evidence against flight 93 shoot down

ktesibios said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you re-check my post I never stated the cause of the crash, merely that the plane had lost an engine in flight. The vertical stabilier was also found north of the crash site, but since we were dealing with engines....

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.
Click to expand...

Which you'll see was the second incident I linked too...

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I noted it found behind the plane. ;)
 
TC329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did not happen. Debunked. Why do you use old stuff?

Miller also debunks this. Your own interview, you forgot to listen?
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
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.
Click to expand...

I live about ten miles away from the ranges and can hear .50 cal and 155mm discharges just fine through heavy stands of Douglas firs.
 
metamars said:
I can't hear jet airplanes landing 4 miles from where I live.
Click to expand...

Either your airport has good sound reduction techniques or you need to get your hearing checked. When at home I could hear the turboprop aircrat taking off at the airport and that was 20km away.
 
ktesibios said:
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.
Click to expand...

I gave an upper bound for a free fall of 30,000 feet, not a lowest upper bound. Do you understand the difference?

An upper bound of 3 minutes excludes any scenario requiring a 5 minute free fall time.

QED.

I sometimes wish that anybody who posts on forums be required to have first studied mathematical logic, and advanced calculus. By advanced calculus, I don't mean vector calculus and ODE's. I mean the advanced calculus they give to math majors - proofs and theorems. Anybody who takes such a course will certainly know what the difference is between an upper bound and a lowest upper bound.
 
metamars said:
I gave an upper bound for a free fall of 30,000 feet, not a lowest upper bound. Do you understand the difference?

An upper bound of 3 minutes excludes any scenario requiring a 5 minute free fall time.

QED.

I sometimes wish that anybody who posts on forums be required to have first studied mathematical logic, and advanced calculus. By advanced calculus, I don't mean vector calculus and ODE's. I mean the advanced calculus they give to math majors - proofs and theorems. Anybody who takes such a course will certainly know what the difference is between an upper bound and a lowest upper bound.
Click to expand...

The concept isn't strictly applicable here. In mathematics, you can often separate one source of variation from another, i.e. bounding the process (viz. coefficients) versus bounding the input variables -- in such a situation, a "lowest upper bound" would refer to the maximum random expectation using the minimum value of coefficients. But what we have here is too complicated to present an obvious model. Unless you give us the process, or more specifically the analytic form you think the process will take, you cannot claim a distinction between the two.

Looked at through the more relevant field of engineering or physics, there are uncertainties. There are different types, much as experimental and random error are different, but again, we need to explain the experimental setup to make a distinction. Since we have not, there is no difference.

You are out of line in bringing this up as a way to insult your opposition. No special knowledge of mathematics is needed, nor should it be, for discussion at the JREF or even of this topic. If there was, some of your past zany ideas would disqualify you as well... Rather, try to learn and try to educate. If you really think this is worth following up, then propose a better formalism for your thought experiment. Don't just bandy about irrelevant terminology.
 
Working on the theory that an engine is appropximately a cylinder, it would have a Cd of around 0.81. With a mass of 3,295 kg, a 757 engine would reach about 192m/s as a terminal velocity at sea level. Initially the speed would be faster, it would slow as it fell due to air drag increasing, but I doubt it would take longer than a minute to hit the ground from 30,000 feet, I'm sure someone will play with the numbers and figure it out better.
 
The mathematics involved is really not all that important in this case. Egnines, being denser, tend to fall out of the sky faster than do aircraft with the wings still attached. One could postulate a possibility that the engine still had some power until the fuel in the lines ran out, but that would put it in some other wierd direction. The aircraft would, of course, be so out of trim that it would not likely follow the same trajectory as the engine. It would, in fact, travel in a random direction, totally unpredictable by any formal calculations, because the damage would be random and utterly unpredictable. Everything was just too neatly lined up, from the crater to the farthest engine part, for it to have been other than a controlled flight into terrain.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
So what he is implying is that someone planted some evidence 8 miles away in the wrong direction of the wind? Can he explain further?
Click to expand...

No, he is claiming the plane must of been shot down because that debris is so far away in the opposite direction of the wind.
 
PhantomWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...


This I find amusing also. If the engine was severed from the plane by a missile, how was the plane that was going down not on fire ? By looking at the picture of the plume from the crash site with the red barn there is no smoke trail going down to the point of impact. How is this possible ?
 
PhantomWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't know how this thread could get any sillier. I'm always fooled tho'.

As evidence of a "shoot down" we have M man and Dom arguing that a good sized severed engine or engine part would land ahead of the out of control aircraft. We have Dom verifying via distorted witness statements that there were parts along his fantasy flight path, yet that hypothesize good sized severed engine part actually landed some 45 degrees to their hypothesized flight path only a short distance away. Then we have SE becoming SW in some outer world realm in order to make this all fit.

One of these two has a degree in physics?

Do I have it right, or am I confused by the jumbled up mess?
 
Crazytimes said:
This I find amusing also. If the engine was severed from the plane by a missile, how was the plane that was going down not on fire ? By looking at the picture of the plume from the crash site with the red barn there is no smoke trail going down to the point of impact. How is this possible ?
Click to expand...

In all fairness and for the sake of accuracy, there is no way to predict whether or not there would have been a fire. It is probable, but not assured. There could also have been a leaking fuel trail with no fire, but that would dissipate rapidly. Leaking fuel would leave a visible but rapidly dissipating trail, which would look similar to smoke. In any case it is difficult to imagine there would not have been one or the other, a fire or a leaking fuel trail during the final plunge.
 
Crazytimes said:
No, he is claiming the plane must of been shot down because that debris is so far away in the opposite direction of the wind.
Click to expand...

So if something breaks up up high, then the laws of physics change and things blow in the opposite direction of the wind? Sounds like your friend is a real fruit cake to me. Has this person finished elementary school yet?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
So if something breaks up up high, then the laws of physics change and things blow in the opposite direction of the wind? Sounds like your friend is a real fruit cake to me. Has this person finished elementary school yet?
Click to expand...

Fruit Cake is being nice. He also thinks it is VERY possible that the government dropped or planted a bomb where the alleged crash site is to make it appear as if a plane went down there. He is crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom