evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[metamars]

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.

Well, if that's what he's implying, he's wrong. However, for reasons that I've given, his intuition that the physics of the situation demands divergent trajectories, is correct. He's just got the specifics wrong.

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.

You may be right, but absent a simulation, I'll reserve judgement. For one thing, why assume that the engine would travel with it's air intake forward, as in normal flight? Almost certainly, an explosive detachment would send it spinning. Which suggest an additional dynamic leading to divergent trajectories, like what makes a curveball curve.

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.

Absent direct evidence of a missile, he can still make a plausibility argument. Also, if separate trajectories of engine and the rest of the plane are confirmed, what is more likely - a missile or a bomb? AFAIK, there are no baggage compartments in an airplane wing. So, if you suppose a bomb, you have to assume that it was planted before takeoff.

Or should we suppose that it just fell off? Well, if pilot action can result in nasty aerobatics, I suppose that possibility should be checked out. Then again, maybe this would be a job for NIST. They can make anything fall apart!! (On paper, anyway...)

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

I'm not familiar with the other witness testimony.

========================

BTW, when I mentioned relative changes in momentum, I was thinking in terms of scalar momentum. However, in the general case, one expects the direction of the resultant momentum vectors to diverge, also.

 

[metamars]

"Care to calculate the force needed ...."

No!

 

[TC329]

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.

wrong the argument is that they were seperated prior to impact and momentum was what kept them headed in the same direction.

now if you have another word to describe an object headed in a direction becoming two objects continuing on in that same direction please feel free to educate me now.

 

[TC329]

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?

care to calculate how 90+% of 100 tons shatters into the earth except for this one piece which instead "bounces" because the ground is incapable of shattering it and despite it traveling in excess of 500MPH and weighing a few tons it still doesn't have enough for to penetrate the earth which just swallowed the rest of the plane?

where's the numbers on that one?

oh yeah, the gov says it happened so no one here has to calculate anything to prove it. the people who brought us wmd's, pat tillman, jessica lynch, on anthrax antibiotic the day before 9/11 when the letters were mailed, aren't really torturing people in iraq but we are now because we legalized torture, and can at anytime call an american citizen an 'enemy combatant' and deny them of their consitutional rights said that the engine bounced.

and since we know the bush administration has never told a lie, and philip zelikow wasn't in constant communication with karl rove, and the rest of the 9/11 commission call the report flawless then the engine bounced there, right?

blind faith in a fairy tale doesn't make it anymore true......

 

[beachnut]

care to calculate how 90+% of 100 tons shatters into the earth except for this one piece which instead "bounces" because the ground is incapable of shattering it and despite it traveling in excess of 500MPH and weighing a few tons it still doesn't have enough for to penetrate the earth which just swallowed the rest of the plane?

where's the numbers on that one?

oh yeah, the gov says it happened so no one here has to calculate anything to prove it. the people who brought us wmd's, pat tillman, jessica lynch, on anthrax antibiotic the day before 9/11 when the letters were mailed, aren't really torturing people in iraq but we are now because we legalized torture, and can at anytime call an american citizen an 'enemy combatant' and deny them of their consitutional rights said that the engine bounced.

and since we know the bush administration has never told a lie, and philip zelikow wasn't in constant communication with karl rove, and the rest of the 9/11 commission call the report flawless then the engine bounced there, right?

blind faith in a fairy tale doesn't make it anymore true......

Only your ideas are fairy tales! Miller makes all your ideas false.

I told you to go to aircraft accident investigation school before you make more false claims.

Your political tripe is not on topic, but shows why you make up lies to match Bush's administration. You have become what you hate. You lie, Bush lies, you both are the same now! Good job.

Miller's video, his testimony makes all your ideas failed fantasies.

Miller tells about part and people buried in the crater at 50 feet! They had to dig 70 feet to get all the plane part buried. This is the cool, as you present evidence for you own debunking a constant base trait of CIT, p4t, and the rest of 9/11 truth.

Debunked by your own sources. Good job posting an interview that kills your ideas.

 

[Hokulele]

wrong the argument is that they were seperated prior to impact and momentum was what kept them headed in the same direction.

now if you have another word to describe an object headed in a direction becoming two objects continuing on in that same direction please feel free to educate me now.

If they separated before impact, they would travel in the same direction, but the main bulk of the plane would impact after the engine as shown in the animation linked earlier. The engine would not end up ahead of the impact crater.

Thus your claim that the engine was detached from the plane in air, regardless of the cause, is refuted.

Your follow-up post is nothing but waffle avoiding this refutation.

 

[Hokulele]

"Care to calculate the force needed ...."

No!

Apparently, neither does TC.

 

[TC329]

If they separated before impact, they would travel in the same direction, but the main bulk of the plane would impact after the engine as shown in the animation linked earlier. The engine would not end up ahead of the impact crater.

Thus your claim that the engine was detached from the plane in air, regardless of the cause, is refuted.

Your follow-up post is nothing but waffle avoiding this refutation.

you cannot honestly make such a statement without knowing all the necessary valuables and variants. pure and simple.

what we should see though is that if the plane impacted fully intact as we are told then we should expect to find the left engine inside the crater along with the right engine which we saw was embedded about 5 or 6 feet deep into the ground. since we are also told that over 90% of a 757 was in the 20' wide 8' deep hole then there is no precedent for the left engine to act differently.

so the claim cannot be refuted because altitude, speed, trajectory, and impact angle from the severing object are not known. therefor the engine landing several hundred yards ahead of the rest of the plane has a most likely conclusion that it was separated from the plane in flight.

 

[applecorped]

you cannot honestly make such a statement without knowing all the necessary valuables and variants. pure and simple.

what we should see though is that if the plane impacted fully intact as we are told then we should expect to find the left engine inside the crater along with the right engine which we saw was embedded about 5 or 6 feet deep into the ground. since we are also told that over 90% of a 757 was in the 20' wide 8' deep hole then there is no precedent for the left engine to act differently.

so the claim cannot be refuted because altitude, speed, trajectory, and impact angle from the severing object are not known. therefor the engine landing several hundred yards ahead of the rest of the plane has a most likely conclusion that it was separated from the plane in flight.

Your focus blinds you. People died. They could have been your loved ones. You are lucky that they were not. Suffering abounds. Delight in your comfort for you know not what true despair is.

 

[TJM]

you cannot honestly make such a statement without knowing all the necessary valuables and variants. pure and simple.

what we should see though is that if the plane impacted fully intact as we are told then we should expect to find the left engine inside the crater along with the right engine which we saw was embedded about 5 or 6 feet deep into the ground. since we are also told that over 90% of a 757 was in the 20' wide 8' deep hole then there is no precedent for the left engine to act differently.

so the claim cannot be refuted because altitude, speed, trajectory, and impact angle from the severing object are not known. therefor the engine landing several hundred yards ahead of the rest of the plane has a most likely conclusion that it was separated from the plane in flight.

It's really irrelevant. For one thing, Wally Miller never said an intact engine was recovered from that pond. You said he did. You lied. He said an "engine section" was recovered from the pond. Why do you continue say that an engine was found in the pond when Wally Miller told you it was an engine section?

Oh, and "the necessary valuables and variants"? Whiskey tango foxtrot.

 

[leftysergeant]

care to calculate how 90+% of 100 tons shatters into the earth except for this one piece which instead "bounces" because the ground is incapable of shattering it and despite it traveling in excess of 500MPH and weighing a few tons it still doesn't have enough for to penetrate the earth which just swallowed the rest of the plane?

Bigger rocks in the ground.

 

[TC329]

It's really irrelevant. For one thing, Wally Miller never said an intact engine was recovered from that pond. You said he did. You lied. He said an "engine section" was recovered from the pond. Why do you continue say that an engine was found in the pond when Wally Miller told you it was an engine section?

wally miller also said it was the largest piece of debris recovered from the crash. you neglect to mention this. why?

 

[TJM]

wally miller also said it was the largest piece of debris recovered from the crash. you neglect to mention this. why?

