evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[TC329]

I have a question. I have been debating this with a friend about the direction the wind was blowing the day 93 went down. He says there was a payroll check or something found in New Baltimore 8+ miles away from the crash site. I checked all over the internet and cannot find anything or am finding conflicting reports about the direction of the wind that day.

Can someone point me where I could find the wind direction the day flight 93 went down ? He seems to think it is impossible for debris to be found in New Baltimore because the wind was blowing northeast according to him.

Any help ? Thanks in advance.

the question you need to ask is how a steel weakening jet fuel explosion can preserve us mail inside an [allegedly] undamaged plane and lift it high in the air [without incinerating it like it did to the plane and the people on board] and then allow for it to gently land 8 miles southeast of the site......

last night i checked a jet fuel fire is going to beat the us mail on any given day.

 

[TC329]

Just out of curiosity I decided to look up the result of airliners that had been shoot down. In the history of comercial air travel 5 planes have been shot down:

EL AL 402
LN 114
KAL 902
KAL 007
IR 655

402, a Boeing 727-224, was straffed and decended 16,000 feet before breaking up, it was a Lockheed L-049 Constellation turboprop so not totally useful, nor is there anything I can find that shows exactly how long it took to descend the 16,000 feet or how controlled it was.

114 was also straffed, but managed to attempt an emergency landing. The landing failed killing almost all on board.

but leftysargeant insisted to me once that you couldn't take a plane down like that and he knows everything!!!!!!!!!!11111!

 

[TC329]

What I think is interesting, is that the three most comparable shoot downs, 114, 902 and 007, all remained airbore for some time after being hit. None of them suddenly dropped out of the sky like TC and co are claiming 93 did.

nowhere did i say 93 dropped out of the sky instantly after being hit and i challenge you to link where i did.

i said it was my belief depending on certain values that the left engine was severed from the plane prior to impact but continued "flying" through the air in the same direction as the plane landing 500-600 yards ahead of it.

according to ed felt the intercept initiated somewhere after 9:58 and before 10:01....leaving anywhere from 5-8 minutes [10:03 vs. 10:06] for the plane to descend several thousands of feet to the impact spot.

again don't attribute things you invent in your head to my name.

 

[PhantomWolf]

but leftysargeant insisted to me once that you couldn't take a plane down like that and he knows everything!!!!!!!!!!11111!

Don't suppose you have a link to that?

For reference, El Al 402 appears to have broken up sololy due to the attackers pressing the attack and hitting a fuel tank, so the descent from 18,000 to 2,000 was apparently controlled. LN 114 just got unlucky in that the spot the pilot decided to put down on wasn't as smooth as it looked and the plane crash landed, had it found a good landing spot, the result likely would have been better than 902's shot down.

 

[PhantomWolf]

nowhere did i say 93 dropped out of the sky instantly after being hit and i challenge you to link where i did.

i said it was my belief depending on certain values that the left engine was severed from the plane prior to impact but continued "flying" through the air in the same direction as the plane landing 500-600 yards ahead of it.

according to ed felt the intercept initiated somewhere after 9:58 and before 10:01....leaving anywhere from 5-8 minutes [10:03 vs. 10:06] for the plane to descend several thousands of feet to the impact spot.

again don't attribute things you invent in your head to my name.

You don't think that there is a problem in the claim that the engine was servered by the missile but still landed ahead of a plane that continued to fly for 5-8 minutes after that engine came off?

 

[WildCat]

You don't think that there is a problem in the claim that the engine was servered by the missile but still landed ahead of a plane that continued to fly for 5-8 minutes after that engine came off?

Thinking things through isn't a strong suit of truthers.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

the question you need to ask is how a steel weakening jet fuel explosion can preserve us mail inside an [allegedly] undamaged plane and lift it high in the air [without incinerating it like it did to the plane and the people on board] and then allow for it to gently land 8 miles southeast of the site......

last night i checked a jet fuel fire is going to beat the us mail on any given day.

You can do this by looking at pretty much every plane crash in the history of aviation. For paper to not have survived would have raised a red flag as it would be the first time in history. Of course the exception being water crashes.

But hey, pretty amazing that nothing from the missile survived eh? I guess the only way to preserve paper is by use of a hush-a-boom disappearing missile shot by a hush-a-boom UV plane that makes no sound and flies under phone lines and makes other jets in the area become invisible to people in mini-vans.

 

[HyJinX]

I say...blame Wonder Woman.

 

[beachnut]

the question you need to ask is how a steel weakening jet fuel explosion can preserve us mail inside an [allegedly] undamaged plane and lift it high in the air [without incinerating it like it did to the plane and the people on board] and then allow for it to gently land 8 miles southeast of the site......

last night i checked a jet fuel fire is going to beat the us mail on any given day.

Sad you leave out the 1600 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact with your fire ball lifting the paper up in the sky. Sad, you have no real experience with aircraft accidents and get every single thing wrong. Reality is not your bag.

Just what ever you think, turn it around and you will be correct instead of wrong all the time.

BTW, this thread is evidence against a shoot down, you are off topic again. Why can't you think of anything truthful?

But thanks for the interview with Miller it is evidence against a shoot down. Good job.

 

[HyJinX]

My evidence that Wonder Woman shot down 93 contains the exact same amount of evidence that TC's theory has. Does anybody disagree with that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thinking things through isn't a strong suit of truthers.

Well I'm half expecting TC to come back and claim that he doesn't think it came off at missile impact, and while he might not have said that, one of the other truthers in this thread make it clear that he was going with that so it's best to get it out of the way first. Of course the other option is that the engine came off some time after the missile hit, but guess what, we can use RL plane accidents to check this too. Just after 9/11 an Airbus A300-600, Flight AA 587, left JFK before crashing into Belle Habor, New York. This plane lost its engine in flight. It had been travelling southwest, the engine was found to the northeast, so the plane went further than the engine.

Of course there is the claim that when the engine fell off, it would have thrown the plane into an uncontrollable sprial and so it went straight down while the engine didn't. Unfortunately (or fortunately for passangers) planes aren't designed that way, and can still fly pretty well even if an engine does fall off. Even when the plane has crashed the engine was behind the plane. If fact here's an expert opinion (and therefore controlled by the NWO):

Q: Would the plane automatically crash if the engine did fall off?

A: What the experts say is that modern aircraft of this size are designed to cope with engine failure on takeoff and that this aircraft [AA 587] should in theory have been able to keep flying despite what appears to have been the loss of one of its two engines and they are rather puzzled that the aircraft crashed. They say it must have been a particularly critical stage of the takeoff, perhaps when it was only just off the ground or perhaps when the undercarriage was still down.

So according to the experts and the results of planes that have lost their engines in flight and in take off, the engines fall behind the plane, they don't go further than the plane itself.

Now there is one really obvious way the engine parts ended up 600 yards in the direction of travel. If the plane had forward velocity of just 300mph, then the engine hitting the ground in such a way that it richocetted rather then penetrated, it would have taken a mere 4-5 seconds to get from the crash site to its final resting place, especially since it was downhill too. No missiles or shootdown required, just physics and momentum.

 

[1337m4n]

The word "INSTANTANEOUSLY" has a precise and unambiguous meaning in Newtonian mechanics, even if (as I think I vaguely recall), some problems are modeled in terms of "impulses", which instantaneously change momentum.* You will look in vain to see where I expressed such a belief, since I didn't. The question arise as to whether you are mistaken, or just lying. Do tell.

Your spurious allegation, which I quote above, is actually wrong on a second count, and that is the false claim about a "90-degree nose dive". You will not find me making such a claim, either.

I was using hyperbole, but in this case it is justified hyperbole. Your dumb idea is that the plane will drop straight down like a rock immediately after being hit; see post #420 for more on why this idea is dumb. Your premise is that the plane actually OUTRAN the engine that broke off, so this is necessary. And since your premise relies on the other dumb idea that the OTHER engine will provide the necessary thrust to outrun the falling engine, the plane would also have to start diving at a steep angle immediately after being hit, otherwise the thrust from the remaining engine would provide forward momentum, not downward momentum. So you may not have SAID "instantaneously", but it is in fact required in order for your dumb theory to be correct.

