Why Flight 93?

[beachnut]

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

What's variation?

Taped the calls! Wow. And what does that mean? The FDR on 77 and 93 did not have to meet the .5 second lag of the p4t pathetic fraud campaign. The p4t have no facts, and the fact you sight one of them is proof you bring no facts to the table. A taped phone call that says what? Did you know the data rate to the chip in flight 93 FDR was 4 times slower than the data rate in flight 77 FDR? You throw out BS, so I am throwing out some facts. Got facts?

Where do you find 180 degrees? Can you show me the original document which has a heading of 180 degree.

Variation is the difference between magnetic heading and true heading. If you do not understand this boring flying stuff, try not to mess it up so. You could ask a pilot about this stuff, but beware the p4t gang is tin foil hat drinking the Kool-Aid truthers. p4t sell the "truth" for 14/15.99 and a package of woo is in the 30 dollar range.

You have not studied this much. But what is your overall conclusion? You know the p4t have no conclusions, just misinformation.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Funny stuff. Drawing a high line from the wing tips where the wings are not attached to the aircraft. Sorry, you are wrong, the impact looks real and normal for flight 93. Not a very good line, the wings are not straight either. Yep, it is exactly what 93 should look like. I guess the accident investigation school at USC was good. Does this mean I am a Trojan too?

The more you go on the more the impact seem more perfect for 93. I have not found one person in aviation who has a problem with 93. Zero. You are bringing up ideas not support with fact. You draw lines not in line with the wing roots, you do not understand variation, and you have no real reference to show what heading flight 93 was going before impact let alone a few seconds before impact. (variation, and now dihedral)

 

[GregoryUrich]

Funny stuff. Drawing a high line from the wing tips where the wings are not attached to the aircraft. Sorry, you are wrong, the impact looks real and normal for flight 93. Not a very good line, the wings are not straight either. Yep, it is exactly what 93 should look like. I guess the accident investigation school at USC was good. Does this mean I am a Trojan too?

The more you go on the more the impact seem more perfect for 93. I have not found one person in aviation who has a problem with 93. Zero. You are bringing up ideas not support with fact. You draw lines not in line with the wing roots, you do not understand variation, and you have no real reference to show what heading flight 93 was going before impact let alone a few seconds before impact. (variation, and now dihedral)

Draw the line where you want it. You should note that my line is consistant with the entry point of the leading edge. The dihedral and backswept wing would result in a straight line if you consider that the airplane and wings were still moving forward.

Regarding 180 degree heading, that was posted by Corsair as data from the FDR a while back.

So I don't know what you mean by variation. I must be really dumb. I think variation is also called declination. In that case the declination is slightly more than 9 degrees west. The question that arises in my mind is whether the heading is based on a magnetic compass or a GPS, the latter of which I suspect to be the case.

 

[beachnut]

Draw the line where you want it. You should note that my line is consistant with the entry point of the leading edge. The dihedral and backswept wing would result in a straight line if you consider that the airplane and wings were still moving forward.

Regarding 180 degree heading, that was posted by Corsair as data from the FDR a while back.

So I don't know what you mean by variation. I must be really dumb. I think variation is also called declination. In that case the declination is slightly more than 9 degrees west. The question that arises in my mind is whether the heading is based on a magnetic compass or a GPS, the latter of which I suspect to be the case.

No, the wings under loading are above the top of the plane, the dihedral of the plane place the wing tips above the top of the plane. Your line is wing tip to wing tip, look at real diagram of a 757, and see how high the wing tips go. Your line is very bad.

The 180 is hearsay then. Please find an original source or post the fact you are using hearsay. Do you understand variation yet? Oops you said 9 west do you know what that means for your heading information?

The aircraft had no GPS. As I said the heading info you have is hearsay. You have no idea if it is magnetic, true, magnetic track, or true track. Do you need help?

Still you have no conclusion or thesis. Why are you being like the p4t?

 

[GregoryUrich]

No, the wings under loading are above the top of the plane, the dihedral of the plane place the wing tips above the top of the plane. Your line is wing tip to wing tip, look at real diagram of a 757, and see how high the wing tips go. Your line is very bad.

The 180 is hearsay then. Please find an original source or post the fact you are using hearsay. Do you understand variation yet? Oops you said 9 west do you know what that means for your heading information?

The aircraft had no GPS. As I said the heading info you have is hearsay. You have no idea if it is magnetic, true, magnetic track, or true track. Do you need help?

Still you have no conclusion or thesis. Why are you being like the p4t?

My line shows one edge of the entry point an it's straight. Hmm...

 

[apathoid]

So I don't know what you mean by variation. I must be really dumb. I think variation is also called declination. In that case the declination is slightly more than 9 degrees west. The question that arises in my mind is whether the heading is based on a magnetic compass or a GPS, the latter of which I suspect to be the case.

Beach is right. First, you need an accurate heading from the FDR data - 180 seems awfully "rounded", could be a coincidence though. Secondly, you need to know what that heading is - is it true heading, magentic heading, true track, or magnetic track. Third, you need to assign a fudge factor because of the FDR buffering lag.

As for your last question. Neither. The heading comes from a system called IRS, which uses laser gyros for attitude and direction. There are three of them on the 757, so that gives us 12 combinations of tracks and headings....

ETA: Ideally, you want the true track if you are using Google Earth. That eliminates yaw "error", crosswind, and magnetic variation.

 

[beachnut]

My line shows one edge of the entry point an it's straight. Hmm...

OMG you are right, but the nose touched the ground first to the left of the wings, the nose goes on to plow into the ground, then the wings follow and continue to drive into the ground at about 40 or 50 degrees. Wow, you have confirmed flight 93 did it. How did you do it? Every time I take my KC-135 into the sand pile, it looks just like PA. Yes, I cheated, I have done a simulation. Wow, you have opened my mind and confirmed my training and my experience. I am not just a nerd, I am really a University of Southern California, Institute of Safety and Systems Management, Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course Grad. I have even used my training in the field and now you have confirmed that it was not wasted, I can see clearly how 93 entered the earth for the nth time.

You should state your thesis and what conclusions you are trying to support. Given that the FDR for 93 and all the passengers and all the parts were found as they would be in a high speed impact, I have to ask one more time what you thesis is! Please tell me what happen to flight 93 before you continue to post trivial tripe.

The FDR in 93 is different from 77, and it may have captured all the data. I have not seen the raw data yet, just the graph. The plane is going south and the final heading recorded from the graphical data is 165 to 180 magnetic heading, no wind. The pitch is around -40 degrees and the roll is 150. The plane is upside down sort of and the AOA is kind of normal or low, but the calibration does not mean much. You must have the wind, and the wind was going south toward the lake and another town (south east). The variation would show the plane more in a east kind of direction. That means 155 to 170 true. The pilot had a lot of roll going, bet the roll is why one engine fell off at impact and traveled. The roll would not change the heading much.

The impact line is not straight.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Pitch angle is measured relative to level horizontal flight over the ground. So a 40° pitch down means the aircraft's nose is 40° below horizontal. A 90° pitch down means the aircraft is pointed straight down.

Roll angle is also measured relative to level horizontal flight over the ground. So a 150° right roll means the roll was initiated to the right and the aircraft was coming close to being inverted. A 90° roll (right or left) means the wings are perpendicular to the ground. A 180° roll (right or left) means the aircraft is inverted, i.e. flying upside down.

Angle of attack is measured relative to the direction of motion and the top of the aircraft. In normal flight, a +10° angle of attack means the aircraft's nose is pointed up 10° from the direction of travel; a -10° AoA means the nose is pointed 10° below the direction of travel. Note that if inverted the up and down are reversed. If an aircraft was flying level but inverted, a positive AoA means the nose is below the direction of travel and thus oriented slightly towards the ground; a negative AoA in inverted flight means the nose is above the direction of travel and thus is oriented slightly towards the sky.

(Anyone with good knowledge of aeronautics is invited to correct me if I've got some of the foregoing incorrect.)

 

[GregoryUrich]

OMG you are right, but the nose touched the ground first to the left of the wings, the nose goes on to plow into the ground, then the wings follow and continue to drive into the ground at about 40 or 50 degrees. Wow, you have confirmed flight 93 did it. How did you do it? Every time I take my KC-135 into the sand pile, it looks just like PA. Yes, I cheated, I have done a simulation. Wow, you have opened my mind and confirmed my training and my experience. I am not just a nerd, I am really a University of Southern California, Institute of Safety and Systems Management, Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course Grad. I have even used my training in the field and now you have confirmed that it was not wasted, I can see clearly how 93 entered the earth for the nth time.

You should state your thesis and what conclusions you are trying to support. Given that the FDR for 93 and all the passengers and all the parts were found as they would be in a high speed impact, I have to ask one more time what you thesis is! Please tell me what happen to flight 93 before you continue to post trivial tripe.

The FDR in 93 is different from 77, and it may have captured all the data. I have not seen the raw data yet, just the graph. The plane is going south and the final heading recorded from the graphical data is 165 to 180 magnetic heading, no wind. The pitch is around -40 degrees and the roll is 150. The plane is upside down sort of and the AOA is kind of normal or low, but the calibration does not mean much. You must have the wind, and the wind was going south toward the lake and another town (south east). The variation would show the plane more in a east kind of direction. That means 155 to 170 true. The pilot had a lot of roll going, bet the roll is why one engine fell off at impact and traveled. The roll would not change the heading much.

The impact line is not straight.

I think the basic reason you don't get me is that: I investigate first and then form a conclusion. Why is that so foreign to you?

If you don't like my questions or arguments ignore them.

Regarding your simulation. It sounds interesting but impossible unless you wrecked your kc-135. The wings on the upper side of an inverted plane just cannot hit so close to the entry point of the nose, especially with plowing. Physically impossible.

The graph clearly shows magnetic heading at 180 degrees.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the basic reason you don't get me is that: I investigate first and then form a conclusion. Why is that so foreign to you?

If you don't like my questions or arguments ignore them.

Regarding your simulation. It sounds interesting but impossible unless you wrecked your kc-135. The wings on the upper side of an inverted plane just cannot hit so close to the entry point of the nose, especially with plowing. Physically impossible.

The graph clearly shows magnetic heading at 180 degrees.

Your alleged method (I'd have to go back through your posts to verify) of investigating first, then forming a conclusion is not foreign to many here, in terms of their own approach, but it is completely foreign to the truth movement, which is a group you will likely be thrown in with, given your views.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

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.

Um... the aircraft was in a turn. Are you even trying?

-Gumboot

 

[RedIbis]

Your alleged method (I'd have to go back through your posts to verify) of investigating first, then forming a conclusion is not foreign to many here, in terms of their own approach, but it is completely foreign to the truth movement, which is a group you will likely be thrown in with, given your views.

TAM

I'm somewhat surprised that I see so many broad assumptions in these threads.

A conclusion was formed at 11am on 9/11 when US Customs released the names of all 19 hijackers.

As far as "research" is concerned, mostly what I've seen here and from official explanations are attempts to create explanations and rationalizations for the absurdity of the official theory.

I have yet to see someone here who supports the official story keep an open mind, evaluate a range of information, without pretending that the full account of 9/11 has been given. Ironically, there seems to be a great deal of posters who believe they know the twoof, I mean truth.

 

[R.Mackey]

We're waiting for you to respond in your other threads, RedIbis.

Also don't forget that we've been at this for years. The reason it appears to you -- a newcomer -- that our minds are "not open" is because nobody has presented anything new. Maybe once in a great while it happens, but the overwhelming majority of "Truth Movement" ideas and evidence has remained frozen since 2002. See the summary post by ref for evidence.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Earth paging Gregory:

1) In what direction did most of the blast, fuel, and debris travel?

2) What does that tell you?

 

[beachnut]

I think the basic reason you don't get me is that: I investigate first and then form a conclusion. Why is that so foreign to you?

If you don't like my questions or arguments ignore them.

Regarding your simulation. It sounds interesting but impossible unless you wrecked your kc-135. The wings on the upper side of an inverted plane just cannot hit so close to the entry point of the nose, especially with plowing. Physically impossible.

The graph clearly shows magnetic heading at 180 degrees.

The impact is perfect. The debris field is classic. This is why thousands of accident investigators in the USAF have not joined the 9/11 truth movement of lies. This is why thousands of experts in aviation to include Boeing and the NTSB have not joined the 9/11 truth movement. Speaking as an Air Force Accident Investigator, I have to say, if there was something wrong thousand of us would be exposing what ever it was. You my fellow engineer are thinking out loud and getting everything wrong. You are months to 5 years behind most who are trying to tell you something as you continue to edge towards the dark side of 9/11 truth; make it up and say it.

Yes it is foreign, I usually have a Thesis to prove and then do research. You are not investigating you are making wild statements and failing to learn or gain knowledge. You are not even trying to understand high speed ground collisions (aircraft).

You arguments are mostly hearsay, and your questions are kind of funny (if it was not for the subject matter and your lack of thesis), and your motives are unknown. Yes you are going to say your thesis is finding the truth, then why are you unable to find it?

I have done multiple simulations because your ideas are dumb. The simulations all show the impact to be correct. How many experiments have you conducted? Have you even shot a bullet into the ground? Be careful you can get shot doing simples experiments with high speed impacts, the parts fly everywhere! Bloody legs are not a good thing to explain to the ER.

Your wings can not statement is wrong. You are not getting any better. The 180 degrees from the graph is part of the story, on more than 4 sets of graphs it appears the mag heading was 165. So which one is it? Please apply the variation when you are using a true up chart. Please figure out the wind drift for the accident too before you say anything about how the aircraft hit, and the direction. Then you have to tell everyone what you used on the ground impact to determine the final heading. Since the accident impact is generally south, like 180 degrees, what in the impact says the plane was not generally going south so you think 180, really about 170 true, is not inline with the impact.

Did you see how many times mag heading was plotted?

If you are an Engineer, and I am, you need to come up with real facts and stop making it up and supporting the truth movement with your poorly formed tidbits you call questions and anomalies. An Engineer can do better. I hope you did not go to Clemson, after firing Judy Woods we expect much more from our engineers.

