Why Flight 93?

[Dave Rogers]

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.

What you seem to be missing is that the central crater, where the fuselage hit, appears to be significantly larger than the fuselage. If the aircraft was travelling at a negative angle of attack, the nose would have hit the ground at a point further from the tail imprint than the points at which the bases of the wings first hit. There would be some enlargement of the crater back towards the point of impact of the wings, but the deceleration would also generate a shockwave travelling towards the tail of the aircraft which might cause some disintegration of the rear fuselage. This would mean that the fuselage crater was caused primarily by the impact of the front half of the plane, and the angle of attack would cause this to be elongated in the direction away from the tail impact - in other words, exactly what is seen. I'm not sure how clear that is, but I can visualise the geometry and it seems reasonable to me.

I doubt whether there would be enough time for the negative lift to affect the trajectory of the wings from the time the fuselage broke up to the time they impacted the ground. In any case, the wings wouldn't have to "go through the fuselage" to achieve the effect you're claiming - they wings are, of course, on either side of the fuselage, so they'd just have to separate and follow a slightly different trajectory.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

Feel free, it happens to everyone here, all the time. If anything, you are an exception to that rule, in that you do not. It will not bother me if you do so, I will merely, as you did, attempt to correct you where you are wrong.

It is not, IMO ad hom, and I rarely engage in such.

I will only say this...it is unimportant what I think you think, or visversa. What is important is what the readers who need clarification think. As a result I will honor your request, and try to refrain from putting words in your mouth (although I did not think I did much of that).

My main point, and it is one I say to all who argue the points you argue, and others, is bring it to an expert. Now if you feel there is not enough of an anomaly to bring to a crash investigator, I appreciate that, and perhaps if it was stated as such, rather than the good old "This seems strange it must be something sinister that made it that way" line that we see most times here, it would not have recieved as much hostile attention.

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

What you seem to be missing is that the central crater, where the fuselage hit, appears to be significantly larger than the fuselage. If the aircraft was travelling at a negative angle of attack, the nose would have hit the ground at a point further from the tail imprint than the points at which the bases of the wings first hit. There would be some enlargement of the crater back towards the point of impact of the wings, but the deceleration would also generate a shockwave travelling towards the tail of the aircraft which might cause some disintegration of the rear fuselage. This would mean that the fuselage crater was caused primarily by the impact of the front half of the plane, and the angle of attack would cause this to be elongated in the direction away from the tail impact - in other words, exactly what is seen. I'm not sure how clear that is, but I can visualise the geometry and it seems reasonable to me.

I doubt whether there would be enough time for the negative lift to affect the trajectory of the wings from the time the fuselage broke up to the time they impacted the ground. In any case, the wings wouldn't have to "go through the fuselage" to achieve the effect you're claiming - they wings are, of course, on either side of the fuselage, so they'd just have to separate and follow a slightly different trajectory.

Dave

I'm not sure you are understanding my argument. The wings are on the bottom of the aircraft as opposed to the top. When the plane is inverted, they would impact on the far side of the crater unless of course they were dissociated from the fuselage. If they were dissociated, the negative lift might carry them further in the direction of the far side of the crater.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Feel free, it happens to everyone here, all the time. If anything, you are an exception to that rule, in that you do not. It will not bother me if you do so, I will merely, as you did, attempt to correct you where you are wrong.

It is not, IMO ad hom, and I rarely engage in such.

I will only say this...it is unimportant what I think you think, or visversa. What is important is what the readers who need clarification think. As a result I will honor your request, and try to refrain from putting words in your mouth (although I did not think I did much of that).

My main point, and it is one I say to all who argue the points you argue, and others, is bring it to an expert. Now if you feel there is not enough of an anomaly to bring to a crash investigator, I appreciate that, and perhaps if it was stated as such, rather than the good old "This seems strange it must be something sinister that made it that way" line that we see most times here, it would not have recieved as much hostile attention.

TAM

My first post said I just noticed this and wondered what other people thought. People have given counter arguments and I have responded to those. I don't remember suggesting anything sinister in any of my posts on this thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not sure you are understanding my argument. The wings are on the bottom of the aircraft as opposed to the top. When the plane is inverted, they would impact on the far side of the crater unless of course they were dissociated from the fuselage. If they were dissociated, the negative lift might carry them further in the direction of the far side of the crater.

I understand your argument, but I note that it revolves around the word "might". I'm not sure you're understanding mine. If the plane was travelling at a negative angle of attack, as the FDR says it was, then the nose would impact further in the direction of the far side of the crater than the wings, giving exactly the crater shape that was observed. In effect, the plane was travelling nose-up but inverted, so the nose hit the ground further along than the wings.

In any case, your statement that the wings would have to "go through the fuselage" is absurd.

Dave

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Actually no. You've made an enormous simplifying assumption.

I'd forgotten that the measured AoA was so high. This angle of attack, in an aircraft that is basically aerobatic and traveling about 500 knots, not to mention diving into ground effect, means the plane was tumbling. There's basically no chance at all that the wings still had an attached boundary layer (that's "they're stalled" to the pilots here), so the force on the wings is almost certainly buffeting, and again could be in either direction. Wing-body interaction would probably dominate, except it was coming in rolled and inverted...

There's also the question of how many seconds before impact that last FDR record was stored to disk. Delays of a second or two are common, it all depends on where we were in the write frame, packet size, etc. (Paging Anti-sophist...)

IWe 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.

Of course, what actually happened in that thread is not that members here said "you're wrong, go away." We said "show us your work." Well, you did.

Here you can't. You just can't model a large tumbling aircraft at that speed with any precision, and you can't back-project its impact from the scar on the ground. The accuracy simply is not there. Don't believe me? Try identifying all possible sources of experimental error and their relative magnitude, and then be prepared to give up.

 

[beachnut]

The wings are on the wrong side of the creater. I'm not making that up.

No they are where they should be, you do not have any data to prove your point. You have no idea where the wings should be, you have no data to show at the second of impact where the plane was. After 34 years experience in aircraft accident research and years of aircraft accident investigation, I find your immature tripe to be less than amusing. Come up with facts, before you say things that are wrong by observation.

Once again you come with trivial statements and no solid conclusions. What does it mean? What is the conclusion?

The plane was moving over 500 mph, you have failed to make your case and now are lost because you have zero data on the final second of flight 93. I think you missed the reason FDR standards changed just before 2001. The European standard wanted no lag on recording the data to the survivable chip. The system on flight 93 had a chip that survived but due to the data rate to the chip and data compression techniques of the day, flight 93 did not meet .5 second lag of the new European standard. Therefore unless you have the data that shows what flight 93 was doing at impact you have zero. Zero.

The pilot was making inputs that were extreme. The fact the wings made an impact is proof of flight 93 being kind of intact at impact, but that does not mean the wings were still viable. The plane was well past all limits, in a high Q environment. The fact the entire aircraft (minus ejected parts) and people were all buried in the impact point, verified by DNA, makes your unknown conclusion less argument silly, and you still have no conclusion. (give me a break, objects are ejected in a high speed impact, it is like a bullet hitting the ground, pieces go everywhere, the dynamics are surprising and unpredictable; therefore there were also objects ejected just as there are in all high speed steep angle aircraft impacts into the ground)

You have failed to make a point or state a conclusion that means anything. When can I expect you to state your thesis and stop being a 3 year old asking questions or making up junk not backed by any facts or logical thought.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Actually no. You've made an enormous simplifying assumption.

I'd forgotten that the measured AoA was so high. This angle of attack, in an aircraft that is basically aerobatic and traveling about 500 knots, not to mention diving into ground effect, means the plane was tumbling. There's basically no chance at all that the wings still had an attached boundary layer (that's "they're stalled" to the pilots here), so the force on the wings is almost certainly buffeting, and again could be in either direction. Wing-body interaction would probably dominate, except it was coming in rolled and inverted...

There's also the question of how many seconds before impact that last FDR record was stored to disk. Delays of a second or two are common, it all depends on where we were in the write frame, packet size, etc. (Paging Anti-sophist...)

Of course, what actually happened in that thread is not that members here said "you're wrong, go away." We said "show us your work." Well, you did.

Here you can't. You just can't model a large tumbling aircraft at that speed with any precision, and you can't back-project its impact from the scar on the ground. The accuracy simply is not there. Don't believe me? Try identifying all possible sources of experimental error and their relative magnitude, and then be prepared to give up.

Regarding the dicussion about mass. I remember you saying show us yor work. I remember others saying things like:

Beachnut

Sylvester

Rwguinn

Gumboot

I think you get my point.

Your other points are well taken although my gut feeling is that given the possible chaos of the crash you describe, the chances of a roughly symmetrical imprint (as observed) is low.

 

[GregoryUrich]

No they are where they should be, you do not have any data to prove your point. You have no idea where the wings should be, you have no data to show at the second of impact where the plane was. After 34 years experience in aircraft accident research and years of aircraft accident investigation, I find your immature tripe to be less than amusing. Come up with facts, before you say things that are wrong by observation.

Once again you come with trivial statements and no solid conclusions. What does it mean? What is the conclusion?

The plane was moving over 500 mph, you have failed to make your case and now are lost because you have zero data on the final second of flight 93. I think you missed the reason FDR standards changed just before 2001. The European standard wanted no lag on recording the data to the survivable chip. The system on flight 93 had a chip that survived but due to the data rate to the chip and data compression techniques of the day, flight 93 did not meet .5 second lag of the new European standard. Therefore unless you have the data that shows what flight 93 was doing at impact you have zero. Zero.

The pilot was making inputs that were extreme. The fact the wings made an impact is proof of flight 93 being kind of intact at impact, but that does not mean the wings were still viable. The plane was well past all limits, in a high Q environment. The fact the entire aircraft (minus ejected parts) and people were all buried in the impact point, verified by DNA, makes your unknown conclusion less argument silly, and you still have no conclusion. (give me a break, objects are ejected in a high speed impact, it is like a bullet hitting the ground, pieces go everywhere, the dynamics are surprising and unpredictable; therefore there were also objects ejected just as there are in all high speed steep angle aircraft impacts into the ground)

You have failed to make a point or state a conclusion that means anything. When can I expect you to state your thesis and stop being a 3 year old asking questions or making up junk not backed by any facts or logical thought.

By what method do you conclude that the wings are where they should be?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Breaking news

This just in. It seems like the FDR's heading of 180 degrees doesn't really fit in with the crater either. Based on the wing imprint and the direction of plowing, the velocity vector appears to be 30 degrees east of due south.

I have heard that Flight 77 had the more modern type of FDR with less than 1 second lag. This is confirmed by Calum Douglas in his presentation. Are we sure that Flight 93 had the older type?

 

[R.Mackey]

Don't confuse "heading" with "direction of travel." The bird was yawing, too. There is also the strong possibility that air data sensors were beyond their calibrated limits.

It's that whole accuracy thing again.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Don't confuse "heading" with "direction of travel." The bird was yawing, too. There is also the strong possibility that air data sensors were beyond their calibrated limits.

It's that whole accuracy thing again.

30 degree yaw at 500 mph?

Edit: Wouldn't the stabilzer break off?

 

[R.Mackey]

I doubt the terrorists were worried about that.

Just show your work. Stop making little sniping observations.

 

[beachnut]

By what method do you conclude that the wings are where they should be?

What is you thesis? What is your conclusion based on the alleged wing impact being wrong?

I see no anomalies at the impact site based on the information I have seen. Your statements and ideas mean nothing on the subject, and you have not stated thesis. Unless you make a thesis why you think the impact looks wrong and how it became to look wrong, then your statements are tripe. What is your point? Was the plane planted? Are you a tin foil hat guy who can not say what is on his mind? When will you come out and say what you mean?

My thesis is the impact and damage to the ground and surrounding area is consistent with flight 93 hitting the ground. I make this conclusion base on 34 years in aviation and from being an AF trained accident investigator. Experience as a Board President, board member, and the officer in charge of an impact. I have been present for recover, of aircraft and crew. I have studied at aircraft investigation school the impact of high speed, high angle, low angle etc accidents.

So far you have no plausible thesis, or any statements that make any sense about flight 93. I am only speaking as an expert who has experience in the field. I have seen no merit in any of your ideas. Sorry, you have not made much sense. Go get some experience. There are some guys at Boeing I have worked with and they have more experience, I wonder why they have not seen what you are trying to say. What are you trying to say. No the wings do not look wrong, they look intact and like they cut into the ground as the plane was rolling and pitching. When I see the virgin impact in the photo, there are clearly defined wing marks and impact marks base on a rolling moment and aircraft fuselage impact marks based on momentum center impact. The wings rolling are not going with the center of mass, but rotating about the center of mass. You need to think about flight 93 as a large aircraft not a small object. I have no problem with flight 93 impact. I cheated, I actually figured these things out in class and in real life. You are just making up stuff based on what? Flounder on.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I doubt the terrorists were worried about that.

Just show your work. Stop making little sniping observations.

I haven't seen that rule in the guidelines...no sniping observations.

It is not necessary to respond you know.

 

[R.Mackey]

True. However, I'm personally not impressed that you're basing your conclusions on how the dirt mounds "looked" to you, from aerial or evidence photographs. If you want to be taken seriously, then I would suggest you perform a more detailed analysis. I know you're capable of it.

 

[beachnut]

This just in. It seems like the FDR's heading of 180 degrees doesn't really fit in with the crater either. Based on the wing imprint and the direction of plowing, the velocity vector appears to be 30 degrees east of due south.

I have heard that Flight 77 had the more modern type of FDR with less than 1 second lag. This is confirmed by Calum Douglas in his presentation. Are we sure that Flight 93 had the older type?

Did you apply variation? No you did not! Oops, do you know what variation is? Do you even know what the real heading was at impact? If you do not know you can see in the ground impact, the actual impact heading, kind of. Oops, you mean physical evidence? Yes. I hope you are not trying to say flight 93 was planted evidence. I hope you are not like the people who make up lies and say the people on flight 93 were killed at another place and the evidence place in PA.

No, flight 93 and flight 77 both had a FDR not covered by the p4t idiotic standard. They do not replace the old FDRs due to changes made after the FDR was installed. Please look up the hearsay stuff. So where did you get your heading from and what was the altitude at that point?

 

[GregoryUrich]

What is you thesis? What is your conclusion based on the alleged wing impact being wrong?

I see no anomalies at the impact site based on the information I have seen. Your statements and ideas mean nothing on the subject, and you have not stated thesis. Unless you make a thesis why you think the impact looks wrong and how it became to look wrong, then your statements are tripe. What is your point? Was the plane planted? Are you a tin foil hat guy who can not say what is on his mind? When will you come out and say what you mean?

My thesis is the impact and damage to the ground and surrounding area is consistent with flight 93 hitting the ground. I make this conclusion base on 34 years in aviation and from being an AF trained accident investigator. Experience as a Board President, board member, and the officer in charge of an impact. I have been present for recover, of aircraft and crew. I have studied at aircraft investigation school the impact of high speed, high angle, low angle etc accidents.

So far you have no plausible thesis, or any statements that make any sense about flight 93. I am only speaking as an expert who has experience in the field. I have seen no merit in any of your ideas. Sorry, you have not made much sense. Go get some experience. There are some guys at Boeing I have worked with and they have more experience, I wonder why they have not seen what you are trying to say. What are you trying to say. No the wings do not look wrong, they look intact and like they cut into the ground as the plane was rolling and pitching. When I see the virgin impact in the photo, there are clearly defined wing marks and impact marks base on a rolling moment and aircraft fuselage impact marks based on momentum center impact. The wings rolling are not going with the center of mass, but rotating about the center of mass. You need to think about flight 93 as a large aircraft not a small object. I have no problem with flight 93 impact. I cheated, I actually figured these things out in class and in real life. You are just making up stuff based on what? Flounder on.

You said the wings are where they should be. I'll grant you that they are on both sides of the airplane which would indicate that they were more or less intact on impact. Why are they in line with the tail side of the crater? I would expect this if the plane were high wing.

 

[rwguinn]

You said the wings are where they should be. I'll grant you that they are on both sides of the airplane which would indicate that they were more or less intact on impact. Why are they in line with the tail side of the crater? I would expect this if the plane were high wing.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleCrater3.jpg

Possible explanations:
Hana and Barberra, and Warner Brothers do not story-board reality?
Wile E. Coyote is a cartoon character. (hint, hint)

 

[GregoryUrich]

Did you apply variation?

No, flight 93 and flight 77 both had a FDR not covered by the p4t idiotic standard. They do not replace the old FDRs due to changes made after the FDR was installed. Please look up the hearsay stuff.

Calum Douglas called Boeing (or American) and the FDR manufacturer for the model in that airplane and taped the calls.

What's variation?