You see, it's like this: You argue that the plane's remaining engine is enough for it to outrun the falling engine. The falling engine is at freefall; it will hit the ground in a matter of second. Tick, tock. So the plane's remaining engine will provide downward thrust, you say? But wait! In order to do that, the plane's nose actually has to be pointed downwards! It's not, at this point, it is pointed FORWARD, so the engine is providing forward thrust. So the plane gains distance that the engine doesn't. Tick, tock. Now the plane begins diving. But wait, it doesn't instantly go from 0 degrees to 90 degrees! There is a gradual change in pitch, throughout which there will be many points where the thrust of the engine is still more forwards than downwards, at least until it hits 45 degrees. Now the plane starts getting more downward than forward thrust, so it will outrun the falling engine now, right? Wrong! The falling engine already has had a huge head-start and has already hit the ground! oops.

Don't feel bad, metamars, it is the logical result of not thinking a dumb idea through.

Another reason why it is a dumb idea, the engine that was shot off would either be intact, or in pieces. No intact engine was found so that rules out the former. If the engine were blown into pieces, then let's assume for the sake of argument that your dumb idea is correct and the plane DID hit the ground before the engine parts. Now there will be a seperate debris zone for the engine and the plane. But nope, there were no seperate debris zone. There was ONE debris zone, a single engine PART was found outside of it, and the rest of both engines were found in pieces in the same crater as the rest of the plane. If the plane outran the engine downward why would they be in the same crater? oops.

 

[metamars]

nowhere did i say 93 dropped out of the sky instantly after being hit and i challenge you to link where i did.

i said it was my belief depending on certain values that the left engine was severed from the plane prior to impact but continued "flying" through the air in the same direction as the plane landing 500-600 yards ahead of it.

according to ed felt the intercept initiated somewhere after 9:58 and before 10:01....leaving anywhere from 5-8 minutes [10:03 vs. 10:06] for the plane to descend several thousands of feet to the impact spot.

again don't attribute things you invent in your head to my name.

What does felt say that the intercept initiation consisted of? Is this supposed to be the time at which an explosion is heard, signifying a missile strike?

If so, 5 minutes until crashing of the plane seems OK, assuming it had thrust which could be used to generate lift, or that the pilot was otherwise able to use it's airspeed and steering to generate lift.

But if an engine is thought to separate and fall over a 5 minute interval, that seems impossible. This freefall calculator gives a flight time of 59 seconds for a drop of 10,000 ft, with terminal velocity 120 mph. For long distance flights, a typical altitude is 30,000 ft, air is thinner the higher you go, terminal velocity is probably higher, etc., so 3 minutes seems to be an upper bound.

Also, could we even hear a missile exploding 30,000 feet away? I can't hear jet airplanes landing 4 miles from where I live.

A more reasonable hypothesis may be that an engine struck by a missile at higher altitudes was not separated until vibrations shook it free at lower altitudes.

 

[HyJinX]

OR...that Wonder Woman did it. Same evidence, Metamars.

 

[1337m4n]

What does felt say that the intercept initiation consisted of? Is this supposed to be the time at which an explosion is heard, signifying a missile strike?

If so, 5 minutes until crashing of the plane seems OK, assuming it had thrust which could be used to generate lift, or that the pilot was otherwise able to use it's airspeed and steering to generate lift.

But if an engine is thought to separate and fall over a 5 minute interval, that seems impossible. This freefall calculator gives a flight time of 59 seconds for a drop of 10,000 ft, with terminal velocity 120 mph. For long distance flights, a typical altitude is 30,000 ft, air is thinner the higher you go, terminal velocity is probably higher, etc., so 3 minutes seems to be an upper bound.

Also, could we even hear a missile exploding 30,000 feet away? I can't hear jet airplanes landing 4 miles from where I live.

A more reasonable hypothesis may be that an engine struck by a missile at higher altitudes was not separated until vibrations shook it free at lower altitudes.

Except then that means the wing is largely intact, and the pilot can glide even without engine trust. Post #420 shows the stupid in your theory.

It also means the engine itself is largely intact; it was not found at the crash scene intact, but in pieces. oops.

 

[metamars]

OR...that Wonder Woman did it. Same evidence, Metamars.

Since most pilots are male, and Wonder Woman's plane is see-through, you may be on to something. No missile needed, just distraction - those bastards!!!! They think of everything!!!

However, if the 911 conspiracy is so vast as to include Wonder Woman, I may decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and just move to Bermuda and take up wind surfing.

 

[ktesibios]

Umm, PW- the cause of the flight 587 crash was that the vertical stabilizer tore off, apparently as a result of the co-pilot using the rudder too violently in trying to cope with wake turbulence from a 747 that had taken off ahead of them. The engines were apparently broken loose as the now-uncontrollable plane gyrated through the air.

An example of an accident where the cause was the separation of an engine is AA flight 191, which crashed in Chicago in 1979. Simulator work during the accident investigation indicated that the pilots should have been able to keep flying and make an emergency landing if they had immediately understood their predicament and taken the appropriate measures. However, due to the loss of electrical power to the captain's instruments, some of which had no duplicates on the co-pilot's side, they didn't realize their true situation and were unable to recover.

Incidentally, when flight 191's engine broke away during takeoff, it flipped back and over the wing and landed on the runway behind the plane.

 

[ktesibios]

It might be worth pointing out that the online freefal calculator linke by metamars is for skydiving and the 120mph terminal velocity is for a human body in the classic spread-eagled skydiver's position.

A jet engine is much denser than a human body and will consequently have a different (probably higher) ballistic coefficient. Using formulae predicated on the aerodynamics of a human body for the fall of a jet engine is simply invalid.

The inability of troofers to achieve even a layman's grasp of basic physical principles is demonstrated once again.

 

[TC329]

What does felt say that the intercept initiation consisted of? Is this supposed to be the time at which an explosion is heard, signifying a missile strike?

If so, 5 minutes until crashing of the plane seems OK, assuming it had thrust which could be used to generate lift, or that the pilot was otherwise able to use it's airspeed and steering to generate lift.

But if an engine is thought to separate and fall over a 5 minute interval, that seems impossible. This freefall calculator gives a flight time of 59 seconds for a drop of 10,000 ft, with terminal velocity 120 mph. For long distance flights, a typical altitude is 30,000 ft, air is thinner the higher you go, terminal velocity is probably higher, etc., so 3 minutes seems to be an upper bound.

Also, could we even hear a missile exploding 30,000 feet away? I can't hear jet airplanes landing 4 miles from where I live.

A more reasonable hypothesis may be that an engine struck by a missile at higher altitudes was not separated until vibrations shook it free at lower altitudes.

edward felt was inside flight 93 when he told westmoreland county 911 operators that there had been an explosion and white smoke was filling up the plane.

the fbi confiscated the 78 second phone call.

john shaw who took the call and his supervisor glenn cramer have both been gagged since then.

in a nytimes article i believe cramer said felt never said it as if someone just made that up i guess......yeah thats why the phone call will never be heard. so my first source for the shoot down event is a passenger on the plane.

the next would be the pittsbugh tribune review who said jim stop said he saw it fly by losing parts while he was fishing. indian lake residents called 911 and reported a low flying plane "breaking up on their homes". those calls are not available to the public either coincidentally enough....or not.

then the witnesses i name at indian lake that heard the plane fly overheard towards the crash site :

barry lichty
jim brandt
carol delasko
john fleegle
chris smith
tom spinelli

and then in between indian lake and the crash site we have :

val mcclatchey

val heard the plane fly overhead and managed to look out her window and catch a glimpse of it going down. but apparently she must have just been lucky because people hear will tell you she doesn't have a degree in psychoacoustics analysis and therefor cannot determine which direction the plane approached from even if it was the sound that caused her to look in the direction she heard it to be traveling......

followed with a couple "you have nothings" and "the fdr trumps all!!!!!111!1!"

YAY!

 

[beachnut]

It might be worth pointing out that the online freefal calculator linke by metamars is for skydiving and the 120mph terminal velocity is for a human body in the classic spread-eagled skydiver's position.

A jet engine is much denser than a human body and will consequently have a different (probably higher) ballistic coefficient. Using formulae predicated on the aerodynamics of a human body for the fall of a jet engine is simply invalid.

The inability of troofers to achieve even a layman's grasp of basic physical principles is demonstrated once again.

You beat me to the bigger mass beats wind resistance, vs. human freefall.