Why Flight 93?

[Devil's Advocate]

The one thing that CTers claim about that photo is that the wings are at the top of the crater near the tail and not at the bottom of the crater where you'd expect the wings to be. What they forget is that when an airplane is inverted, it no longer has lift unless you trim the aircraft to counteract the negative lift. That would not have been the case with flt 93. Hence the path the plane would have been traveling would have been at an angle and not straight into the ground.

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle. But that does not change my issues at all.

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?
There is no way they could have, and I think the relative quiet that has taken over this thread as one of two things. 1) People are looking into this themselves (Which I hope is the case) or 2) They can come up with no explanation and either will choose to ignore this, or cannot say anything because they know it's right but are sticking to their guns.

With regard to the NTSB, why would I need a FOIA request from them?
Can they address anything that I've said? No.
The only thing they 'may' be able to answer is why the aircraft alarms did not work.

The 'fireball'. I do not highlight 'fireball' to be a jerk, I do it because it does not appear to be a ball of fire. There is no fire there.
But, how does the plane burying itself change the chemical composition of the jet fuel and make it burn a different color?

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

There is something wrong, and I believe I have shown enough to highlight that fact. And unlike many of you may be thinking, I am not saying this is 'proof that there is a conspiracy by the NWO blah, blah,blah.)

All I am doing is showing what is causing me problems. And I am sure others are realizing that there is indeed a problem. Too much does not add up here.

 

[DGM]

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

That claim is wrong. Iron mountain has boxes of mementos from the crash site left by visitors. The airline has the plane.

 

[DGM]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2756652#post2756652

Read here.

 

[Corsair 115]

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle.

No. Here's what Gravy posted earlier:

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

The pitch angle is 40°. But you forgot to include the roll angle - that was 150°. An aircraft flying straight and level has a 0° roll angle, i.e. the wings are parallel to the ground. A 90° roll angle means the wings are perpendicular to the ground. A 180° roll angle means the aircraft is inverted. Flight 93 had a roll angle of 150° meaning it was almost inverted while it was diving downwards at a 40° angle.

 

[lapman]

From the FDR I believe the plane was at a 40° angle. But that does not change my issues at all.

Yes the plane was at a 40 degree angle. However, that doesn't mean it was traveling a 40 degree path.

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?

Pretty high. The smoke cloud looks like it was several hundred feet high. That would pretty much do it.

There is no way they could have, and I think the relative quiet that has taken over this thread as one of two things. 1) People are looking into this themselves (Which I hope is the case) or 2) They can come up with no explanation and either will choose to ignore this, or cannot say anything because they know it's right but are sticking to their guns.

Or maybe they are working, going pee, eating dinner, have a life off of this board, etc.

With regard to the NTSB, why would I need a FOIA request from them?
Can they address anything that I've said? No.
The only thing they 'may' be able to answer is why the aircraft alarms did not work.

Remember that they are working on behalf of the FBI. So the FBI will state how much info they can release without a FOIA request.

The 'fireball'. I do not highlight 'fireball' to be a jerk, I do it because it does not appear to be a ball of fire. There is no fire there.
But, how does the plane burying itself change the chemical composition of the jet fuel and make it burn a different color?

Where is the pic of the said fireball?

95% of the plane was recovered? Why are parts of it reported to be at an under ground security storage facility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg
2:37 mark if you're impatient.

The reports are wrong. Only memorabilia from the site is stored at Iron Mountain. Please do further research beyond a YouTube video.

There is something wrong, and I believe I have shown enough to highlight that fact. And unlike many of you may be thinking, I am not saying this is 'proof that there is a conspiracy by the NWO blah, blah,blah.)

All I am doing is showing what is causing me problems. And I am sure others are realizing that there is indeed a problem. Too much does not add up here.

If you really do the research, you'll find that a lot more adds up than you think.

 

[DGM]

Answer honestly....How high up would you have to take a shirt into the air to make it travel 5 to 8 miles in a 9mph wind? How high for a book?

Book? I read piece of a bank statement. Wind going over a hill, small piece of paper,not too surprising to me.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

That claim is wrong. Iron mountain has boxes of mementos from the crash site left by visitors. The airline has the plane.

Under your forum name it says 'Critical Thinker'.
Now, seriously, why would they be storing 'mementos from visitors' in one of the most secure places on earth? Should they be hidden away, or shown in a museum? Come on, bro.

Even if you were right, it does not change the issues I've raised.

To add to the debris topic....clothing and books up to 6 miles away.
Was it clothing the people were wearing or clothing from suitcases?
Let us say suitcases for the sake of argument. Think about the impact at a 40° angle and the plane burying itself. So completely that it did not result in a massive fire do to most of the fuel going into the ground. (Inertia)

Now use the picture of the 'fireball' that I showed earlier. Does that appear to be a blast capable to reverse inertia of the plane and blow out clothing and books five miles away? No. Not even close. And I find it very difficult to believe anyone could believe it.
We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

So if it is in fact impossible to have happened, then why and how did it happen?
Again...there is a problem with the story, and not a minor one.

 

[Corsair 115]

1) Are you going to address the question I asked regarding the nature of the aircraft accidents you have seen photos of?

2) Do you accept that the aircraft was nearly inverted at the time of impact, as lapman has stated?

We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

Important clarification: was the debris located 5-8 miles away by road or by straight line, i.e. as the crow files, from the impact site?

Some CTist claims of debris being found as much as eight miles away erroneously use the ground distance by road from the impact site; the actual distance when measured in a straight line was less than two miles.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Book? I read piece of a bank statement. Wind going over a hill, small piece of paper,not too surprising to me.

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that? I'm sorry, but that made me LOL for real.
Don't forget that it had to overcome the inertia of the plane doing 500+mph, but also had to come out of the ground.

I'd bet 5,000 bucks that you could launch a shirt with ten times that force and it would not come close to traveling 2 miles.

 

[DGM]

Under your forum name it says 'Critical Thinker'.
Now, seriously, why would they be storing 'mementos from visitors' in one of the most secure places on earth? Should they be hidden away, or shown in a museum? Come on, bro.

Lots of things are stored there. It's a private company devoted to secure storage. Mostly documents and data.(google: Iron mountain they have a web site.) The site is going to be a memorial. The victims family however can view the articles and visit the site any time they wish. Look up flight 93 memorial act.

 

[DGM]

We are not talking about light debris here. And as reported, people were turning in bags of debris from 5-8 miles away.

You misread that. They were going around with bags picking up debris.

The light stuff was found far away. Read carefully the don't say the books a stuff was found that far away.

 

[DGM]

So DA:

What do you think happened?

 

[lapman]

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that? I'm sorry, but that made me LOL for real.
Don't forget that it had to overcome the inertia of the plane doing 500+mph, but also had to come out of the ground.

I'd bet 5,000 bucks that you could launch a shirt with ten times that force and it would not come close to traveling 2 miles.

Well, since that is not a "fireball" picture, we cannot tell how big the fireball really was. However, inertia would have been stopped in microseconds after hitting the ground. So your inertia reasoning is faulty. The resulting explosion could have easily thrown the debris to an altitude where the winds were far stronger than 9mph. Do you have a winds aloft report for that day? Have you ever seen low level clouds traveling at a pretty good speed even though you don't feel any wind on the ground?

 

[Corsair 115]

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

You believe the 'fireball' picture had enough force to do that?

1) Your linked news article mentions six miles, but it does not mention whether that distance was measured by road or by straight line from the crash site. This difference is very important due to the winding nature of the road used to get to the crash site

2) Explosions can hurl debris considerable distances.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So DA:

What do you think happened?

You tell me.
Don't try to paint me into a corner. Evidence is all that matters, right?


Witnesses say they heard the plane fly over (Indian Lake), felt their building AT THE DOCK shake. The debris evidence also supports the plane flying over Indian Lake AND that plane was falling apart. This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater. The testimony and evidence do not support the NTSB story that the debris floated from the main crash site."
Why? Because they saw the debris raining down after the impact, and still coming down before they left the lake.

Problematic.

 

[leftysergeant]

The fuselage appears to have been breaking up before most of the aft section could follow the nose into the ground. This would have spread some luggage and small items into the air. The up-draft created by the fireball would have lifted some of it even farther.

The smoke at the fire scene would have been different colors depending on what was burning. Natural cover burns with brown, white, or grey smoke, depending on moisture (damp wood produces a lot of brown smoke) the heat of the fire and the wind. A well-ventillated fire produces mostly white smoke and it looks bluish if dispersed by the wind.

Some of the vapors coming out of the crater are steam, some may be vegetation burning in the crater.

Killtown makes a great deal in his "debunking" of the famous smoke cloud picture of the fact that the smoke appears bluish-grey. This has to do with lighting and dispersal and mixing with air. It has been my experience that a jet fuel fire produces smoke that appears blacker at the scene than it does when blown several miles away, and on a sunny day, it appears more bluish.

Bear in mind that there is no naturally-occuring totally black pigment.

In the attachment below, the fuselage clearly has made a tunnel into the ground, pushing the soil ahead of it, and has been partly back-filled with soil. The photo was taken at an angle a bit flatter than that at which the fuselage penetrated, as can be seen in that the whole cross-section cannot be seen above the ground level. So the angle of penetration would be somewhere between the angle of the camera and the perpendicular. Don't ask me to calculate it. I am dyscalculic.

 

[Corsair 115]

This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater.

You still have yet to say whether the problematic distances you keep mentioning are based on ground travel by road or by straight line measurement.

The evidence is mounting that DA seems to be deliberately ignoring my posts.

 

[apathoid]

{snippety snip}

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

It does not make sense.

Actually, it kinda does. I'll explain:

First thing we need to know is whether or not N591UA had Enhanced GPWS. It was a relatively new airframe, so it likely came installed from Boeing and even if it didn't - UA probably modified it for EGPWS. The second thing we need to know was whether or not the FDAU(Flight Data Aquisition Unit) had inputs for EGPWS modes activation, which would've been sent on the the FDR for recording.

You see, EGPWS, unlike regular old GPWS uses GPS and a database of terrain below to paint a ground floor around the airplane. The ground elevation data, or terrain database, is stored inside the EGPWS computer. True altitude, or absolute altitude, can either come from the GPS receiver, Air Data Computer, or the Radio Altimeter.

Now a bit about regular old GPWS. First generation GPWS(pre GPS) relied heavily on the radio altimeter data for mode activation. Sink rate, terrain and pull up modes needed the radalt to be "alive" and at a certain trigger altitude for mode activation(ie "terrain" may sound when the airplane was below 800' radio altitude, not in landing configuration{gear and flaps} and "sink rate" would sound below 1000' at RoDs of greater than 2000 feet/min). But there is a limitation to using the Radalt for GPWS, the airplane basically needs to be flying straight and level for the instrument to work. The radalt antennae are on the bottom of the airplane and the system works by bouncing microwaves at the ground and calculatring the round trip time, giving accurate altitude(to the foot). However, if the airplane is above 2500' -or - is in a steep bank(or is upside down), the radalt will flag and the GPWS will basically be inoperative.

Now even if ithe airplane did have EGPWS, the modes you describe above would still be inactive, only those extra EGPWS modes would sound the aural and visual flight deck warning. Now, I'll have to look at John Cronos UA93 FDR plots to find out if the EGPWS modes are even present. If they are I'd bet a paycheck that at least one was active.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Way to assume I 'didn't try hard' to begin with. I've looked at all that information. I have not posted on this issue because I wanted to read all the information I could about it before bringing it up.

DA, in all honesty your posts have a decidedly conspiracist tone, and I think people might be forgiven for suspecting you of being a closet "Truther." I would also point out that it's not unknown for conspiracists to show up at a forum frequented by debunkers, and initially pretend to be "just asking questions." If you wish not to be taken for a "Truther," I respectfully suggest that you might want to adopt a less strident, defensive, and incredulous tone in your questions.

Why does the color of the 'fireball' not match any aircraft fire I have ever seen?
I've looked at hundreds of video's and pictures and not one airplane crash had gray smoke. Not one. All of them were pitch black.

So you try hard. Try finding one that looks anything like flight 93. I've tried for days to find one. Then go look pictures and video's of war where bombs are being dropped and then you'll see gray smoke. (depending upon what is hit)

Concorde crash, Paris, France, 25 July 2000

Fokker F27 crash, Multon, Pakistan, 10 July 2006

Tu-154 crash, Sukha Balka, Ukraine, 22 August 2006

Boeing 737 crash, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7 March 2007

Frankly, DA, your credibility meter just pegged off-scale low. It took me only a few minutes to find these using Google. If you wish to be taken seriously, I'd suggest some humility is in order.

It does not explain how early video showed the patch of burnt trees was very small, and showed fire crews at the scene. How did the area of burnt trees grow like they did while fire fighters were already there and there were no more spot fires?

Please provide some sources for these allegedly anomalous photos and videos.

Is the below correct? If so, why did none of these warnings signal according to the FDR information?
According to the FDR, the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.
Terrain - Did not activate
Too Low Terain - Did not activate
Terrain Ahead Pull Up - Did not activate
Ground Prox Warning - Did not activate
GPWC Failure - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC on board UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.

These warnings are triggered by data from the radar altimeter, which does not function when the aircraft is inverted, or is at a high pitch or roll angle.

The reason I want to flight path is to see the planes direction of inertia to explain how an engine ended up half a mile from the impact point, and also how debris ended up 8 miles away.
Shoot debris up into the air a quarter mile if you want, and the debris will not go eight miles in a reported wind of 9mph. That does not add up.
Clothing and a books five and six miles away? How?
A 9mph wind would not blow a feather more than a few hundred feet.

From a WTAE News article:

WTAE's Jim Parsons reported Wednesday that debris had been found miles off-site and removed by non-search party members. [FBI spokesman Bill] Crowley confirmed that debris was found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, as well as Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene.

NTSB officials said the debris in New Baltimore is probably from the crash, according to Crowley.

The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the items are lightweight and can easily be carried by wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour [sic] heading to the southeast, where both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are located.[emphasis added]

Please give sources for the claims that the items were actually "books and clothing."

Also, from Salon.com's "Ask the pilot" column:

High-energy impacts can eject fragments over startlingly long distances. It's also quite probable that the violent, high-speed maneuvers induced by the skyjackers caused one or both of the plane's engines to detach and/or partial breakup of the main structure. Comparatively benign plummets of aircraft in the past have resulted in the separation of engines, control surfaces and even entire wings. Debris can be carried aloft for many miles by the wind. And had Flight 93 been blown up with a missile, destruction of the airframe would not have been as complete, with portions falling to earth at a lower, less disintegrative velocity.

It does not make sense.

Common sense can often be misleading.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You still have yet to say whether the problematic distances you keep mentioning are based on ground travel by road or by straight line measurement.
The evidence is mounting that DA seems to be deliberately ignoring my posts.

Corsair, why would you think I needed to avoid your question or would even try to?
It is a straight line point to point on a map. So explain to me how the explosion sent debris two and a half miles in the matter of seconds.
Beyond problematic, it is complete BS.


So, given the things put out so far is that a jet explosion for some reason was not black. People saying it changes colors is not proof. Show me case of it.
And of course I will not accept a site that someone can edit a picture and upload it to. I've looked at almost 400 plane crashes....all had black smoke. All of them. I'm still looking.

The explosion was strong enough to send debris 8 miles away, some 2.5 miles in the matter of seconds, but was not great enough to cause more ground damage? Use some logic here.
And leftysergeant, do not put up posts of picks that are taken after they have been digging, that is not honest representation of facts.