evidence against flight 93 shoot down

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.
Click to expand...

Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.
 
metamars said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am no expert but I must ask....

If the engine was "blown off" causing the plane to roll, wouldn't it have had to been blown off a considerable amount of time before impact?

This would surely result in the engine falling much sooner than the plane right?
 
Planes with their wings still attached do tend to travel farther than detached engines. Something about aerodynamic lift.
 
The plane was nearly upside down and hit the ground at a crazy angle. One engine dug in, one engine bounced. Is this really that hard to understand?
 
Dom,

Can you answer post #211 please. I am trying to help you support your claim about the dirt displacement.
 
lee5 said:
I am no expert but I must ask....

If the engine was "blown off" causing the plane to roll, wouldn't it have had to been blown off a considerable amount of time before impact?
Click to expand...

What is a "considerable amount of time?" I frankly haven't followed this closely enough to even know if TC329 (or anybody else) has tried to reconstruct a crash sequence, consistent with witness accounts, that would speak to this.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Planes with their wings still attached do tend to travel farther than detached engines. Something about aerodynamic lift.
Click to expand...

If an engine gets blown off a plane, the wing section that gets blown off with it won't provide any aerodynamic lift to the plane, at all. Also, even parts of the wing that remains, if it's airfoil gets messed up, won't provide the same lift.

Come to think of it, what if the aerilon remains intact, but stuck in a position forcing the wing down? (Yes, you can also ask what if the aerilon remains, but stuck in a position forcing the wing up.)
 
leftysergeant said:
Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.
Click to expand...

Don't explosions tend to blow out fires, ala Red Adair and oil well fires?

Not sure what to say about the noise issue. I live 4 miles from an airport, jet planes in an out all day (not directly overhead, though), and never hear anything. I've also stayed in homes near airports, and when the jet flew overhead, you sure did hear a ruckus.
 
leftysergeant said:
Problem is that no one heard an explosion louder than the aircraft engine prior to the cessation of engine noises nor did the aircraft appear, in any reports I have heard, to be trailing smoke and flames as one would expect after a missile strike that tore of an engine and broke fuel supply lines.
Click to expand...


Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."


One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing. [SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE] "I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang and the windows of the houses all around rattled," area resident Michael R. Merringer told The Associated Press. His wife was with him at the time.
 
TC329 said:
Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard an airplane pass overhead. "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."


One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing. [SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE] "I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang and the windows of the houses all around rattled," area resident Michael R. Merringer told The Associated Press. His wife was with him at the time.
Click to expand...


Looks to me like you're.........




2627535628_81288f1d44.jpg
 
metamars said:
If an engine gets blown off a plane, the wing section that gets blown off with it won't provide any aerodynamic lift to the plane, at all. Also, even parts of the wing that remains, if it's airfoil gets messed up, won't provide the same lift.
Click to expand...
Also plane tha had an engine shot off would no longer be capable of maintaining a high speed. It would likely have hitground at terminal free-fall velocity, under 200 mph. The wreckage would have been in much larger chunks.

All the evidence indicates a high-speed ground impact, which isn't going to happen with a plane that was shot down.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
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:

Disbelief said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just because I love your avatar so much.
 
TC329 said:
quoting people who heard the intercept take place a couple miles north of the crash site is not 'cherry picking'. furthest thing from.
Click to expand...

They were mistaken. End of story. There was no shoot down.

"When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden -- like a stone," said Tom Fritz, 63. Fritz was sitting on his porch along Lambertsville Road, about a quarter-mile from the crash site, when he heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. "It was sort of whistling," he said. "It was going so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was." - Tom Fritz

“It was coming right at me, but something happened,” Lambert said. “I don't know what happened on the plane. It was going upside down and all at once it made the 45-degree angle and it went right down (where that big tree is).- Knoll and Nevin Lambert


"It came in, rolled slightly to the left and appeared to hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle," he said. "It seemed like an eternity, but it must have been only a few seconds. It evaporated into a huge fireball that turned into black smoke." - Karl Landis

"I actually thought it was going to hit a house here in town," "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Peterson called 9-1-1 and ran to the crash site but found only burning jet parts, pieces of clothing, and seat cushions.

-Eric Peterson

I heard this real loud noise coming over my head, I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke." -Lee Purbaugh"

We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar." She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground. "All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, 'Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud."
-Viola Saylor

"When it hit it looked like an atomic bomb went off. It was just terrible." Walsh said he leapt into his truck and drove to within 300 yards of the crash site. "I wanted to see if I could help anybody. But there was just burning parts, that's all. I looked down the hill and saw nothing but a big crater. You could not tell it was an air crash, the debris was so widely scattered." - John Walsh

Interesting......
 
WildCat said:
Also plane tha had an engine shot off would no longer be capable of maintaining a high speed. It would likely have hitground at terminal free-fall velocity, under 200 mph. The wreckage would have been in much larger chunks.
Click to expand...

ok so now planes slow down when they're intercepted. 7 years of shoot down theories and someone never thought of that before or you're just making **** up. going by your track history.....you're just making **** up.

All the evidence indicates a high-speed ground impact, which isn't going to happen with a plane that was shot down.
Click to expand...

yes because a plane intercepted at 25,000+ feet which enters in a rapid decline is only going to decelerate as it plummets to the earth. i mean we can watch all those old wwII films and see planes get shot out of the sky and watch their velocity instantly decline.......oh wait it doesn't.
 
TC, so you're saying that if a plane is going 500mph and shot down, it will increase speed as it falls? How fast will a 500mph plane travel when it's falling, can you show us some basic math behind this?
 
TC329 said:
ok so now planes slow down when they're intercepted. 7 years of shoot down theories and someone never thought of that before or you're just making **** up. going by your track history.....you're just making **** up.



yes because a plane intercepted at 25,000+ feet which enters in a rapid decline is only going to decelerate as it plummets to the earth. i mean we can watch all those old wwII films and see planes get shot out of the sky and watch their velocity instantly decline.......oh wait it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Strange physics in your world... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom