• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Flight 93?

R.Mackey said:
Look, you can't have it both ways. Since you admit you don't know how the crater should look, you also must admit you're not in a position to say it looks suspicious.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Bears repeating.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No worries, he can ignore it again. CTs have a built in ignore function for anything that disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

You're quite right. That does seem to be a common trait - whether acquired or innate - among members of The TruthTM "movement".
 
Corsair 115 said:
There is one other thing you need to account for. Here's Gravy's post from early in this thread where he recounted the data recorded on the FDR at the moment of impact. Below is the relevant information describing how the aircraft was oriented:

11. Pitch angle - 40 deg down
12. Airspeed - 500 kts
13. Heading - 180 deg
14. Roll angle - 150 deg right
15. AoA - 20 deg negative

Notice that last one - AoA. AoA is Angle of Attack. It describes the angular difference between the direction the aircraft is moving and the direction the nose of the fuselage is pointing (technically, it's the difference angular difference between direction of airflow and the cross-section the wing, but using the fuselage as reference is close enough for the purposes of illustration).

Think of a commercial airliner when it's coming into land - notice how while the jet is moving forwards and descending its nose is pitched up. That's a great example of angle of attack. The higher the angle of attack, the more lift that is generated - up to a point. Beyond a certain AoA, the airflow over the wing is disrupted and lift is lost.

See this web page which has a description of angle of attack along with some helpful illustrations.

From the FDR data, there was a 20° difference between the flight path and the direction the fuselage was pointing.
Click to expand...

Interesting point Corsair! To be sure about this it would be necessary to know how the values are measured (in terms of positive and negative) when the plane is inverted.

Since the angle of attack is relative to the velocity vector, the negative AoA would place the veolcity vector at roughly 60 degrees relative to the ground. This would be in favor of less plowing but still can't account for the wings being on the wrong side. The AoA at -20 degrees should be providing negative lift carrying the wings further towards the far side of the crater.
 
beachnut said:
You do know the plane was turning, did you apply the turn rate of an upside down aircraft?

I cheated, I was trained in accident investigation, flight 93 impact looks exactly how it should for high speed ground impact, someone else was right about 93 and 11/175 being different, the ground impact is different, and if you can not figure that out you are not very adaptable at engineering when you have zero experience in high speed aircraft accident investigation. Please point out one thing not consistent with a high speed ground impact about 93. So far you have not shown anything that is not consistant with a high speed aircraft impact. Why do you persist in making up stuff in areas you are only guessing about?
Click to expand...

The wings are on the wrong side of the creater. I'm not making that up.
 
SO Greg, which of the following is true (it must be one or the other)

1. The numerous crash site investigators missed this glaringly obvious error you (not a crash site investigator) have pointed out.

2. The crash site investigators saw it, brought it up, but it went no where (proof please).

3. The crash site investigators were part of the cover up, and hence ignored this glaring error you have pointed out (proof please).

It has to be one of the three. Please choose, so we know where you stand on this point/issue?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
DGM said:
Would you care to show us your calculations? Have you prepared a paper on this yet?
I would like to see how you accounted for all the variables.
Click to expand...

I just started looking at this issue so no, I don't have any calculations yet. I just put this idea out to see what other people thought and decide whether it is worth pursuing. None of the arguments thus far have convinced me otherwise.

I have no firm convictions about whether my theory here is correct or not. If no one finds this interesting fine. Otherwise, if anyone else is interested in modelling this, it might be interesting to give it a shot.

We have a pretty good collaboration going on the mass of the WTC on another thread which, I should mention is pretty conclusive about the mass for one WTC tower being less than 300,000 tons. Remember, many people argued strongly against this in the beginning. If I would have listened to the knee-jerk "everything challenging the experts is wrong" people, I would have given up and we never would have gotten to the truth in that regard. I will be spending time writing that up so I won't have alot of time to spend on other issues until that is done.
 
T.A.M. said:
SO Greg, which of the following is true (it must be one or the other)

1. The numerous crash site investigators missed this glaringly obvious error you (not a crash site investigator) have pointed out.

2. The crash site investigators saw it, brought it up, but it went no where (proof please).

3. The crash site investigators were part of the cover up, and hence ignored this glaring error you have pointed out (proof please).

It has to be one of the three. Please choose, so we know where you stand on this point/issue?

Thanks

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I don't have any strong convictions about being right about this yet. It is interesting to note that although I am not a structural engineer, I have established that many experts analysing the WTC collapses were using the wrong mass. This by no means indicates whether or not I am correct regarding the issue at hand, but rather is a response to your point 1. That one would need to be an expert to find an inconsistency in the official story (or other work supporting) it is pure bunk.
 
GregoryUrich said:
That one would need to be an expert to find an inconsistency in the official story (or other work supporting) it is pure bunk.
Click to expand...

No, but PROVING it to actual experts (and to a court of law) would require either you to be an expert, or have experts at your disposal.

Otherwise, you are simply incredulous.
 
GregoryUrich said:
The wings are on the wrong side of the creater. I'm not making that up.
Click to expand...
I thought you might be a creationist. :)

No, Gregory, the wing impressions are where they should be. Please keep in mind that many people saw the plane roll onto its back and dive. Keep in mind that the instruments recorded this behavior. Keep in mind the direction of debris and fuel dispersion. Keep in mind the shape of the crater. And stop hoping that reality will bend itself to your wishes. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you here.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I don't have any strong convictions about being right about this yet. It is interesting to note that although I am not a structural engineer, I have established that many experts analysing the WTC collapses were using the wrong mass. This by no means indicates whether or not I am correct regarding the issue at hand, but rather is a response to your point 1. That one would need to be an expert to find an inconsistency in the official story (or other work supporting) it is pure bunk.
Click to expand...
:dl:
This is know as "dissembling". Some of us call it prevaricating.
You haven't shown (rule8).
You have made assertions.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I don't have any strong convictions about being right about this yet.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't have strong convictions. Your default position is that all the witnesses, investigators, and instrument readings are wrong. That's all.

The wings are on the wrong side of the creater. I'm not making that up.
Click to expand...
Perfectly reasonable.
 
Greg:

lets cut the crap...you doubt the official story, and are trying to find various anomalies to help support your premise. You are not a hard line MIHOPer, that I will concede, but to try and float about here like you are completely neutral, just asking questions is ridiculous.

From this, to state that you are merely an innocent sideliner pointing out an error to the crash investigators is also silly. You have been arguing the details, without any expertese in the area. Do you think that crash investigation is so easy a field that anyone can point out errors in such? You have proven nothing here. Whats even worse, is that you, like so many truthers (not calling you one) stand around commenting on the errors in this or that, without ever approaching an expert on your "anomalies" to see if they can be explained by the expert in a way that is sensible to the logical, rational mind.

TAM:)
 
Gravy said:
Of course you don't have strong convictions. Your default position is that all the witnesses, investigators, and instrument readings are wrong. That's all.

Perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. I'm embarassed for you Gravy. You can't accept that anyone question anything without having forgone conclusions.
 
T.A.M. said:
Greg:

lets cut the crap...you doubt the official story, and are trying to find various anomalies to help support your premise. You are not a hard line MIHOPer, that I will concede, but to try and float about here like you are completely neutral, just asking questions is ridiculous.

From this, to state that you are merely an innocent sideliner pointing out an error to the crash investigators is also silly. You have been arguing the details, without any expertese in the area. Do you think that crash investigation is so easy a field that anyone can point out errors in such? You have proven nothing here. Whats even worse, is that you, like so many truthers (not calling you one) stand around commenting on the errors in this or that, without ever approaching an expert on your "anomalies" to see if they can be explained by the expert in a way that is sensible to the logical, rational mind.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You are correct. I doubt the official story. Am I just trying to disprove the officail story? No. I would be glad to find anomalies in favor of the official story.

Regardless, I don't feel this discrepancy is sufficiently supported to approach the crash investigators yet. That's why I am discussing it here.

I really don't want to here any more about what you imagine are my beliefs. I perceive this as an ad hominim attack. Obviously, I am the only one who knows what I believe. Ask me I'll tell you.

I could go on and on about what I imagine are your beliefs. How much would you appreciate that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom