Why Flight 93?

[T.A.M.]

Gravy is paranoid and thinks I am up to something because I have the nerve to ask questions.

To Gravy, do you ever have a point when you post? Every time I see you post it is,"Blah blah blah twoofer, blah, fallacy blah blah strawman blah blah why don't you care? *tears*......"
You never add anything to post but flames and insults. So, as far as debate goes, you're worthless.

If you want to get the attention of the lion, you don't have to tease it, just jump over the ledge and into the pit.

TAM

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If you want to get the attention of the lion, you don't have to tease it, just jump over the ledge and into the pit.

TAM

lol...well, you know. When you feel you're being attacked or labeled unfairly, you will defend yourself in kind. Fire with fire and all that jazz.
I think I'm been tolerant for the most part.

Not pointing the finger at anyone with this, but my welcome here shocked me.
And then once it was explained how others came asking questions were really truther's, I saw it as a fallacy, but tried to understand their POV.
So, I put up with it.
But what surprised me even more is when my stance on the issue was clear, I still got the same thing.
And for what? Wanting to understand points that I did not understand. It did not change my stance on the issue overall, it is just a desire to have the whole picture. But even questioning it was out of bounds to some.
That will never make sense to me.

Even more surprising as I learn this 'blasted internet thing' is the 'tough guy' mentality so many have. (Not just here) I guess the anonymity of the internet causes many to act in ways they never would in real life. Bravery and ego's grow as a result of a monitor to hide behind in safety.
Humans are funny.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Wing imprint doesn't match official angle of impact

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

According to NIST the full impact into WTC2 (approx same speed) 0.2 sec. The wings are roughly at the midpoint so the momentum component parallel to the ground should carry the rest of the plane forward for approx 0.1 sec. The velocity component parallel to the ground is roughly = 530/sqrt(2) or 375 mph. A velocity of 375 mph would carry the wings forward 55 ft during 0.1 sec. This is not exact due to slowing if the plane by the impact and actually some of the momentum would go into angular momentum of the plane.

Nonetheless, the wing imprint is clearly on the wrong side of the crater.

 

[T.A.M.]

DA:

I am sure many of those observations are accurate, however, alot of what you percieve as hostility, or outright abhorance, is likely a combination, as said before, of Chronic Debunking Fatigue Syndrome, and the way you present your alternative questioning.

Ultimately, like you said, you have a hard skin, and are enduring such, but this attitude, towards those that ask questions that you do, in the manner in which you do (even if merely to be the devils advocate), will likely recieve the same.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

According to NIST the full impact into WTC2 (approx same speed) 0.2 sec. The wings are roughly at the midpoint so the momentum component parallel to the ground should carry the rest of the plane forward for approx 0.1 sec. The velocity component parallel to the ground is roughly = 530/sqrt(2) or 375 mph. A velocity of 375 mph would carry the wings forward 55 ft during 0.1 sec. This is not exact due to slowing if the plane by the impact and actually some of the momentum would go into angular momentum of the plane.

Nonetheless, the wing imprint is clearly on the wrong side of the crater.

So Greg, what do you think is the best explanation for why the team of aircraft crash investigators missed this glaringly obvious error?

TAM

 

[Furcifer]

Black isn't a colour and every one knows a "sow eester" blows in outta the "nor west"

DA your not Wakenbake are you? You kinda sound like him. I asked him what he was smokin to come to some crazy conclusion one time and he started lecturing me about accusing everyone of being on drugs. Um, yur name is Wakenbake dude, give me a break. People who give themselves nic names like that are always begging for trouble. He was a cool dude though.

 

[DGM]

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

According to NIST the full impact into WTC2 (approx same speed) 0.2 sec. The wings are roughly at the midpoint so the momentum component parallel to the ground should carry the rest of the plane forward for approx 0.1 sec. The velocity component parallel to the ground is roughly = 530/sqrt(2) or 375 mph. A velocity of 375 mph would carry the wings forward 55 ft during 0.1 sec. This is not exact due to slowing if the plane by the impact and actually some of the momentum would go into angular momentum of the plane.

Nonetheless, the wing imprint is clearly on the wrong side of the crater.

This makes no sense to me. The momentum of the plane is in the direction the plane itself was flying. How does its distance traveled in relation to the ground factor in to this?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

DA:

I am sure many of those observations are accurate, however, alot of what you percieve as hostility, or outright abhorance, is likely a combination, as said before, of Chronic Debunking Fatigue Syndrome, and the way you present your alternative questioning.

Ultimately, like you said, you have a hard skin, and are enduring such, but this attitude, towards those that ask questions that you do, in the manner in which you do (even if merely to be the devils advocate), will likely recieve the same.

TAM

Is that a threat, buddy?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

According to NIST the full impact into WTC2 (approx same speed) 0.2 sec. The wings are roughly at the midpoint so the momentum component parallel to the ground should carry the rest of the plane forward for approx 0.1 sec. The velocity component parallel to the ground is roughly = 530/sqrt(2) or 375 mph. A velocity of 375 mph would carry the wings forward 55 ft during 0.1 sec. This is not exact due to slowing if the plane by the impact and actually some of the momentum would go into angular momentum of the plane.

Nonetheless, the wing imprint is clearly on the wrong side of the crater.

Add to it that the FDR indicated level flight was 15°, so how does that play into the reported 40°, if at all?

 

[DGM]

The reason I want direction on the crash impact pictures was to help me understand the point of impact and the planes roll before impact.
The roll rate at 100 feet or less at 500+mph does not seem right to me. That is why I wanted to know at what altitude the aircraft rolled according to the FDR. The FDR could solve a lot of the problems with testimony.

What's this 100' figure? The plane started it's final dive at 10,000 feet.

Add to it that the FDR indicated level flight was 15°, so how does that play into the reported 40°, if at all?

I see no reason to believe that this is accurate. The pilot (not hijacker) would have noticed it and in the beginning of the plot there's a -25 spike. Surely this would be noticed.
This looks like an error when the data was plotted from the FDR.

 

[leftysergeant]

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

You are assuming that the nose was not in any way deflected before overcoming the resistance of the ground, and that the fuselage remained totally straight after impact. THe fact that some of the debris was found in the woods, that there is not imprint of the horizontal stabilizers, and only a faint imprint of the vertical stabilizer indicates that the rear of the aircraft began breaking up early in the event, after impact of the nose, perhaps simultaneos with the impact of the wings.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What's this 100' figure? The plane started it's final dive at 10,000 feet.
I see no reason to believe that this is accurate. The pilot (not hijacker) would have noticed it and in the beginning of the plot there's a -25 spike. Surely this would be noticed.
This looks like an error when the data was plotted from the FDR.

I was not saying it was 100 feet, but I do recall witnesses saying it rolled as it went over a tree line. That would be pretty low.
But that is why I said I wanted to rely more on what the FDR said in that regard.
I do not want to assume something that would be on the FDR.

I wish someone would have made a simulation of the crash, that would have been very interesting.
And about the pilots noticing, I mean, that leads us too assume again. Maybe they just adjusted for it in another way?
I have no idea. Is there was way to correct it in flight?
I'm not a pilot so I will not act like one. (I don't mean that to sound harsh, BTW)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I really wonder if you have read what I have said. See, the problem with people like you is, you think I am up to something. You view everything as suspect and try to discredit me instead of trying to understand what I am saying.

I never made the 'claim' of the debris being this or that. That was witness testimony that I was talking about. The link has already been provided. All accounts from them state (but time changes from site to site) that within 30 seconds to two minutes (information source pending on time) debris were falling on the lake. So say two minutes. And as I said before, say 5 minutes if it makes you feel better. I wanted to get a grasp on how debris from 2 miles away got there so fast. It is not my claim. That is a question regarding testimony. Not my opinion. Which proves that either the testimony is wrong, or there are other factors yet considered.

Also, I have stated clearly that I do not understand the crash site. I never claimed I did. I stated that out of all the crash sites I have seen, none look like this one. Fire wise, damage wise, and impact wise.
That is not me saying that this crash site is fake. It just does not have the fire and damage I am used to seeing.
If you feel you are above talking about things with me, then leave or ignore me. You are here by choice.

Way to try and avoid the subject there. I don't "think" you're up to something. You're simply trying to paint a one sided scenario. You are cherry picking information adn skewing the information. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

No claims about the debris? Have YOU read what you have written? The beginning basis of your argument was that debris fell on the people on the lack seconds after impact. And then you go about how the wind was only 10mph so it couldn't have gotten there that fast, then you went on about the distance being too far. Yet you never bothered to tell us ay of the details about this debris that you make so many claims about. And now you claim you didn't say anything about it?!?!?!

You made HUGE assumptions about the debris based on the eyewitness testimony and used it has evidence. You preyed on their lack of details to make assumptions about it and present it as evidence in an attempt to mislead everyone. So now provide the details about the debris if you are going to make claims about it. Don't just assume it was big pieces or things that couldn't possibly have done what they did when the size and type is a determining factor. Don't say it got there in seconds just because that's what the witnesses said. Remeber things like the speed of sound which are important factors in this. It's going to take some time for the sound to travel 2.5 miles, so it would be understandable for debris to reach those people before they even heard the explosion, let alone seconds after.

You never claimed you understood the crash site? yet you are making bold claims about how it should or should not look. How is that not pretending to understand how it should look? You did more than claim that it looked different from the ones you have seen. You went MUCH further as to continually imply that it shouldn't look amny different than you have seen. How many times did you keep pushing that there should be black smoke? Over and over and over. So stop ********ting us here. It shouldn't matter th color because you have no idea what you are talking about. People here shouldn't have to prove that the smoke was black, because there is nothing that shows that it SHOULD have been. YOU are the one making that claim.

Only now you're trying to weasel out of it with syntax. Oh right, but you didn't word it that way exactly. Stop insulting our intelligence. You know exactly what you meant, as do we. I don't feel I am above talking to you. WTF?!?!?! I am just going to continue to call you on your ********. If you don't like it, maybe try the loose change forums where they won't questions anything that suggests a conspiracy. Otherwise, be prepared for people to call you on all your attempts to insult everyones intelligence and pretend that you have somehow outwitted everyone. Try taking some responsibility for your claims instead of trying to back out of them by using your wording.

Perhaps start by explaining to us how a tornado can destroy an entire town but leave a house or two untouched? Explain that before you expect an explanation for exactly how the fire damage appeared as it did, or how the impact was shaped exactly how it was.

 

[DGM]

The roll looks like it starts at the beginning of the dive. He was rolling the plane left and right for about 5 min. prior to the dive.

I wish someone would have made a simulation of the crash, that would have been very interesting.
And about the pilots noticing, I mean, that leads us too assume again. Maybe they just adjusted for it in another way?
I have no idea. Is there was way to correct it in flight?


I'm not a pilot so I will not act like one. (I don't mean that to sound harsh, BTW)

You would see a control wheel input in the opposite direction. There was none the FDR shows that at 0.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Way to try and avoid the subject there. I don't "think" you're up to something. You're simply trying to paint a one sided scenario. You are cherry picking information adn skewing the information. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

No claims about the debris? Have YOU read what you have written? The beginning basis of your argument was that debris fell on the people on the lack seconds after impact. And then you go about how the wind was only 10mph so it couldn't have gotten there that fast, then you went on about the distance being too far. Yet you never bothered to tell us ay of the details about this debris that you make so many claims about. And now you claim you didn't say anything about it?!?!?!

You made HUGE assumptions about the debris based on the eyewitness testimony and used it has evidence. You preyed on their lack of details to make assumptions about it and present it as evidence in an attempt to mislead everyone. So now provide the details about the debris if you are going to make claims about it. Don't just assume it was big pieces or things that couldn't possibly have done what they did when the size and type is a determining factor. Don't say it got there in seconds just because that's what the witnesses said. Remeber things like the speed of sound which are important factors in this. It's going to take some time for the sound to travel 2.5 miles, so it would be understandable for debris to reach those people before they even heard the explosion, let alone seconds after.

You never claimed you understood the crash site? yet you are making bold claims about how it should or should not look. How is that not pretending to understand how it should look? You did more than claim that it looked different from the ones you have seen. You went MUCH further as to continually imply that it shouldn't look amny different than you have seen. How many times did you keep pushing that there should be black smoke? Over and over and over. So stop ********ting us here. It shouldn't matter th color because you have no idea what you are talking about. People here shouldn't have to prove that the smoke was black, because there is nothing that shows that it SHOULD have been. YOU are the one making that claim.

Only now you're trying to weasel out of it with syntax. Oh right, but you didn't word it that way exactly. Stop insulting our intelligence. You know exactly what you meant, as do we. I don't feel I am above talking to you. WTF?!?!?! I am just going to continue to call you on your ********. If you don't like it, maybe try the loose change forums where they won't questions anything that suggests a conspiracy. Otherwise, be prepared for people to call you on all your attempts to insult everyones intelligence and pretend that you have somehow outwitted everyone. Try taking some responsibility for your claims instead of trying to back out of them by using your wording.

Perhaps start by explaining to us how a tornado can destroy an entire town but leave a house or two untouched? Explain that before you expect an explanation for exactly how the fire damage appeared as it did, or how the impact was shaped exactly how it was.

I'll just cut through the 'blah blah blah' circles and get to the points.
And why would I ask questions about the testimony? And ask how long it would take debris to get there? To A) Eliminate the testimony that had errors, perhaps their time was off, or B) Come up with a way it could have happened another way. It is called thought, JC. Working a scenario.
I'm not trying to figure out things for you. I am trying to resolve problems that I have with the Flight. I have not said there was a conspiracy here.

The black smoke caused me a problem, yes. And why did it cause me problems? Because I've never seen anything but black smoke from a jet crash before. I was looking for other people's thoughts on it. And I got some good ones. Others started in on me, so I wanted them to prove it wrong if they were so sure I was. What is so hard for you to understand here?
I did the same thing about the crash, looking for people that may understand the FDR that can tell me what I cannot find. Others may know.
Is such a thought alien to you that others may know something that you do not?

Ok then, so whether you like me asking questions or not will not change the fact that I will ask them. I do not care if you like the way I ask them, nor do I care about the assumptions you make about them.
So calm down, or go jump in topics where no one asks questions that make you feel uncomfortable to keep your blood pressure down.

 

[Gravy]

I haven't noticed that anyone has brought this up. If the plane was inverted and impacted at 40%. The wing imprint should be on the far side of the imprint not on the "tail imprint" side. Furthermore, the momentum would carry the fuselage and wings further in the direction of motion during the impact.

Greg...



Just...



Please...



I implore you...



Oh, my.



Sigh.

 

[GregoryUrich]

You are assuming that the nose was not in any way deflected before overcoming the resistance of the ground, and that the fuselage remained totally straight after impact. THe fact that some of the debris was found in the woods, that there is not imprint of the horizontal stabilizers, and only a faint imprint of the vertical stabilizer indicates that the rear of the aircraft began breaking up early in the event, after impact of the nose, perhaps simultaneos with the impact of the wings.

I'm assuming front half of the airplane essentially disintegrated while plowing into the soft ground. But I see what you were getting at. Actually the normal force from the ground would cause an angular accelleration (pushing the nose up) around the center of gravity but only briefly before the ground plowing caused an angular accelleration in the other direction (tail up). Actually now that I think a little more about it these effects would likely balance each other very closely. But there would still be significant plowing before the wings hit on the far side of the crater. The wing imprint is however on the near side.

The plane hitting looked something like this.

The crater should have looked something like this:

The light imprint of the vertical stabilizer brings up the question: Where is it?

 

[Gravy]

Gregory, I recommend not holding your breath while waiting for reality to conform to your expectations.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Greg...



Just...



Please...



I implore you...



Oh, my.



Sigh.

Amusing. I meant 40 degrees attitude not 40%. My answer to lefty may explain things a little better.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Amusing. I meant 40 degrees attitude not 40%. My answer to lefty may explain things a little better.

Interesting question.
And might I add you are an elite artist.