evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[Jonnyclueless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

[color=black][font=Verdana][color=black][font=Verdana]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.

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

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

Go talk to a physics professor, who can readily tell you what will hit the ground sooner when you have a mass A, that experiences a downward force of just gravity, a mass B that experiences a downward force of gravity plus jet engine thrust, and at time t0, both mass A and mass B are at the same height.

I'm sure that a physics professor can relieve your pain in a matter of seconds, if you'll only let him, or her.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

No, you need to do your own work, you don't believe the FAA, NTSB, me, the military, the government, Miller, or anything with rational thought to it.

Originally Posted by metamars

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not related to the missile or shoot down.

Originally Posted by metamars

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

That is not far. This was a big impact, figure out the kinetic energy yourself. Yes you can look up crashes and say they look similar. This is why I show the F-4, the speed was slower than 93, but the parts are crushed.

Truther think there should be a tail, or wings. But not at 600 mph. This is basic physics. And I understand all of this, I don't have to go learn it, I can already see 93 from day one was normal! I can't help you learn this. I have flown jets from 1974.

93 looks like a high speed impact. It is a fact. This is why no experts are joining the truth movement in numbers greater than 0.001 percent.
lol

Originally Posted by metamars

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

Not related to the missile or shoot down.
There was no missile because 93 was all perfect until impact. The FDR proves this. I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the proof each time by bring up stuff not related. The 93 impact is normal, you have not shown one thing wrong with it.

Originally Posted by metamars

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Not related to the missile or shoot down. The FDR is right. Sorry, your fantasy is moot.

Originally Posted by metamars

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

Sorry, you have to show me the debris is not right, it is your idea. I use the FDR, you can't dispute the FDR with facts or evidence. No missile.

Originally Posted by metamars

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

1637 pounds of TNT energy at impact. How do you know that is right?

The eject instrument is true, I was there, I owned the crash scene after the fire department finished up! Parts were ejected for hundreds of feet in a 200 mph impact! The impact kinetic energy is the key. Better check my 1600 pounds of TNT. Need it in joules? The wings ruptured on impact and exploded. Not much left of the plane, a layperson may not know it was a plane, just like 93.

Still no evidence for a missile. Why?

So we have the FDR showing all engines turning at impact, attached to 93.
We have a great interview TC did on Miller, and that provides evidence of no missile.
So the thread is about evidence against a shoot down; do you have any? NO

We need to stay on topic, this is evidence against a shoot down.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by metamars

Go talk to a physics professor, who can readily tell you what will hit the ground sooner when you have a mass A, that experiences a downward force of just gravity, a mass B that experiences a downward force of gravity plus jet engine thrust, and at time t0, both mass A and mass B are at the same height.

I'm sure that a physics professor can relieve your pain in a matter of seconds, if you'll only let him, or her.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if that's how you think a heat seeking missile hitting a plane works, then no wonder you are so lost on this issue. I'd say seek some serious professional help. Better yet, why don't you get a physics professor to back your claim up. See if you can do it without them laughing at you.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

That is not far. This was a big impact, figure out the kinetic energy yourself. Yes you can look up crashes and say they look similar. This is why I show the F-4, the speed was slower than 93, but the parts are crushed.

I've saw the F-4 video months ago. Nobody is disputing that a plane can disintegrate into small pieces. Try to follow the arguments of different posters, even if they post different things on the same thread, please.

Quote:

Truther think there should be a tail, or wings. But not at 600 mph. This is basic physics. And I understand all of this, I don't have to go learn it, I can already see 93 from day one was normal! I can't help you learn this. I have flown jets from 1974.

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

Quote:

I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the proof each time by bring up stuff not related. The 93 impact is normal, you have not shown one thing wrong with it. [/font][/color]
[/font][/color]

Not related to the missile or shoot down. The FDR is right. Sorry, your fantasy is moot.

Sorry, you have to show me the debris is not right, it is your idea. I use the FDR, you can't dispute the FDR with facts or evidence. No missile.



1637 pounds of TNT energy at impact. How do you know that is right?

The eject instrument is true, I was there, I owned the crash scene after the fire department finished up! Parts were ejected for hundreds of feet in a 200 mph impact! The impact kinetic energy is the key. Better check my 1600 pounds of TNT. Need it in joules? The wings ruptured on impact and exploded. Not much left of the plane, a layperson may not know it was a plane, just like 93.

Still no evidence for a missile. Why?

So we have the FDR showing all engines turning at impact, attached to 93.
We have a great interview TC did on Miller, and that provides evidence of no missile.
So the thread is about evidence against a shoot down; do you have any? NO

We need to stay on topic, this is evidence against a shoot down.

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process for drawing a conclusion from details of the crash data that I was speaking to, while still finding time to post the same stuff over and over again, I'll leave you to your verbal treadmill exercize, word salad, photos, and all. Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by metamars

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

It appears yours did.... at birth.

Quote:

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

References to Waynes World? Um... dude...it's 2008

Quote:

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process for drawing a conclusion from details of the crash data that I was speaking to, while still finding time to post the same stuff over and over again, I'll leave you to your verbal treadmill exercize, word salad, photos, and all. Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

Translation: Stop posting things that I don't understand.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

I've saw the F-4 video months ago. Nobody is disputing that a plane can disintegrate into small pieces. Try to follow the arguments of different posters, even if they post different things on the same thread, please.

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process , ... Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

You brought up the dumb idea that water made a difference. If you want to rationalize it now, too late. So just attack me again.

Go read the FDR, you will see the plane was in one piece. FDR is proof of no shoot down. What do you have to add? Exactly, an attack on me.

You have no evidence to contest the FDR. The FDR and Miller are good evidence to show no shoot down.

Enjoy your lack of evidence, process.

[Reheat]

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.

I'm sure you have no idea how utterly stupid this is....

If you insist that engine part that went a few hundred yards was due to a missile then it would have to have been a shoot down below 500', I'd guess considerably below. If the aircraft was this low, why would there have been a need to shoot a missile at it?

If there had been a missile shot into that engine at altitude in order to bring it down, the engine part or parts would have been miles from the main crash site.

You may as well stop speculating as you don't know squat about air-to-air missile nor what damage they can do. You also don't know squat about the physics involved either.

All you're doing is revealing your ignorance, nothing more.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if that's how you think a heat seeking missile hitting a plane works, then no wonder you are so lost on this issue. I'd say seek some serious professional help. Better yet, why don't you get a physics professor to back your claim up. See if you can do it without them laughing at you.

You're giving me the same vibes as beachnut, now, though instead of pointing out how high speed impacts can lead to vast disintegration, which I already knew, you are suggesting (apparently) that I believe a heat seeking missile "works" by knocking off an engine, such that the net effect is an accelerated crash into the ground. By design. Which is not what I expect the general case to be. So, one of you makes 'points', of which we are already in agreement, and another makes 'points', which are the product if his own misunderstanding.

If such an ignorant thought entertains you, or gives you some sort of satisfaction, go right ahead and believe it. You're wrong, just as you seem not to have understood a simple physics principle, but hey! whatever floats your boat. (Or should I say "flies your kite" ) This isn't Physical Reviews....

I've never really given much thought to whether or not a general crash sequence occurs, or is even intended, by taking out an engine via a heat seeking missile. In modern fighters that I've seen, if there's twin engines, they are close together. Destroying one is sure to destroy the other one, I should think.

Furthermore, even if a fighter wereto only lose a single engine, I would expect fuel leakage, perhaps with an onboard fire since, unlike the 757, a live heat source is near the (expected) fuel leakage. In this case, a likely sequence is that the pilot would eject, fearing an onboard explosion.

And if the target is a bomber, of which at least some (like a B-52) is more similar to a 757, I think you'd still be happy to cause a fuel leak, loss of thrust, and loss of aerilon control. If the plane can't be controlled, it'll still eventually crash, whether a wing dips or not, and whether any engines are still providing thrust at the moment of impact.

Even if there was no onboard fire, taking out a jet fighter engine is likely to ruin control of the tail section. No control also implies ejection. How on earth would the pilot land a plane he can't control?

So, no, it isn't necessary for a heat seeking missile to cause a wing to dip, and cause a jet-engine accelerated crash into the ground. For one thing, if terminal speed is 200 mph with all engines failing, I'm sure that will be quite enough to ruin the plane and kill the pilot.

But in the case of a 757, as has been discussed in this thread, where a wing has been said to have dipped, "ear witnesses" heard an explosion before impact, and an engine (or part of an engine; nobody has specified how much of the engine) lands 600 yards from the bulk of the plane, a scenario wherein a heat seeking missile strikes and separates an engine, 'far' from it's twin, and the twin keeps operating, seems very plausible.

BTW, I have a degree in physics. Really, the problem is so simple, you can ask a high school physics teacher about it.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

You're giving me the same vibes as beachnut, now, though instead of pointing out how high speed impacts can lead to vast disintegration, which I already knew, you are suggesting (apparently) that I believe a heat seeking missile "works" by knocking off an engine, such that the net effect is an accelerated crash into the ground. By design. Which is not what I expect the general case to be. So, one of you makes 'points', of which we are already in agreement, and another makes 'points', which are the product if his own misunderstanding.

If such an ignorant thought entertains you, or gives you some sort of satisfaction, go right ahead and believe it. You're wrong, just as you seem not to have understood a simple physics principle, but hey! whatever floats your boat. (Or should I say "flies your kite" ) This isn't Physical Reviews....

I've never really given much thought to whether or not a general crash sequence occurs, or is even intended, by taking out an engine via a heat seeking missile. In modern fighters that I've seen, if there's twin engines, they are close together. Destroying one is sure to destroy the other one, I should think.

Furthermore, even if a fighter wereto only lose a single engine, I would expect fuel leakage, perhaps with an onboard fire since, unlike the 757, a live heat source is near the (expected) fuel leakage. In this case, a likely sequence is that the pilot would eject, fearing an onboard explosion.

And if the target is a bomber, of which at least some (like a B-52) is more similar to a 757, I think you'd still be happy to cause a fuel leak, loss of thrust, and loss of aerilon control. If the plane can't be controlled, it'll still eventually crash, whether a wing dips or not, and whether any engines are still providing thrust at the moment of impact.

Even if there was no onboard fire, taking out a jet fighter engine is likely to ruin control of the tail section. No control also implies ejection. How on earth would the pilot land a plane he can't control?

So, no, it isn't necessary for a heat seeking missile to cause a wing to dip, and cause a jet-engine accelerated crash into the ground. For one thing, if terminal speed is 200 mph with all engines failing, I'm sure that will be quite enough to ruin the plane and kill the pilot.

But in the case of a 757, as has been discussed in this thread, where a wing has been said to have dipped, "ear witnesses" heard an explosion before impact, and an engine (or part of an engine; nobody has specified how much of the engine) lands 600 yards from the bulk of the plane, a scenario wherein a heat seeking missile strikes and separates an engine, 'far' from it's twin, and the twin keeps operating, seems very plausible.

BTW, I have a degree in physics. Really, the problem is so simple, you can ask a high school physics teacher about it.

Too funny.

This is your post in a thread about evidence against a shoot down, and you mess up physics and claim it is your major. LOL

You are off topic and have forgotten all you know about physics. You can't correct my error in kinetic energy.

Your ideas are proven stupid with the FDR. The wing dip is the terrorist flying the plane, he put in a huge amount of right bank! He had the wheel right! Funny, you take witness statement confirmed by the FDR to support the proven wrong missile crap. If you are a physics major you can figure this out and prove it to yourself; but you are failing to use that physics stink to save yourself.

This is your problem you think 400 yards in the pond is far away. A missile would put these parts miles away. Physics major; then use it! Run the numbers physics major. You should have taken the aircraft investigation course and flown jets for 34 years.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Reheat

I'm sure you have no idea how utterly stupid this is....

If you insist that engine part that went a few hundred yards was due to a missile then it would have to have been a shoot down below 500', I'd guess considerably below. If the aircraft was this low, why would there have been a need to shoot a missile at it?

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

Quote:

If there had been a missile shot into that engine at altitude in order to bring it down, the engine part or parts would have been miles from the main crash site.

Makes sense to me, unless it was sort of dangling, but didn't finally disconnect until lower altitude.

Quote:

You may as well stop speculating as you don't know squat about air-to-air missile nor what damage they can do.

You're right, I don't know squat about what an air-to-air missile would do. Why don't you tell us what an air-to-air missile with a payload of 3.7 kg would do upon striking a 757 engine? I'm all ears.

Quote:

You also don't know squat about the physics involved either.

I've actually studied parts of Impact - The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids, by Werner Goldsmith, but have never made a similar effort with regard to the physics of explosions.

Quote:

All you're doing is revealing your ignorance, nothing more.

Well, here's your big chance to illumine not just my mind, but everybody else's. Go for it.

[Jonnyclueless]

No Metmars, you have no provided any scientific basis for how shooting a plane with a missile, and taking out one engine will cause the plane to point downwards and increase in speed form the remaining engine. Please, go right ahead.

but please go on pretending we don't understand physics when it is YOU who does not. I enjoy a good laugh at your delusions.

And using the whole explosion before the impact? Give us a break, even YOU of all people know that's not reliable.

And I am sure that many of you crackpots also think that the loved ones who talked to the people on the plane as this was going down are all in on it too. I am sure they get a kick out o their loved ones getting murdered and just make this stuff up to go along with some government conspiracy.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

A physics major, at least on who really lives physics, would see at 41 degrees pitch down, and 500 feet we have impact in less than a second, Reheat saves a missile; you are not using your physics stuff.

And if you used physics to solve 93, you too would understand this. Seem like you must have been a cold fusion physicist like Dr. Thermite Jones.

So we still have no input from you on thread topic, just failed ideas, and showing you may be a physics major, but you sure don't use it. Some have the knowledge of physics but can't apply it; why is that?

FDR is still a major evidence source against the shoot down. topic


.370 kg of HE caused this.

http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

You are the physics major, tell us what 10 times that amount would do?

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by metamars

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

I'm sure the jihadist pilot was just giving the passengers a low altitude sight seeing tour prior to taking out a cornfield in PA in order to impact the economy of the US.

You're obviously a complete waste of time....

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

No Metmars, you have no provided any scientific basis for how shooting a plane with a missile, and taking out one engine will cause the plane to point downwards and increase in speed form the remaining engine. Please, go right ahead.

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Your refutation of this is where? I must have missed it.

Quote:

but please go on pretending we don't understand physics when it is YOU who does not. I enjoy a good laugh at your delusions.

Is it your delusion or mine that you've not refuted a single one of the arguments I gave?

Quote:

And using the whole explosion before the impact? Give us a break, even YOU of all people know that's not reliable.

I must confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a "whole explosion before impact"?

Quote:

And I am sure that many of you crackpots also think that the loved ones who talked to the people on the plane as this was going down are all in on it too. I am sure they get a kick out o their loved ones getting murdered and just make this stuff up to go along with some government conspiracy.

At this point, you're resorting to bovine excrement, and smearing me with your own delusional presuppositions. Ah, but you're "sure", aren't you? Why am I not surprised that you're "sure" of yourself, even when describing my own thoughts? Why-y-y-y, you know me better than I know myself! Isn't it obvious?

[beachnut]

M, man,
Where was the super sonic MACH 2.5 thunder trail. Not one person talked about the sonic boom trail of the missile. No one. Physics.
FDR is the key, learn to read the FDR. You could use physics to save you from saying silly things like you are.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

.370 kg of HE caused this.

http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says

Quote:

Captain Gennotte, remembering a broadcast about the United Airlines Flight 232 disaster in the USA in 1989, managed to flatten out the plane's gyrations by use of the throttles.

If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says



If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

The missile missed.
You need to use your physics on 9/11 instead of making up lies and false information.

All the movements of 93 were from inputs from the terrorist, all of them. Sorry, the FDR once again puts a big damper on your fantasy ideas.

... the terrorist made all the movements of flight 93, the stick inputs are on the FDR! Your fantasy is killed by facts and evidence.

[TC329]

Originally Posted by metamars

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

you don't have beachnut on ignore yet, huh?

it doesn't matter what you say. you could uncover a shoot down video and beachnut will explain how it didn't happen. but you'll learn in a few more posts......

[lapman]

Originally Posted by metamars

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Wow, now you've proven that you have no idea of how a 757 is put together. The engine is not a part of the lifting area of the airfoil. Shooting one off would do nothing to change the shape of the airfoil since the engines on a Boeing 757 hang BELOW the wing and are not incorporated into the wing like the de Havilland Comet.

[beachnut]

TC was debunked by Miller, and he does not know it.

It was TC's own interview of Miller.

This interview is evidence against a shoot down, TC does not understand why.

Of course TC has nothing to add to this thread, but he did make evidence against a shoot down by providing Miller's interview. I have to tell Miller TC is using his interview to make up lies.

TC has me on ignore so he can ignore the fact Miller debunks all the things TC makes up. But see the interview until TC takes it down to save face. See the wally miller thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122665 Miller offers key evidence and observations that are against a shoot down. Big time.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by beachnut

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

The missile missed.

No, both this link and your previous one say the plane was hit. Read them, again.

[lapman]

Originally Posted by metamars

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

According to you, that plane should have crashed since it's airfoil was changed.

Quote:

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says



If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

Typical twoofer tactic of misquoting. You missed the part that stated:

Quote:

At around 10,000 feet, the aircraft was hit by a missile which resulted in the loss of its hydraulic systems.

In other words, the engines were the only way to control the aircraft. UA 232 was the same thing. When the fan of the rear engine disintegrated, it took out the main AND backup hydraulic systems. The pilots used the engines since they had no other way to control the aircraft. So, the onus is on you to prove that flight 93 had no hydraulics.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

No, both this link and your previous one say the plane was hit. Read them, again.

NO it missed. You are not using the physics stuff again.

Hint ; Passive Infrared homing.

oops, it was a SA-14, .39 kg of HMX.

bigger hint; engine, it missed the engine. lol

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by metamars

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Are you on drugs? You seriously think that's how a plane works? Seriously? That is a complete utter joke. You can't call that an argument because it is utter nonsense. That's not backing up your claim, that's making somthing up that simply is not true at all. And then you expect after this absurd nonsense of a claim that has no basis in reality that the plane is then going to increase speed because it has an engine on one side while falling out of the sky from lack of life which you think is caused by the other engine? What complete utter nonsense! Even the braniacs at PFT would laugh at that.

Quote:

Your refutation of this is where? I must have missed it.

In my posts genius. The fact that you aren't making a reasonable argument to begin with is all that matters. I don't even need to refute it any more than I need to refute someone claiming Santa Claus flies around the world on Christmas delivering present to every kid in the world.

Quote:

Is it your delusion or mine that you've not refuted a single one of the arguments I gave?

yes I have, and your arguments are nonsense. They refute themselves because you are simply making up your own idea of how you think a plane works.

Quote:

I must confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a "whole explosion before impact"?

Then perhaps you should go back and read your own post where you made that claim? It was only 2 posts ago, remember?

Quote:

At this point, you're resorting to bovine excrement, and smearing me with your own delusional presuppositions. Ah, but you're "sure", aren't you? Why am I not surprised that you're "sure" of yourself, even when describing my own thoughts? Why-y-y-y, you know me better than I know myself! Isn't it obvious?

Excrement is what you started the argument with, so how do you expect it to end any differently? your whole nonsense about how a plane would increase speed after having an engine shot off is just outright laughable. What do you expect? That's the problem with making nonsense claims like yours.

And then if we step back and look at the bigger picture of what your are implying? it gets even more absurd. So the government shot down a plane in their plot to take over the world through creatively shooting a plane down into a field? And you uncovered the diabolical caper didn'tcha? Despite having no real evidence (the stuff you made up doesn't count) and all the evidence showing exactly the opposite....

[Jonnyclueless]

once again kids, look up flight 1771. Another plane that crashed in the same manner as 93 and the results were almost identical. And I suppose it was a super secret hush-a-boom missile behind that crash too?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by lapman

Wow, now you've proven that you have no idea of how a 757 is put together. The engine is not a part of the lifting area of the airfoil. Shooting one off would do nothing to change the shape of the airfoil since the engines on a Boeing 757 hang BELOW the wing and are not incorporated into the wing like the de Havilland Comet.

Have you seen the picture Beachnut posted a link to? This one:
http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Just eyeballing this, from a bad angle, but half the wing, looking from front to back, is gone, in the affected area. That's the top and the bottom.

If a payload 10x slammed into an engine, I find it hard to believe that the top of the airfoil wouldn't get bent out of shape, in the adjacent part of the wing. In fact, I find it easy to believe that the wing would snap off, near the engine.

Either case is not good if you want that wing to provide lift....

[lapman]

Originally Posted by metamars

Have you seen the picture Beachnut posted a link to? This one:
http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Just eyeballing this, from a bad angle, but half the wing, looking from front to back, is gone, in the affected area. That's the top and the bottom.

Again, you completely ignore the fact that the aircraft landed safely.

Quote:

If a payload 10x slammed into an engine, I find it hard to believe that the top of the airfoil wouldn't get bent out of shape, in the adjacent part of the wing. In fact, I find it easy to believe that the wing would snap off, near the engine.

Either case is not good if you want that wing to provide lift....

Of course you would find it hard to believe since you have no ideal of how aircraft fly. The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable. You would know this if you knew anything about aerodynamics. I remember a B-52 was hit by a SAM during the Gulf War. It had a huge hole in the wing, but it landed safely.

[AJM8125]

Just a thought:

There have been comparable air disasters relevant to this thread:

Brought down by explosion: KAL 007 (747, shot down by missile), Iran Air 655 (AirBus 300,shot down by missile), Pan AM 103 (747, bomb), TWA 800 (747,fuel tank explosion).

High speed crash: PSA 1771 (BAe 146-200), ValuJet 592 ( DC-9), Turkish Air 981 (DC-10)

It might be helpful if one examined how the debris patterns differs from an explosive event to a high speed impact.

I also know of examples of planes that lost whole engines and survived, and at least one that didn't.

Food for thought.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by lapman

The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable.

True. It is quite difficult to shoot down an airline type aircraft for this very reason. No knowledgeable fighter pilot would fire only one missile, he would at minimum shoot two.

M man is being quite obtuse. If a missile or missiles were fired at altitude and the hit(s) were effective enough to bring it down, we would find parts of that engine miles from the main crash site. There is no way an damaged entire intact engine could remain attached to the wing at the speed UA 93 was flying.

His theory is bunkum. Why would an airliner be at less than 500' AGL in the first place? And why would anyone shoot a missile at the aircraft that low. Even if part of an engine could remain attached after a solid hit at altitude and separate so as to land only a few hundred feet from the main wreckage, where is the rest of it? (It's in the hole, stupid) If a missile had hit it at altitude and caused it to descend that low (AGAIN) engine parts would be scattered from Kalamazoo and back.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by lapman

According to you, that plane should have crashed since it's airfoil was changed.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've made a plausibility argument to explain what I understand of eye and ear witness accounts, plus the separation of the engine from the rest of the debris. I didn't lay it out in excruciating detail, nor did I calculate anything. I'm sorry if you think that I'm so dumb that I believe that any change to airfoil must result in a crash - even, say, a warping of 5 mm from the correct surface - but the misunderstanding implied by any such extreme view would be all yours.

Do try and get at people's meaning, why don't you? Language is inherently ambiguous, so perhaps you genuinely misunderstood. I have my doubts, though.

Quote:

Typical twoofer tactic of misquoting. You missed the part that stated:
In other words, the engines were the only way to control the aircraft. UA 232 was the same thing. When the fan of the rear engine disintegrated, it took out the main AND backup hydraulic systems. The pilots used the engines since they had no other way to control the aircraft. So, the onus is on you to prove that flight 93 had no hydraulics.

And? Again, if the pilot of flight 93 didn't want to crash, but hadn't read of a similar technique to handle the gyrations, who's to say whether they would have been able to?

If the pilot of flight 93 had hydraulics, and didn't want to crash, well whatever instability developed, he certainly didn't handle it well enough.

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a loss of hydraulics in a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a greater warping and segmentation of the airfoil of a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a proportionately greater loss of the wing structure of a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

Yes, the hydraulic were normal till impact. Busted again by fact and evidnce. Resarech is the key for not making stupid statements.

FDR again is against the shoot down, and has shot down your ideas again.

(The missile missed, the engine.)

[metamars]

Originally Posted by lapman

Again, you completely ignore the fact that the aircraft landed safely.

Are you completely ignoring that 10x explosives in a payload is going to create more damage?

Quote:

Of course you would find it hard to believe since you have no ideal of how aircraft fly. The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable. You would know this if you knew anything about aerodynamics. I remember a B-52 was hit by a SAM during the Gulf War. It had a huge hole in the wing, but it landed safely.

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

If you want to claim that, in all the history of aviation, no such shootdown involved a plane dipping a wing, and the engine getting shot off, go ahead and make such a claim. I, for one, won't believe it, but I don't have the time or inclination to start searching historical records for such incidents.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by metamars

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

Yea, like this.

Originally Posted by metamars

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

Uh, air-to-ground missile are fired BY aircraft against targets on the GROUND. Are you losing it?

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE PARTS?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

Are you completely ignoring that 10x explosives in a payload is going to create more damage?

93 was not shot down. Off topic again.

Originally Posted by metamars

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

Off topic. FDR shows hydraulic normal and engines running.

Originally Posted by metamars

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

Off topic. unless you are saying this means there was no missile shoot down.

Originally Posted by metamars

If you want to claim that, in all the history of aviation, no such shootdown involved a plane dipping a wing, and the engine getting shot off, go ahead and make such a claim. I, for one, won't believe it, but I don't have the time or inclination to start searching historical records for such incidents.

The dipping wing on 9/11 of 93 was due to terrorist control wheel/column inputs. You can see it on the FDR, and thus confirmation of your witness junk. The FDR shows no shoot down.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by metamars

I've already provided arguments.

True, but they're all from personal incredulity and not based at all in facts, reason, logic, and understanding.

This is why no one with any knowledge at all about such things is a Shanksville Truther.

In other words, sounds like your own personal problem.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Yea, like this. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...baae1cde53.gif

You're starting to get the idea. Now, put lipstick on that pig, and see if it takes off. OK, now comes the real test. Clip one of those wings, and throw the pig off of a bridge. Does the pig fly? NO!

I hope, though, it can swim.

Quote:

Uh, air-to-ground missile are fired BY aircraft against targets on the GROUND. Are you losing it?

Yeah. It's past 1 am.....

Quote:

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE PARTS?

Thanks to Mr. TC329, we have

Quote:

jim stop was in indian lake and saw the plane fly overhead towards the crash site losing debris.

(emphasis mine)

I certainly can't prove that this debris included engine pieces, but it would make sense in a scenario where an engine has been shot off - right?

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by metamars

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

I'd deduce that because that is the case and you've elected to start a thread then you don't believe the FDR data.

Do you believe the FDR data and if not why not?

If you don't then there will be a whole further series of questions because the FDR is (to my knowledge) the most sought after component of an aircraft in the event of a crash.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

Thanks to Mr. TC329, we have

Originally Posted by metamars

Quote:

jim stop was in indian lake and saw the plane fly overhead towards the crash site losing debris.

(emphasis mine)

I certainly can't prove that this debris included engine pieces, but it would make sense in a scenario where an engine has been shot off - right?

wrong,
FDR shows no shoot down; FDR shows terrorist inputs to plane caused all the maneuvers 93 did. You really need to use the FDR before you are wrong again. Need a copy?
Looking up TC past posts is real bad. All of TC analysis is flawed, he can't take a witness statement and find the truth if it was Christ talking to him. He would mess it up. He takes the Jim Stop non-quote, you repeat it without looking it up to see it is not sourced to Jim, it is hearsay. This means the news guys messed up, there is no meaning to a hearsay non-quote from Jim. Using TC work, standing behind TC work, is not very physics major like.

Is it, your major is physics, or you have a degree, and your major was physics?

A physics major would see this is not a quote, it is hearsay. Produce the quote to save face and stop posting hearsay from TC; he makes up all his ideas by twisting the witness statements and using hearsay, and his flawed investigation techniques.
If Jim does say this, he is wrong, no parts found in front of the impact. FDR






Flight 93 flight data recorder proves no missile hit 93.

No evidence of a sonic boom from a missile, or missile path in the sky. Bad for missile guys.

Irony, or something; As truthers makeup lies about Flight 93 after 7 years Thursday, the first people to figure out 9/11 were the Passengers of Flight 93!

So on one hand we have a group who are misnamed truth, who can't get one thing right about 9/11.
On the other hand we have a group who selflessly got up and took actions, after figuring out 9/11 in MINUTES! They saved some fellow souls by figuring out 9/11 in minutes.

We thus have heroes, and those who support lies about 9/11 with zero evidence.

To the heroes of Flight 93, thank goodness they don't share the mindset of 9/11 truth followers and leaders who have failed to figure out one thing about 9/11.
Pathetic research, no evidence, the truth movement is... nothing

thank the Passengers on 93... they were the first to take action...