 

[beachnut]

I'm somewhat surprised that I see so many broad assumptions in these threads.

A conclusion was formed at 11am on 9/11 when US Customs released the names of all 19 hijackers.

As far as "research" is concerned, mostly what I've seen here and from official explanations are attempts to create explanations and rationalizations for the absurdity of the official theory.

I have yet to see someone here who supports the official story keep an open mind, evaluate a range of information, without pretending that the full account of 9/11 has been given. Ironically, there seems to be a great deal of posters who believe they know the twoof, I mean truth.

Go ahead tell me what the truth is backed up with some facts. I have not seen on single 9/11 truth movement idea backed with facts and evidence. When you find one bring it in. You will not find one single fact from 9/11 truth to support their conclusions.

You have failed to research the years of the same old junk from people like you.

 

[Norseman]

As I said in an earlier post, the video frame posted by GregoryUrich (see post#458) is giving a misleading impression of the impact crater, due to long shadows from a setting sun in the west. When I look at the Moussaoui trail exhibit photos of the crash site I would say it is not obvious at all were the wings impacted the ground. It is like the face on Mars that intrigued people for years before it was photographed again by a new satellite, just search Wikipedia for “Mars face” to find the article. In my opinion the photos you should study is exhibit P200057, P200057 and P200057 from the Moussouai trail (Google(com) search “911myths flight 93 photos” to see the exhibit photos, sorry no links yet).

In the attachment below you can see what the base of the alleged wing imprint in the upper part of the video frame looks like in a close up. What you think look like a wing looks to me more like the part of a drainage ditch. Compare the area marked by a 1 with the crater in the background in the picture. The ground around the 1 is old history, the work of repeated cycles of rain and sun, it is not a fresh impact crater, all the features are smoothed, you see the work of running water, you see dark organic filled sediments/mud. In the aerial close up from the Moussaoui trail, the tip of the alleged wing in the lower part of the video frame looks more like the work of a small stream of rainwater than a wing imprint.

My conclusion after considering this for some days, after it struck me when I looked at the photo attached below, is that the aircraft hit a drainage ditch/pond.

I think the wings hit more or less perpendicular to what looks like wing imprints in the video frame above, consistent with the FDR data and the main heading of the debris judging from the photographs. Would it be unreasonable to think that the wings shattered on impact and bounced off the ground with only superficial scars on the surface, scares that would have been covered up by debris thrown up by the rear parts of the fuselage? Compared with the wings the fuselage is more like a 46.97m (155ft 3in) long spear with a diameter of 3.76m (12ft 4in) driving into the ground while it shatters to thousands of bits and pices.

Do it change anything if I am right or wrong here? No, Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. If I am right in my conclusion, it only makes it easier to visualize in my head how the aircraft impacted the ground considering the data given. And it also makes it a waste of time trying to discuss the placement of wings and engines in the video frame posted by GregoryUrich. Feel free to fire at will

 

[Gravy]

Norseman, aerial photos taken before 9/11 don't show a drainage ditch or pond. I think it's quite clear that the whole crater was made by flight 93. The wing impression is a good match for the wingspan of a 757.

 

[Norseman]

Gravy, by aerial photos taken before 9/11 are you referring to the b&W USGS photo taken when they were working on reclaiming the mine. I have spent a lot of time on Google trying to find photos taken before 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

I think the basic reason you don't get me is that: I investigate first and then form a conclusion. Why is that so foreign to you?

If you don't like my questions or arguments ignore them.

Regarding your simulation. It sounds interesting but impossible unless you wrecked your kc-135. The wings on the upper side of an inverted plane just cannot hit so close to the entry point of the nose, especially with plowing. Physically impossible.

The graph clearly shows magnetic heading at 180 degrees.

Oh No Gregory, you are a full blown truther. A drank the Kool-Aid, no conclusion, no fact, 9/11 truth movement follower. You lack the capability to let your engineering training come through, maybe you had too many software engineering courses (that is a joke, sorry) and your music degree messes up your analytical abilities (another joke, you must just be too challenged to be logical) to see how real world systems work. I am not sure but once you become a member of some cult, you are lost. Sorry to see you on the dark side, but one day maybe you will join those who can think rationally and become an individual again. It seems like you have become part of the Borg like 9/11 movement. No facts, no evidence and no idea/clue what happen on 9/11.

A full blown Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Members, one of the loyal thermite specials, the people who made their own journal cause no real journal would publish their junk!. I and 99.9 percent of all engineers in the world see your group as the opposite of Scholarly and have to label you as nut cases or just weird guys who make up misinformation on 9/11. Good job, you have joined a unique group of people who are so messed up on 9/11 they are unable to get one thing right about 9/11. Why?