I have no need to mention it. I'm not the one making absurd claims based on lies.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

you cannot honestly make such a statement without knowing all the necessary valuables and variants. pure and simple.

what we should see though is that if the plane impacted fully intact as we are told then we should expect to find the left engine inside the crater along with the right engine which we saw was embedded about 5 or 6 feet deep into the ground. since we are also told that over 90% of a 757 was in the 20' wide 8' deep hole then there is no precedent for the left engine to act differently.

so the claim cannot be refuted because altitude, speed, trajectory, and impact angle from the severing object are not known. therefor the engine landing several hundred yards ahead of the rest of the plane has a most likely conclusion that it was separated from the plane in flight.

Flight 1771 Crash.

 

[Hokulele]

you cannot honestly make such a statement without knowing all the necessary valuables and variants. pure and simple.

And you are allowed to? Interesting.

what we should see though is that if the plane impacted fully intact as we are told then we should expect to find the left engine inside the crater along with the right engine which we saw was embedded about 5 or 6 feet deep into the ground. since we are also told that over 90% of a 757 was in the 20' wide 8' deep hole then there is no precedent for the left engine to act differently.

See? You are doing it again.

so the claim cannot be refuted because altitude, speed, trajectory, and impact angle from the severing object are not known.

Once again with the double standard.

therefor the engine landing several hundred yards ahead of the rest of the plane has a most likely conclusion that it was separated from the plane in flight.

Standard projectile calculations, as shown in the flash applet linked earlier, show that your conclusion is physically impossible. Simply repeating your assertion with nothing to back it up is a classic sign of woo.

 

[Arus808]

wally miller also said it was the largest piece of debris recovered from the crash. you neglect to mention this. why?

and the importance of this assertation? NOTHING.

it could have been all of 3 rotars of the engine (not more than 10 feet in length), and that would be the biggest piece. YOU honestly think that sometihng TRAVELING at 500 mph into the ground is going to leave behind "big" pieces.

Care to give what Wally stated as to "how" big it was? Surely he could have given you an estimate as to hwo big that section was.

 

[Firestone]

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

Thanks!

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm still trying to figure out what weapons system we have that could sever the engine pylon without tearing part of the wing off or blowing the engine to pieces.

 

[TJM]

I'm still trying to figure out what weapons system we have that could sever the engine pylon without tearing part of the wing off or blowing the engine to pieces.

It's the stealth version of the AIM-9 only issued to NWO air crews. It has the ability to fly along side the target aircraft, apply a thermite cutter charge to the pylon, thrust forward and ignite the thermite with its exhaust. The missile will then loiter until crash is confirmed.

This is all explained in the handbook, chapter 9 "Sooooper Sekrit Missile Systems" pages 342-401. You haven't read it? I'm a afraid I'll have to report this....

 

[metamars]

If they separated before impact, they would travel in the same direction, but the main bulk of the plane would impact after the engine as shown in the animation linked earlier. The engine would not end up ahead of the impact crater.

Thus your claim that the engine was detached from the plane in air, regardless of the cause, is refuted.

No, the claim is not refuted, even if the argument is deficient. Besides all the variables being ignored that have already been mentioned, indicating that this is not a simple problem in dynamics, there's another really big one that's also being ignored. There's two jet engines on a 757, and even if one is blown off, I don't know why that would require that the other fail immediately.

I expect, then, a powered curvature added to the flight of the plane, due to asymmetry of the thrust. From the description of a radical bank by the witnesses, it's reasonable to assume that the wing that had dipped is the one that was missing an engine (due to a loss of lift where the wing section that attached to the missing engine was damaged). The asymmetry of thrust, in this case, would cause a powered curvature of flight in the direction of the side of the plane missing an engine, which is downwards, leading to a quicker impact than the separated engine.

If TC329 is correct that the FDR data is fudged, this may suggest a reason why it was fudged in the particular way it was. One engine getting shot off is consistent with eyewitness accounts of the final moments of the plane. The claimed fdr trajectory, wherein the plane is said to roll on it's back, obscures this. (Well, that's how it seems to me. Perhaps it's possible that having a single engine fail could cause a plane to roll on it's back, but I'm guessing not.)

Has it been determined which engine was detached? If so, we can check if the bank matches up with said engine as I expect.