evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[lapman]

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Wow, now you've proven that you have no idea of how a 757 is put together. The engine is not a part of the lifting area of the airfoil. Shooting one off would do nothing to change the shape of the airfoil since the engines on a Boeing 757 hang BELOW the wing and are not incorporated into the wing like the de Havilland Comet.

 

[beachnut]

TC was debunked by Miller, and he does not know it.

It was TC's own interview of Miller.

This interview is evidence against a shoot down, TC does not understand why.

Of course TC has nothing to add to this thread, but he did make evidence against a shoot down by providing Miller's interview. I have to tell Miller TC is using his interview to make up lies.

TC has me on ignore so he can ignore the fact Miller debunks all the things TC makes up. But see the interview until TC takes it down to save face. See the wally miller thread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122665 Miller offers key evidence and observations that are against a shoot down. Big time.

 

[metamars]

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

The missile missed.

No, both this link and your previous one say the plane was hit. Read them, again.

 

[lapman]

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

According to you, that plane should have crashed since it's airfoil was changed.

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says



If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

Typical twoofer tactic of misquoting. You missed the part that stated:

At around 10,000 feet, the aircraft was hit by a missile which resulted in the loss of its hydraulic systems.

In other words, the engines were the only way to control the aircraft. UA 232 was the same thing. When the fan of the rear engine disintegrated, it took out the main AND backup hydraulic systems. The pilots used the engines since they had no other way to control the aircraft. So, the onus is on you to prove that flight 93 had no hydraulics.

 

[beachnut]

No, both this link and your previous one say the plane was hit. Read them, again.

NO it missed. You are not using the physics stuff again.

Hint ; Passive Infrared homing.

oops, it was a SA-14, .39 kg of HMX.

bigger hint; engine, it missed the engine. lol

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Are you on drugs? You seriously think that's how a plane works? Seriously? That is a complete utter joke. You can't call that an argument because it is utter nonsense. That's not backing up your claim, that's making somthing up that simply is not true at all. And then you expect after this absurd nonsense of a claim that has no basis in reality that the plane is then going to increase speed because it has an engine on one side while falling out of the sky from lack of life which you think is caused by the other engine? What complete utter nonsense! Even the braniacs at PFT would laugh at that.

Your refutation of this is where? I must have missed it.

In my posts genius. The fact that you aren't making a reasonable argument to begin with is all that matters. I don't even need to refute it any more than I need to refute someone claiming Santa Claus flies around the world on Christmas delivering present to every kid in the world.

Is it your delusion or mine that you've not refuted a single one of the arguments I gave?

yes I have, and your arguments are nonsense. They refute themselves because you are simply making up your own idea of how you think a plane works.

I must confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a "whole explosion before impact"?

Then perhaps you should go back and read your own post where you made that claim? It was only 2 posts ago, remember?

At this point, you're resorting to bovine excrement, and smearing me with your own delusional presuppositions. Ah, but you're "sure", aren't you? Why am I not surprised that you're "sure" of yourself, even when describing my own thoughts? Why-y-y-y, you know me better than I know myself! Isn't it obvious?

Excrement is what you started the argument with, so how do you expect it to end any differently? your whole nonsense about how a plane would increase speed after having an engine shot off is just outright laughable. What do you expect? That's the problem with making nonsense claims like yours.

And then if we step back and look at the bigger picture of what your are implying? it gets even more absurd. So the government shot down a plane in their plot to take over the world through creatively shooting a plane down into a field? And you uncovered the diabolical caper didn'tcha? Despite having no real evidence (the stuff you made up doesn't count) and all the evidence showing exactly the opposite....

 

[Jonnyclueless]

once again kids, look up flight 1771. Another plane that crashed in the same manner as 93 and the results were almost identical. And I suppose it was a super secret hush-a-boom missile behind that crash too?

 

[metamars]

Wow, now you've proven that you have no idea of how a 757 is put together. The engine is not a part of the lifting area of the airfoil. Shooting one off would do nothing to change the shape of the airfoil since the engines on a Boeing 757 hang BELOW the wing and are not incorporated into the wing like the de Havilland Comet.

Have you seen the picture Beachnut posted a link to? This one:
http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Just eyeballing this, from a bad angle, but half the wing, looking from front to back, is gone, in the affected area. That's the top and the bottom.

If a payload 10x slammed into an engine, I find it hard to believe that the top of the airfoil wouldn't get bent out of shape, in the adjacent part of the wing. In fact, I find it easy to believe that the wing would snap off, near the engine.

Either case is not good if you want that wing to provide lift....

