoons out is based on his failure to understand physics and science. The echo is the funny part. The terrain near the impact, and the terrain of the observer and around the observer. It is funny how bad TC is at investigating 93 as he denies reality and makes up fantasy ideas due to his ignorance of the physical world.

Funny stuff is the sound, and time, and booms. I have to mention hollow, hills, echoes, time! Time is relative. Observer time, aircraft time, and the big kicker is space. Gee, time and space and observation frame of reference. All the bs TC spoons out is based on his failure to understand physics and science. The echo is the funny part. The terrain near the impact, and the terrain of the observer and around the observer. It is funny how bad TC is at investigating 93 as he denies reality and makes up fantasy ideas due to his ignorance of the physical world.


The worse example of aircraft investigation I have seen, as he ignores his own interview real meaning and makes up his own.

Time and space, sound, and witnesses. I love seeing how easy TC steps into fantasy by messing up the witness statements. It is funny as he makes up drones that flew under wires and I have no clue what is doing now after I heard the Miller interview, you have to be really special not to see Miller debunks TC every idea clearly. But TC comes through and still messes it up; with ease.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by metamars

Shouldn't you clarify the question by laying out different scenarios? E.g., a scenario where the 2nd engine remains operating, vs. one where the 2nd engine also fails, immediately? Surely, a plane pointed downwards will hit the ground sooner if it's being accelerated by a jet engine, than otherwise. Correct?

Also, a scenario where the plane does not undergo tumbling or spiraling.

BTW, I'm curious as to what the maximum air speed in a steep dive is before the wings rip off. Or does that only apply to WW1 planes?

If the plane has been shot down, then it has no engine thrust, it's simply falling.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

TC, so you're saying that if a plane is going 500mph and shot down, it will increase speed as it falls? How fast will a 500mph plane travel when it's falling, can you show us some basic math behind this?

TC will now entertain us with his thoughts on 'laminar flow' vs. 'turbulent flow' , terminal velocity and all.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

If the plane has been shot down, then it has no engine thrust, it's simply falling.

If a heat seeking missile zeroes in on one engine, the blast may or may not take out the other engine, also. From your post, you either have reason to believe that the second engine will always fail, also, or else you have trouble with simple math, such as: 2 -1 = 1.

Which is it?

[AJM8125]

I think leftysergeant said it best:

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I'm still trying to figure out what weapons system we have that could sever the engine pylon without tearing part of the wing off or blowing the engine to pieces.

Well?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by metamars

If a heat seeking missile zeroes in on one engine, the blast may or may not take out the other engine, also. From your post, you either have reason to believe that the second engine will always fail, also, or else you have trouble with simple math, such as: 2 -1 = 1.

Which is it?

The fact that you think it's about simple math pretty much sums it up. Yes so when a missile takes out only an egnine, the plane speeds along merily and just simply points down while increasing speed.

Is this bugs bunny reality, or woody woodpecker?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

The fact that you think it's about simple math pretty much sums it up. Yes so when a missile takes out only an egnine, the plane speeds along merily and just simply points down while increasing speed.

Is this bugs bunny reality, or woody woodpecker?

1 engine operational after a missile strike which takes out the other engine means that the plane still provides thrust. Ergo, if you are suggesting that all possible meanings of "shot down" are adequately described by:

Quote:

If the plane has been shot down, then it has no engine thrust, it's simply falling.

then you are quite mistaken. Obviously so.

Furthermore, if the nose of the plane is pointed sufficiently downwards, for whatever reason, the still-powered plane will hit the ground before a free-falling engine. I wouldn't describe this as "merrily". "Fatally" is more like it.

Correct?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

If a heat seeking missile zeroes in on one engine, the blast may or may not take out the other engine, also. From your post, you either have reason to believe that the second engine will always fail, also, or else you have trouble with simple math, such as: 2 -1 = 1.

Which is it?

If a missile took out one engine and the terrorist did not pull back the other engine, the plane would be out of control. The plane was under terrorist control, they moved the stick to crash 93. no missile.

From the FDR of 93 we seen no engine problems to impact. No missile.

So your speculation is pure fantasy for 93. If you shoot an engine, the engine liberates parts, some hot enough to auto ignite the fuel in the wings, blowing the plane apart. 93 hit in one piece, the engine PART found near the pond was ejected from the impact crater along with aircraft parts, and parts of people.

600 mph impact is close to the energy of 2000 pound bomb, that is BIG. 9/11 truth makes up real stupid ideas on 93 due to ignorance on the dynamics of impacting aircraft at 600 mph.

All the debris starts from the impact crater and fans out to the south. This is proof 93 was in one piece at impact, the fact the part at the pond was a section of engine confirms the engine PART was ejected from the impact with the ground. Just like all other high speed impact craters. And no missile.

High speed impact, parts are all over the place, just like 93; no missile.


Complete lack of evidence for a missile. The missile idea must of come from the stupidly of those who can not connect the dots with real evidence. The missile theory was only a viable theory until the evidence and information was put together on flight 93. After seeing all the evidence, the missile idea can only be propagated by 9/11 truth due to ignorance on Flight 93.
After seeing all the evidence, you have to complete idiot to believe in a missile theory.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

If a missile took out one engine and the terrorist did not pull back the other engine, the plane would be out of control. The plane was under terrorist control, they moved the stick to crash 93. no missile.

You weren't there, and if the US government faked fdr data, nobody sane will doubt that they would be willing to fake anything else. Your claim about terrorist control is rejected as speculation.

Quote:

From the FDR of 93 we seen no engine problems to impact. No missile.

If we trusted the fdr, this would be of relevance.

Quote:

[color=black]So your speculation is pure fantasy for 93. If you shoot an engine, the engine liberates parts, some hot enough to auto ignite the fuel in the wings, blowing the plane apart.

Since any crash will "liberate" parts, this constitutes an argument for every plane crash being explosive. However, as far as I know, this is baloney.

Quote:

93 hit in one piece, the engine PART found near the pond was ejected from the impact crater along with aircraft parts, and parts of people.

Quote:

I don't really know the details of the debris distribution. Are you saying that most of both engines was found near the impact point of the plane, proper? If so, how do you know this?

Quote:

600 mph impact is close to the energy of 2000 pound bomb, that is BIG. 9/11 truth makes up real stupid ideas on 93 due to ignorance on the dynamics of impacting aircraft at 600 mph.

Alright, Mr. Plane Crash Guru, do tell us how many plane impacts in history have ever thrown debris 600 yards. Certainly, you see the relevance of the question, correct?

Quote:

All the debris starts from the impact crater and fans out to the south. This is proof 93 was in one piece at impact, the fact the part at the pond was a section of engine confirms the engine PART was ejected from the impact with the ground. Just like all other high speed impact craters. And no missile.

I don't really know what sort of damage air to air missiles generate. Many years ago I read about an air to air missile that explodes, and shot out wires at high speed. It was the wires that brought the enemy plane down, not the blast.

Maybe the air-to-air missile was of this sort, but the blast occurred sufficiently close to the engine to break off part of it, due to blast effects.

Quote:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...kb/impact5.jpg
High speed impact, parts are all over the place, just like 93; no missile.


Complete lack of evidence for a missile. The missile idea must of come from the stupidly of those who can not connect the dots with real evidence. The missile theory was only a viable theory until the evidence and information was put together on flight 93. After seeing all the evidence, the missile idea can only be propagated by 9/11 truth due to ignorance on Flight 93.
After seeing all the evidence, you have to complete idiot to believe in a missile theory.

Considering how thoroughly shredded the plane was, why should shards of a missile have been particularly obvious?

[metamars]

wikipedia says that air to air missiles contain a "few" kg of explosive. One specific one is listed in http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviatio...siles/aam.html is:

AIM-4 SAR /8 <3 54? 198/16/51? ex GAR-1 anti-bomber, contact fuze only, 3.4 kg warhead



AIM-4g, however, has a 13 kg warhead.

Just guessing, but I don't think 3.4 kg exploding inside a jet engine will take out the engine on the other wing - ever.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

If we trusted the fdr, this would be of relevance.

The FDR is fact, your ideas are fictional hearsay. To say the FDR is fake is a lie without supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by metamars

Since any crash will "liberate" parts, this constitutes an argument for every plane crash being explosive. However, as far as I know, this is baloney.

I am an aircraft accident investigator trained by the USAF and have experience in accidents where parts are ejected. So you are speaking from a lack of knowledge, your ideas are pure hearsay, made up by you and the truth movement. High speed impacts have parts that are spewed all over the place. I said the energy was like that of 2000 pounds of TNT, the kinetic energy was like. Take physics.

Originally Posted by metamars

I don't really know the details of the debris distribution. Are you saying that most of both engines was found near the impact point of the plane, proper? If so, how do you know this?

I am saying a part of one engine was ejected to land near the pond.
Flight 93 debris pattern is that of a high speed impact, not a missile shoot down. All the debris is in the impact crater or ejected from the impact zone. FACT

You are the one making up the fantasy of a missile after 7 years, you have to provide the evidence, not me.

Originally Posted by metamars

Alright, Mr. Plane Crash Guru, do tell us how many plane impacts in history have ever thrown debris 600 yards. Certainly, you see the relevance of the question, correct?

I worked an accident that impacted at 200 mph, and the cockpit was buried in the ground, but an instrument in perfect condition was ejected from the cockpit on impact and was over 400 feet away. This accident was at a 60 degree impact and 200 mph. 93 impact was at 40 degrees and 600 mph. The energy to disperse debris in 93 due to speed was 9 times greater. The instrument was small, the engine part on 93 was 400 yards away, three times further than my instrument, but gee, the force to get it there was over 9 times greater.

Look at the photos, 93 was destroyed by impact! Part are all over the place because the energy of impact was like 1637 pounds of TNT. The energy to destroy the plane was equal to a large bomb. But the impact and speed did it. It did not explode, it hit the ground.


This F-4 hits the concrete slower than 93 hit the ground, and 93 went 50 feet into the ground, people and parts smashed to small pieces!


Physics is cool, why not use it.

Originally Posted by metamars

I don't really know what sort of damage air to air missiles generate. Many years ago I read about an air to air missile that explodes, and shot out wires at high speed. It was the wires that brought the enemy plane down, not the blast.

No missile on 93. The FDR is a fact, you have no evidence to not use the FDR. So your missile idea is a lie now by ignoring facts.

Originally Posted by metamars

Maybe the air-to-air missile was of this sort, but the blast occurred sufficiently close to the engine to break off part of it, due to blast effects.

No, the engines were operating all the way to the ground, you are now making up lies I told you the FDR says so, it a FACT you can't dispute but with more lies.

Originally Posted by metamars

Considering how thoroughly shredded the plane was, why should shards of a missile have been particularly obvious?

There was no missile, so this is a dumb idea. The plane hit a 600 mph, the terrorist were moving the controls, the plane was following their inputs.


To make up missile stories is exposing lack of knowledge on Flight 93, ignoring evidence and making up lies.

They had to dig deep to get all the parts. Parts found 50 feet deep.

The missile theory is a lie based on evidence.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by metamars

Also, a scenario where the plane does not undergo tumbling or spiraling.

BTW, I'm curious as to what the maximum air speed in a steep dive is before the wings rip off. Or does that only apply to WW1 planes?

The uniformity of the crater suggests a controlled flight into terrain. Rolling would have shove dirt up to different heights either side of the fuselage mark. It rolled into an up-side-down position and maitnained that position for at least several seconds. This is inconsistant with any great loss of trim due to damage to control surfaces or loss of an engine.

You might have noticed, had you read carefully those threads dealiong with the impossible speed of the approaches of the two aircraft to the towers that this crash occurred at pretty nearly the speed at which structural damage starts to occur. Being out of trim would badly aggravate the buffeting problem and would probably have more widely dispersed the debris.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The FDR is fact, your ideas are fictional hearsay. To say the FDR is fake is a lie without supporting evidence.

If the fdr is a lie, drawing conclusions from it is a fool's errand. If you can't understand this simple principle, there's nothing I can do for you. The government doesn't always lie, but it lies often enough that only a fool would fail to keep this in mind.

Quote:

I am an aircraft accident investigator trained by the USAF and have experience in accidents where parts are ejected. So you are speaking from a lack of knowledge, your ideas are pure hearsay, made up by you and the truth movement. High speed impacts have parts that are spewed all over the place. I said the energy was like that of 2000 pounds of TNT, the kinetic energy was like. Take physics.

In light of the context of this thread, we can either dismiss your rationality or honesty.

Quote:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris22sm.jpg
I am saying a part of one engine was ejected to land near the pond.
Flight 93 debris pattern is that of a high speed impact, not a missile shoot down. All the debris is in the impact crater or ejected from the impact zone. FACT

If one engine was shot off, and a minor part of one wing, there's no reason to expect the debris field from the bulk of the plane to look different from the bulk of the plane + 1 engine + 1 wing segment. I'll take an uneducated guess at the mass difference between these two cases at 5%, plus another 5% due to fuel leaking.

Obviously, if a missile fractures a plane into many pieces in the air, the debris field on the ground will look very different than the scenario I have discussed. So, what have you offered by way of answering my questions about the effects of a small payload striking the engine? Nothing, actually.

Quote:

You are the one making up the fantasy of a missile after 7 years, you have to provide the evidence, not me.

Blah, blah. Read the thread, please. Focus.

Quote:

I worked an accident that impacted at 200 mph, and the cockpit was buried in the ground, but an instrument in perfect condition was ejected from the cockpit on impact and was over 400 feet away. This accident was at a 60 degree impact and 200 mph. 93 impact was at 40 degrees and 600 mph. The energy to disperse debris in 93 due to speed was 9 times greater. The instrument was small, the engine part on 93 was 400 yards away, three times further than my instrument, but gee, the force to get it there was over 9 times greater.

Look at the photos, 93 was destroyed by impact! Part are all over the place because the energy of impact was like 1637 pounds of TNT. The energy to destroy the plane was equal to a large bomb. But the impact and speed did it. It did not explode, it hit the ground.

I played with the applets linked earlier to conclude that, if simply looking at increases in energy, we can conclude that a 9x increase in KE will, all other things being equal in a simple ballistics problem, leads to a 9x increase in distance.

I'm still skeptical, though, that increase in impact KE will have a linear relationship with energy / mass available for ejecting matter. The ground will absorb shock, and there's no shortage of it. I suppose you'd have to study how deep the bedrock is, and start doing a lot of research, to see if you hit some sort of limiting value and the ground starts to act elastically, in the regime we're talking about.

I really doubt it, though that's not to say that I know what the deal is.

Since you are trained in air crashes, why not state what the case is, definitively, and give a reference? The question is "Is the relationship between impact velocity and maximum translation from GZ of an impact a linear relationship to the KE?" (for a given angle of incidence and ground type)

Quote:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris21sm.jpg
This F-4 hits the concrete slower than 93 hit the ground, and 93 went 50 feet into the ground, people and parts smashed to small pieces!

That F-4 was filled with water, to create that display. Didn't you know this?

Quote:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/f4s.jpg
Physics is cool, why not use it.

You've been invited to document empirical relationships, whose underlying mechanisms are in the realm of physics, even if derivations of said relationships turn out to be too hard to calculate. Why not provide it?

Quote:

No missile on 93. The FDR is a fact, you have no evidence to not use the FDR. So your missile idea is a lie now by ignoring facts.

If you could prove the fdr data wasn't tampered with, this statement would make sense. Can you?

Quote:

No, the engines were operating all the way to the ground, you are now making up lies I told you the FDR says so, it a FACT you can't dispute but with more lies.

There was no missile, so this is a dumb idea. The plane hit a 600 mph, the terrorist were moving the controls, the plane was following their inputs.

Blah, blah. Repeat this millions of times, why don't you?

Quote:

To make up missile stories is exposing lack of knowledge on Flight 93, ignoring evidence and making up lies.
http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/Fli...Crash_Site.jpg
They had to dig deep to get all the parts. Parts found 50 feet deep.

The missile theory is a lie based on evidence.

The confirmation bias evident in your assertions is evident, though you're quite correct in saying that I don't have a lot of knowledge on Flight 93.

Tell me, if I ask the US government for the black box, do you think they'd lend it to me? We can't even get stupid pictures of a plane going into the Pentagon, so keep this in mind as you think deeply on this subject, before offering an answer. After all, we wouldn't want anybody to interpret any monotonous, thoughtless responses by you as evidence of you being a propagandist.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by metamars

Tell me, if I ask the US government for the black box, do you think they'd lend it to me?

The U.S. government is not some single, monolithic entity. It is composed of hundreds of different departments and agencies.

[Slayhamlet]

[quote=metamars;4015948]That F-4 was filled with water, to create that display. Didn't you know this?[quote]

What? You're saying that's all just water shooting everywhere and the F-4 didn't actually disintegrate into tiny parts? They used water to simulate the fuel-load only. The whole thing wasn't filled with water like a big water balloon. Come on.

Quote:

Tell me, if I ask the US government for the black box, do you think they'd lend it to me? We can't even get stupid pictures of a plane going into the Pentagon, so keep this in mind as you think deeply on this subject, before offering an answer. After all, we wouldn't want anybody to interpret any monotonous, thoughtless responses by you as evidence of you being a propagandist.

The one video that shows the impact at the Pentagon was released. What the hell are you talking about?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

If the fdr is a lie, drawing conclusions from it is a fool's errand. If you can't understand this simple principle, there's nothing I can do for you. The government doesn't always lie, but it lies often enough that only a fool would fail to keep this in mind.

That is a lie, your lack of knowledge is showing. Just because you tell lies about 9/11 does not mean all you say is a lie. So stop the government tell lies all the time crap. What a poor, poor excuse. What is your problem, you can't just repeat your lie without evidence. Find evidence then tell your story.

Originally Posted by metamars

In light of the context of this thread, we can either dismiss your rationality or honesty.

I am a trained investigator, you are a hearsay repeater. I am not wrong on 93, and you have nothing that makes sense to support thin lies and false information. So you ignore me and make up lies. Cool I don't care if you remain in ignorance, it is self critiquing. You imply the FDR is fake, you are wrong.

Originally Posted by metamars

If one engine was shot off, and a minor part of one wing, there's no reason to expect the debris field from the bulk of the plane to look different from the bulk of the plane + 1 engine + 1 wing segment. I'll take an uneducated guess at the mass difference between these two cases at 5%, plus another 5% due to fuel leaking.

WRONG! Sorry, there would be real parts, heavy parts all over the place. Just a real dumb idea on your part. Just plain wrong. The engines are 24 feet apart, the wing is 124 feet long. Both engines were found at the impact area. A shoot down would have had parts starting before impact. Sorry, no part before impact! Failed idea for 93.

You can try to make up stuff that sounds cool to you but it is wrong.

Originally Posted by metamars

Obviously, if a missile fractures a plane into many pieces in the air, the debris field on the ground will look very different than the scenario I have discussed. So, what have you offered by way of answering my questions about the effects of a small payload striking the engine? Nothing, actually.

