evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[Reheat]

You are very bad at this, our own video proves you wrong.

Beachnut, you're just a big bully, using nothing but bully tactics against this poor lost soul who does not understand anything about flying or anything even associated. Shame on you!

I'm just sharing some of my guilt for being accused of the same thing by Ranke. He called me a bully today for using FACTS to expose his lies.

Ya just can't win with these guys. You are supposed to agree with them, you know. It's not FACTS they want to hear, it's twoof!

You get 4 dogs for this and for the FDR thread..... You deserve a dozen, but bandwidth such as it is.....

 

[Disbelief]

Anything on this yet?

Dom, it is your claim that not enough dirt was displaced, so it is up to you to prove it. To do so, you will need to calculate the amount of dirt that should have been displaced and compare it to the amount of dirt that actually was displaced. If not, retract your claim.

How big do you think the crater is? Give me some dimensions.

 

[Firestone]

Has this been addressed by TC329?

the left engine was recovered in a pond 500-600 yards ahead of the crash site. it was fully intact. obviously seperated from the plane while the plane was airborne.

If it separated while airborne, how on earth could it land ahead of the crash site? Does momentum work differently in your world?

 

[TC329]

Anything on this yet?



How big do you think the crater is? Give me some dimensions.

you didn't see in the video where wally miller says its 6-8 feet deep and agrees with my 15-20 foot wide estimate?

 

[TC329]

Has this been addressed by TC329?

i didn't think momentum needed addressed here and that everyone could get the answer just by reading the question but lets try.......


object a [attached to ] and object b are both traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a [smaller and lighter] is seperated from object b but both are still traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a lands in the same trajectory as object b but the smaller light object lands 500+ yards ahead of object b and not in the same spot.

momentum is what enabled onbject a to carry on the path it was heading when it was attached still to object b. seperating them wouldn't cause it to drop off like a stone and nowhere did i say it did.

that's why i repeatedly stated it landed ahead of the plane. because it continued with its forward momentum.

 

[TJM]

i didn't think momentum needed addressed here and that everyone could get the answer just by reading the question but lets try.......


object a [attached to ] and object b are both traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a [smaller and lighter] is seperated from object b but both are still traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a lands in the same trajectory as object b but the smaller light object lands 500+ yards ahead of object b and not in the same spot.

momentum is what enabled onbject a to carry on the path it was heading when it was attached still to object b. seperating them wouldn't cause it to drop off like a stone and nowhere did i say it did.

that's why i repeatedly stated it landed ahead of the plane. because it continued with its forward momentum.

Nominated. For the September Stundies, that is.

 

[funk de fino]

TC has just left the building with that last post.

 

[tsig]

its ok i know why you don't want to answer.

and i know why you dont

 

[tsig]

here this will clear it up.....

take a bucket and fill it to the very top with sand.
now slam a cinder block into it.

what happens to the sand?

it busted the bucket!! now who do i send the bill too.

 

[Hokulele]

i didn't think momentum needed addressed here and that everyone could get the answer just by reading the question but lets try.......


object a [attached to ] and object b are both traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a [smaller and lighter] is seperated from object b but both are still traveling southwest at 450+mph.

object a lands in the same trajectory as object b but the smaller light object lands 500+ yards ahead of object b and not in the same spot.

momentum is what enabled onbject a to carry on the path it was heading when it was attached still to object b. seperating them wouldn't cause it to drop off like a stone and nowhere did i say it did.

that's why i repeatedly stated it landed ahead of the plane. because it continued with its forward momentum.

Ummm, no. Here is a rather fun flash applet that shows how projectiles work. Note, in the real world, there is a good deal of drag due to the atmosphere, especially close to the ground (so you cannot set the Drag Factor to zero), and the airplane is more massive than the engine (so twiddle with the Projectile Mass value to see how the paths are different). Don't play with the Gravity factor (unless the whole thing took place on Mars).

But if you would rather not look into the math, that's OK, all you have to say is momentum works differently in your world.

 

[Disbelief]

you didn't see in the video where wally miller says its 6-8 feet deep and agrees with my 15-20 foot wide estimate?

I did not watch your video, and none of my questions have even been about it. All you need now is the width of the crater, and you should have part of your answer.

So, are you ever going to quit dodging and support your claim:

Dom, it is your claim that not enough dirt was displaced, so it is up to you to prove it. To do so, you will need to calculate the amount of dirt that should have been displaced and compare it to the amount of dirt that actually was displaced. If not, retract your claim.

 

[Firestone]

Ummm, no. Here is a rather fun flash applet that shows how projectiles work. Note, in the real world, there is a good deal of drag due to the atmosphere, especially close to the ground (so you cannot set the Drag Factor to zero), and the airplane is more massive than the engine (so twiddle with the Projectile Mass value to see how the paths are different). Don't play with the Gravity factor (unless the whole thing took place on Mars).

But if you would rather not look into the math, that's OK, all you have to say is momentum works differently in your world.

Link to the applet, please?

 

[X]

I didn't think momentum needed addressed here and that everyone could get the answer just by reading the question but lets try.......


Object a [attached to ] and object b are both traveling southwest at 450+mph.

Object a [smaller and lighter] is seperated from object b but both are still traveling southwest at 450+mph.

Object a lands in the same trajectory as object b but the smaller light object lands 500+ yards ahead of object b and not in the same spot.

Momentum is what enabled onbject a to carry on the path it was heading when it was attached still to object b. seperating them wouldn't cause it to drop off like a stone and nowhere did I say it did.

That's why I repeatedly stated it landed ahead of the plane. Because it continued with its forward momentum.

Do us a favour TC: Post the equation for simple projectile motion.
Point out where mass comes into play.
If we assume no life to the wings, and no air resistance, projectile motion is what you have.
And I'm sure you are aware that mass does not affect air resistance.
It does have an effect on lift (primarily induced drag), but I think such can be disregarded in a simple analysis such as this. Especially if the plane is pointing down at a steep angle.
I am requesting you to do this, TC, not only because it is your assertion (and thus your burden of proof), but also because I think it will be a good exercise for you to do. You certainly don't want one of us posting the equation, and highlighting the fundamental and elementary misunderstanding in the quoted claim.




Oh, and I think this is Hokuleles applet.

EDIT: And I was wrong. That is not Hoks link. But it was the first up on Google. See her post below this for the correct link.

 

[Hokulele]

Link to the applet, please?

Blast. I copied it to my buffer and forgot to paste it into the post.

Take two.

http://www.physics-lab.net/applets/projectile-motion

 

[beachnut]

you didn't see in the video where wally miller says its 6-8 feet deep and agrees with my 15-20 foot wide estimate?

You are not learning, as Miller debunks you as you make up more fantasies. They had to dig out a hole to 70 feet, and found parts and people 50 feet down in the ground. A 600 mph impact does this, you did not listen to your own interview. Terrible.

The aircraft entered the ground, some of the aircraft was ejected, it is how aircraft crash at 600 mph! This is fact and reality, not your made up fiction and fantasy.

The aircraft is only 12 feet wide! 12 feet wide! The engines are 24 feet apart. The wings left an imprint 124 feet wide, the wings are 124 feet wide.

156 feet of plane was smashed into 50 feet under the ground in less than 1 second. There is no giant hole, the plane is 50 feet deep! The people smashed into to small pieces!

Your terrible interpretation of Miller and other witnesses is indicative of your complete lack of understanding of aircraft impacts.



How big is crater suppose to be when the plane is only 12 feet wide?

 

[metamars]

Do us a favour TC: Post the equation for simple projectile motion.
Point out where mass comes into play.
If we assume no life to the wings, and no air resistance, projectile motion is what you have.
And I'm sure you are aware that mass does not affect air resistance.
It does have an effect on lift (primarily induced drag), but I think such can be disregarded in a simple analysis such as this. Especially if the plane is pointing down at a steep angle.
I am requesting you to do this, TC, not only because it is your assertion (and thus your burden of proof), but also because I think it will be a good exercise for you to do. You certainly don't want one of us posting the equation, and highlighting the fundamental and elementary misunderstanding in the quoted claim.




Oh, and I think this is Hokuleles applet.

EDIT: And I was wrong. That is not Hoks link. But it was the first up on Google. See her post below this for the correct link.

If a separation of a plane into 2 parts is caused by a missile strike, the impulse provided by a blast can be expected to impart very different changes of momentum to the two pieces, as a percentage of their respective momentums pre-blast.(I'm assuming a big disparity in mass.) Also, while I'm not an airplane guy, intuitively I expect the lost aerodynamic integrity of a ruptured airplane to make the effects of air drag on differently shaped pieces to make a lot of difference, particularly if, e.g., one of the pieces has a proportionately larger increase in it's air drag if tumbling ensues.

So, e.g., I'd expect much more slowing down of an airplane minus 1 engine if this larger piece tumbles, than I would of an airplane engine, which is also set to tumbling. Add to this a vastly different value for {delta_p(piece) / p(piece)} , where p = momentum, piece-1 is an engine, and piece-2 is the plane minus the engine, and I wouldn't expect them to land all that near each other, necessarily.

Nobody has suggested tumbling, but the point remains that naive application of high school physics is not the way to go.

 

[Hokulele]

If a separation of a plane into 2 parts is caused by a missile strike, the impulse provided by a blast can be expected to impart very different changes of momentum to the two pieces, as a percentage of their respective momentums pre-blast. Also, while I'm not an airplane guy, intuitively I expect the lost aerodynamic integrity of a ruptured airplane to make the effects of air drag on differently shaped pieces to make a lot of difference, particularly if, e.g., one of the pieces has a proportionately larger increase in it's air drag if tumbling ensues.

So, e.g., I'd expect much more slowing down of an airplane minus 1 engine if this larger piece tumbles, than I would of an airplane engine, which is also set to tumbling. Add to this a vastly different value for {delta_p(piece) / p(piece)} , where p = momentum, piece-1 is an engine, and piece-2 is the plane minus the engine, and I wouldn't expect them to land all that near each other, necessarily.

Nobody has suggested tumbling, but the point remains that naive application of high school physics is not the way to go.

Good grief! How much energy would it take to start a 757 tumbling? Particularly in the time frame between the theoretical missle impact TC proposes based on witness testimony, timeline, etc.

I am pretty sure tumbling can be ruled out in this case.

 

[metamars]

Good grief! How much energy would it take to start a 757 tumbling? Particularly in the time frame between the theoretical missle impact TC proposes based on witness testimony, timeline, etc.

I am pretty sure tumbling can be ruled out in this case.

If you take a balsa wood airplane, remove one of the wings, and launch it normally, you will get tumbling right from the get-go. Correct? No need to impart tumbling motion, directly.

 

[X]

If a separation of a plane into 2 parts is caused by a missile strike, the impulse provided by a blast can be expected to impart very different changes of momentum to the two pieces, as a percentage of their respective momentums pre-blast. Also, while I'm not an airplane guy, intuitively I expect the lost aerodynamic integrity of a ruptured airplane to make the effects of air drag on differently shaped pieces to make a lot of difference, particularly if, e.g., one of the pieces has a proportionately larger increase in it's air drag if tumbling ensues.

So, e.g., I'd expect much more slowing down of an airplane minus 1 engine if this larger piece tumbles, than I would of an airplane engine, which is also set to tumbling. Add to this a vastly different value for {delta_p(piece) / p(piece)} , where p = momentum, piece-1 is an engine, and piece-2 is the plane minus the engine, and I wouldn't expect them to land all that near each other, necessarily.

Nobody has suggested tumbling, but the point remains that naive application of high school physics is not the way to go.

Ahh.
But TC is referencing momentum.
He implies that it is the momentum of the differently-sized (mass being the only applicable measure of size in momentum) is what makes one piece continue on, and the other, heavier piece crash sooner.

His argument relies on mass. Ballistic trajectories do not care about mass.

In regards to aerodynamic drag, a jet engine is considerable less streamlined than an airframe. Especially considering its lighter weight than the airliner.
It has to ram air in to the intake. A nice, but, flat surface, instead of a rounded one like ain airliner nose. Think of moving your hand through water with the flat facing the direction of motion versus with the side facing the direction of motion.

As for the argument that the trajectories of the engine and fuselage would change if the plane were hit by a missile, well, if TC wants to use that, he can. All he has to do is provide evidence a missile hit the plane. Which he cannot do, since there is absolutely no evidence of a missile.

Instead, he's relying on misinterpreted eyewitness testimony, and an ignorance of physics.

 

[Hokulele]

If you take a balsa wood airplane, remove one of the wings, and launch it normally, you will get tumbling right from the get-go. Correct? No need to impart tumbling motion, directly.

Care to calculate the force needed to accelerate the balsa airplane enough to generate the tumbling by your throwing motion and compare it to the force required to tumble a 757 enough to affect the projectile motion? Care to calculate how much energy has to be present in TC's missile to accomplish what you are suggesting?


ETA: And which axis are you using for your moment of inertia calculations? By tumbling, I was assuming the long axis in order to affect the trajectory. If you mean the shorter axis, how much does this really affect the momentum?