 

[lapman]

Have you seen the picture Beachnut posted a link to? This one:
http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Just eyeballing this, from a bad angle, but half the wing, looking from front to back, is gone, in the affected area. That's the top and the bottom.

Again, you completely ignore the fact that the aircraft landed safely.

If a payload 10x slammed into an engine, I find it hard to believe that the top of the airfoil wouldn't get bent out of shape, in the adjacent part of the wing. In fact, I find it easy to believe that the wing would snap off, near the engine.

Either case is not good if you want that wing to provide lift....

Of course you would find it hard to believe since you have no ideal of how aircraft fly. The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable. You would know this if you knew anything about aerodynamics. I remember a B-52 was hit by a SAM during the Gulf War. It had a huge hole in the wing, but it landed safely.

 

[TJM]

Just a thought:

There have been comparable air disasters relevant to this thread:

Brought down by explosion: KAL 007 (747, shot down by missile), Iran Air 655 (AirBus 300,shot down by missile), Pan AM 103 (747, bomb), TWA 800 (747,fuel tank explosion).

High speed crash: PSA 1771 (BAe 146-200), ValuJet 592 ( DC-9), Turkish Air 981 (DC-10)

It might be helpful if one examined how the debris patterns differs from an explosive event to a high speed impact.

I also know of examples of planes that lost whole engines and survived, and at least one that didn't.

Food for thought.

 

[Reheat]

The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable.

True. It is quite difficult to shoot down an airline type aircraft for this very reason. No knowledgeable fighter pilot would fire only one missile, he would at minimum shoot two.

M man is being quite obtuse. If a missile or missiles were fired at altitude and the hit(s) were effective enough to bring it down, we would find parts of that engine miles from the main crash site. There is no way an damaged entire intact engine could remain attached to the wing at the speed UA 93 was flying.

His theory is bunkum. Why would an airliner be at less than 500' AGL in the first place? And why would anyone shoot a missile at the aircraft that low. Even if part of an engine could remain attached after a solid hit at altitude and separate so as to land only a few hundred feet from the main wreckage, where is the rest of it? (It's in the hole, stupid) If a missile had hit it at altitude and caused it to descend that low (AGAIN) engine parts would be scattered from Kalamazoo and back.

 

[metamars]

According to you, that plane should have crashed since it's airfoil was changed.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've made a plausibility argument to explain what I understand of eye and ear witness accounts, plus the separation of the engine from the rest of the debris. I didn't lay it out in excruciating detail, nor did I calculate anything. I'm sorry if you think that I'm so dumb that I believe that any change to airfoil must result in a crash - even, say, a warping of 5 mm from the correct surface - but the misunderstanding implied by any such extreme view would be all yours.

Do try and get at people's meaning, why don't you? Language is inherently ambiguous, so perhaps you genuinely misunderstood. I have my doubts, though.

Typical twoofer tactic of misquoting. You missed the part that stated:
In other words, the engines were the only way to control the aircraft. UA 232 was the same thing. When the fan of the rear engine disintegrated, it took out the main AND backup hydraulic systems. The pilots used the engines since they had no other way to control the aircraft. So, the onus is on you to prove that flight 93 had no hydraulics.

And? Again, if the pilot of flight 93 didn't want to crash, but hadn't read of a similar technique to handle the gyrations, who's to say whether they would have been able to?

If the pilot of flight 93 had hydraulics, and didn't want to crash, well whatever instability developed, he certainly didn't handle it well enough.

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a loss of hydraulics in a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a greater warping and segmentation of the airfoil of a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

Do you think it more likely than not that getting struck with 10x the amount of explosives that hit the DHL plane would also lead to a proportionately greater loss of the wing structure of a Boeing 757? I will guess "yes". What do you guess?

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

 

[beachnut]

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

Yes, the hydraulic were normal till impact. Busted again by fact and evidnce. Resarech is the key for not making stupid statements.

FDR again is against the shoot down, and has shot down your ideas again.

(The missile missed, the engine.)

 

[metamars]

Again, you completely ignore the fact that the aircraft landed safely.

Are you completely ignoring that 10x explosives in a payload is going to create more damage?

Of course you would find it hard to believe since you have no ideal of how aircraft fly. The affect would be only localized and would change flight characteristics, but not make the plane unflyable. You would know this if you knew anything about aerodynamics. I remember a B-52 was hit by a SAM during the Gulf War. It had a huge hole in the wing, but it landed safely.

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

If you want to claim that, in all the history of aviation, no such shootdown involved a plane dipping a wing, and the engine getting shot off, go ahead and make such a claim. I, for one, won't believe it, but I don't have the time or inclination to start searching historical records for such incidents.

 

[Reheat]

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

Yea, like this.

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

Uh, air-to-ground missile are fired BY aircraft against targets on the GROUND. Are you losing it?

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE PARTS?

 

[beachnut]

Are you completely ignoring that 10x explosives in a payload is going to create more damage?

93 was not shot down. Off topic again.

At some point, loss of wing integrity, or even wing, itself, is going to make the plane unflyable. Consider a plane whose wing gets more or less completely ripped off. Will it fly?

Off topic. FDR shows hydraulic normal and engines running.

It's nice to know that planes can fly with holes in them, but what's the point of air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles if they can't force a plane to crash?

Off topic. unless you are saying this means there was no missile shoot down.

If you want to claim that, in all the history of aviation, no such shootdown involved a plane dipping a wing, and the engine getting shot off, go ahead and make such a claim. I, for one, won't believe it, but I don't have the time or inclination to start searching historical records for such incidents.

The dipping wing on 9/11 of 93 was due to terrorist control wheel/column inputs. You can see it on the FDR, and thus confirmation of your witness junk. The FDR shows no shoot down.

 

[WildCat]

I've already provided arguments.

True, but they're all from personal incredulity and not based at all in facts, reason, logic, and understanding.

This is why no one with any knowledge at all about such things is a Shanksville Truther.

In other words, sounds like your own personal problem.

 

[metamars]

Yea, like this. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840747bbaae1cde53.gif[/qimg]

You're starting to get the idea. Now, put lipstick on that pig, and see if it takes off. OK, now comes the real test. Clip one of those wings, and throw the pig off of a bridge. Does the pig fly? NO!

I hope, though, it can swim.

Uh, air-to-ground missile are fired BY aircraft against targets on the GROUND. Are you losing it?

Yeah. It's past 1 am.....

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE PARTS?

Thanks to Mr. TC329, we have

jim stop was in indian lake and saw the plane fly overhead towards the crash site losing debris.

(emphasis mine)

I certainly can't prove that this debris included engine pieces, but it would make sense in a scenario where an engine has been shot off - right?

 

[Sunstealer]

As for proving that the plane had hydraulics, or didn't have hydraulics, you must be kidding. How on earth could I prove that? I suppose the FDR would have such data, but again, if I trust the FDR, most of this thread is moot. And if I don't, and there's another way to tell if the plane had hydraulics, it's certainly unknown to me. But if you know of a way, do tell.

I'd deduce that because that is the case and you've elected to start a thread then you don't believe the FDR data.

Do you believe the FDR data and if not why not?

If you don't then there will be a whole further series of questions because the FDR is (to my knowledge) the most sought after component of an aircraft in the event of a crash.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks to Mr. TC329, we have

jim stop was in indian lake and saw the plane fly overhead towards the crash site losing debris.

(emphasis mine)

I certainly can't prove that this debris included engine pieces, but it would make sense in a scenario where an engine has been shot off - right?

wrong,
FDR shows no shoot down; FDR shows terrorist inputs to plane caused all the maneuvers 93 did. You really need to use the FDR before you are wrong again. Need a copy?
Looking up TC past posts is real bad. All of TC analysis is flawed, he can't take a witness statement and find the truth if it was Christ talking to him. He would mess it up. He takes the Jim Stop non-quote, you repeat it without looking it up to see it is not sourced to Jim, it is hearsay. This means the news guys messed up, there is no meaning to a hearsay non-quote from Jim. Using TC work, standing behind TC work, is not very physics major like.

Is it, your major is physics, or you have a degree, and your major was physics?

A physics major would see this is not a quote, it is hearsay. Produce the quote to save face and stop posting hearsay from TC; he makes up all his ideas by twisting the witness statements and using hearsay, and his flawed investigation techniques.
If Jim does say this, he is wrong, no parts found in front of the impact. FDR






Flight 93 flight data recorder proves no missile hit 93.

No evidence of a sonic boom from a missile, or missile path in the sky. Bad for missile guys.

Irony, or something; As truthers makeup lies about Flight 93 after 7 years Thursday, the first people to figure out 9/11 were the Passengers of Flight 93!

So on one hand we have a group who are misnamed truth, who can't get one thing right about 9/11.
On the other hand we have a group who selflessly got up and took actions, after figuring out 9/11 in MINUTES! They saved some fellow souls by figuring out 9/11 in minutes.

We thus have heroes, and those who support lies about 9/11 with zero evidence.

To the heroes of Flight 93, thank goodness they don't share the mindset of 9/11 truth followers and leaders who have failed to figure out one thing about 9/11.
Pathetic research, no evidence, the truth movement is... nothing

thank the Passengers on 93... they were the first to take action...