Sorry, the engine was running perfect to impact, both engines. You are trying to make up stupid ideas. You idea is not a factor, both engines working to impact. If only you could prove the FDR is fake. Darn.

If you would use physics you could calculate the energy required to eject parts from the impact of 77. But since you are talking about an engine, the engine has it own energy because it has parts spinning at impact at 3 different RPMs, all over 1000. Gee, when the engine impacts parts fly all over the place, some of the parts can go through steel! So if you see an airplane crash.

So we have at impact the kinetic energy of 1637 pounds of TNT. If this is enough energy to bury the plane in the ground and eject tons of material all over. Physics may be needed to understand this. But most rational people can understand this if they try.

At impact one N1 turbine speed of one engine was 38 and 42, the N2 speed of the engines was 82 and 80 percent. So the engines turbines were spinning at 1700 to 1900 for the N1, and 10,000 and 9,800 RPM for the N2. Hundreds of blades will be liberated at impact, discs will be spinning at 10,000 rpm. The engine alone has energy to get up and move at impact due to energy.

This also means the engines are spinning, running, not blown up in the air. So once again facts get in the way of fantasy and lies.

Originally Posted by metamars

Blah, blah. Read the thread, please. Focus.

Yes, your evidence is noted for the missile. Good job. 7 years and this is the best you have, Blah plus blah. Cool.

Originally Posted by metamars

I played with the applets linked earlier to conclude that, if simply looking at increases in energy, we can conclude that a 9x increase in KE will, all other things being equal in a simple ballistics problem, leads to a 9x increase in distance.

There you go. You have debunked yourself.

Originally Posted by metamars

I'm still skeptical, though, that increase in impact KE will have a linear relationship with energy / mass available for ejecting matter. The ground will absorb shock, and there's no shortage of it. I suppose you'd have to study how deep the bedrock is, and start doing a lot of research, to see if you hit some sort of limiting value and the ground starts to act elastically, in the regime we're talking about.

lol... Stop. 93 is a high speed aircraft impact. The parts and the crater are normal for the type of soil. Take your fellow truthers and hire a Boeing expert on crashes to come explain the physics of flight 93, they are super people and they would have, as I, come forward to expose the government, FAA, FBI, NTSB, Wally Miller as liars had anything been wrong about 93. Thousands of trained investigators would come forward. But you have nothing.

Originally Posted by metamars

Since you are trained in air crashes, why not state what the case is, definitively, and give a reference? The question is "Is the relationship between impact velocity and maximum translation from GZ of an impact a linear relationship to the KE?" (for a given angle of incidence and ground type)

Why not show me wrong. Take all your "ample evidence" and show me wrong. 93 is what you get when a plane hits at 600 mph at 42 degrees pitch down and 142 degrees right bank. This is a fact. I have shown you photos of other high speed impacts and you ignore the hard evidence. Cool. The NTSB was there, they are not liars, you propagate lies, I have never seen the FAA, or the NTSB lie and I have flown for over 35 years. You are letting your political views drive your views on 9/11 and you complete ignore the facts. Why?

I don’t care if you deny 1637 pounds of TNT equal energy in the kinetic energy event of 93's impact happened as it did. Your opinion is based on hearsay and lies. You have not presented any facts to disprove what happen on 9/11. Look at the photos of the impact, this is what happens.

I just showed you the energy involved, now look at the plane parts. Show me what is wrong. Show me what does not fit a high speed impact?
I was trained, I don't care if you don't want to know it is normal for 93 to look like it did. You ignore all to continue your failed missile ideas.

Originally Posted by metamars

That F-4 was filled with water, to create that display. Didn't you know this?

What does that have to do with anything. Gee, there would be fuel in a real F-4! lol
Yes, and Flight 93 had 40 people, and 10,000 gallons of fuel; you have no point! Failure. Unless you want to school me on physics; your idea is not very pertinent.

The F-4 had air in it too, surprise you failed to tell me that too. This was funny.

Originally Posted by metamars

You've been invited to document empirical relationships, whose underlying mechanisms are in the realm of physics, even if derivations of said relationships turn out to be too hard to calculate. Why not provide it?

Why not prove it can't happen, I know it did, you are the one who can't figure it out. You need to prove your point, my point is Flight 93 impacted as seen on 9/11, the FDR shows the plane's engines were fully operational, and it shows the terrorist moving the control column to crash the plane. You need to get out your physics skills and prove me wrong. Not me. I just proved with the FDR it was down as I said. Good luck.

See, I proved 93 hit in one piece, and I know the impact looks normal for a high speed impact. I know why the plane crashed, and there are zero anomalies. Case close.
You don't have a clue. So you have to come up to show the accident scene is wrong. ]

It is your problem.

Originally Posted by metamars

If you could prove the fdr data wasn't tampered with, this statement would make sense. Can you?

NO, you are backwards. You must show the FDR was fake; You make up a lie, you must provide the proof. You can't so you will keep saying I have to prove it, but darn, the FDR is correct, it is real, your ideas are false and you have no EVIDENCE. ZERO stuff for your side...

Originally Posted by metamars

Blah, blah. Repeat this millions of times, why don't you?

I again take note of your evidence; Blah, and blah are all your have for your ideas. Cool again.

Originally Posted by metamars

The confirmation bias evident in your assertions is evident, though you're quite correct in saying that I don't have a lot of knowledge on Flight 93.

You need to study this. Why discuss something you are apparently lack knowledge on all levels?

Originally Posted by metamars

Tell me, if I ask the US government for the black box, do you think they'd lend it to me? We can't even get stupid pictures of a plane going into the Pentagon, so keep this in mind as you think deeply on this subject, before offering an answer. After all, we wouldn't want anybody to interpret any monotonous, thoughtless responses by you as evidence of you being a propagandist.

You don't like the government so you support stupid ideas on 9/11 to get even. Great, no facts or evidence just hearsay and lies. Good job 9/11 truth. 7 years and they all have nothing. It is like bigfoot! Do your delusional ideas stem from your hate of the government?
As some on has pointed out, 77 is shown impacting the Pentagon. You just can't figure it out. Why?

[beachnut]

M man,
Why post again, you will still be wrong due to lack of knowledge.


Your failed fantasy ideas are only possible if the FDR is faked and all the witnesses are liars.
All the parts have to planted cause they are exactly right!


LOL



Here comes more junk. Wrong before you post. Cool. But you decided to leave again instead of posting at 4:24. cool, will you post more bs or your evidence you have been hiding?


Why not list all the lies you need first for your ideas to be plausible. Your fantasy is proven wrong by facts and evidence.

You will say I have to show you! WRONG, you have to show yourself, and you can't due to bias or ignorance on the subjects and skills needed to understand this issue. You have to manufacture lies to have your ideas true. Failed before you start, you will never have evidence of your ideas on 9/11 if you include a stupid idea of a missile. Based on all the evidence there is no missile. Even Miller's interview proves this if you know what to listen for and how to understand it.

It is your fantasy claim, you do the work and prove it! You can't, you will tell me to show you some calculation you can't understand anyway. You have not even checked my energy figure; can you?

Until you study Flight 93 you are wasting time making up fake ideas based on nothing.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by metamars

1 engine operational after a missile strike which takes out the other engine means that the plane still provides thrust. Ergo, if you are suggesting that all possible meanings of "shot down" are adequately described by:


then you are quite mistaken. Obviously so.

Furthermore, if the nose of the plane is pointed sufficiently downwards, for whatever reason, the still-powered plane will hit the ground before a free-falling engine. I wouldn't describe this as "merrily". "Fatally" is more like it.

Correct?

Absolutely incorrect. This is just too painful to continue. I think only Beachnut has the stomach to deal with this nonsense.