So now the witnesses DID see the crash? just a while ago they didn't because they thought a boat blew up on the lake. I guess they are like Willy who could see the plane hit the building while in the basement of the building. Thank God there are always magical people at the scenes of these events.
And good thing that the wind from the ground to the top of the atmosphere blows at the same speed. God knows that debris ejected at 500mph could only travel at the windspeed on the ground. yet if a missile was used, then it's plausible for debris to reach 2.5 miles in a 10mph wind.
Abracadabra!
I know I am quoting Jonny, but I'll address a few other things here as well.
Where are people getting this idea what the debris were traveling 500mph?
The plane was doing 500mph. That 500mph would have halted once it hit the ground.
And you points with regard to a missile is flawed. If a missile had hit the plane while it was near the lake, then debris would have been much closer to the lake, and would have been traveling at near the planes speed, depending on the direction the explosion sent them in. (Against the wind, with it?)
Debris going into the wind or against it will both encounter resistance.
To Spitfire,
If the plane operating out of it's envelope causing alarms to not go off is the case, then how can you trust any of the planes readings at that time? Or do we just pick and choose what worked and what didn't based on convenience? Maybe the guy that called from the plane was right about an explosion and smoke in the plane in it's final minute of flight. I'm sure people on the ground knew better than him..... Maybe the cabin pressure warning did not go off.
Maybe that is why that flight recorder data was never released to the public. Maybe we would hear rushing wind at the end and ask what that was. There are many ways to use data once a precedent of cherry picking it is set.
And just another point about the fight for the cabin, I honestly do not see how people were putting pressure on the cabin if the plane was in a 500+mph dive at reported 40° angle. Even less so when the plane rolled over.
So at what speed and altitude did the plane roll over?
The fire in that picture was smoke and steam. Don't play coy. Show me a picture of a plane crash when
no water is being put on the fire that has gray smoke.
The video I showed proved the fires were out. Fire crews were there. My point is, how did the fire damage get worse after the video was shot when you can clearly see fire fighters in the video? Did a major fire spring up while they were there and they did not report it? How did the damage get worse?
Also, first fire fighter reports said there were spot fires only....not a large section of the woods in flames.
About other plane crashes. I've never stated I could find a plane crash that was like flight 93's. The only reason I put up one was to counter an obviously edited picture that was put up, and showed another airshow crash. The video that the edited pic came from, a lot of people died in. I can put it up to prove the fire was pitch black if you want, but I was not going to highlight the death of a b-52 flight crew when I do not think it will matter in this thread anyway.
I forgot who posted this....
But a difference of 15° will not make a difference at impact? If the flight was showing that 15° was level, and final was 40°, then that would mean the final angle was 25°. -25° if it was inverted? Follow a line into the ground at that angle and a straight down impact seems to be 'unlikely'.
I'll recall a pic from earlier in the thread. A 737 did a nose dive from 1,000 feet.
Note all the burn damage around it?
I am a suspect Troll? Why, because I question things? What I question is out of bounds in your opinion? Only two things have I seriously argued here. The event in Waco, which was proven to be criminal, and flight 93.
If that makes me a troll, then I question your definition of the word.
