Flight 93 the physics of the impact

[Andy_Ross]

Speaking as an uneducated leyman, can redibis point me in the direction of any pictures of mangled body parts from any part of 911.

If you can't would that mean that nobody died.

Why does redIbis think that the pictures he found on the Internet are the only pictures that exist or that the pictures of the recovered artifacts on the internet show everything that was recovered.

There is a whole huge world that isn't on websites.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There is a whole huge world that isn't on websites.

That comes as a surprise to some.

Hans

 

[LSSBB]

Spare yourself and us the effort.

Try to come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis that is not obviously lousy and contradicted and inconsistent and downright dumb.


You see, in 11 years, legions of truthers have pointed to gazillions of things they find vaguely suspicious, but none have managed to make all these alleged anomalies converge onto an alternative hypothesis that is at the same time internally consistent, not contradicted by stronger evidence, and complete (more or less). This lack of convergence of evidence on the truther side is what perhaps most distinguishes it from the commonly accepted story, and explains why the commonly accepted story is the the commonly accepted story: It is supremely complete, consistent, and has the totality of all available evidence converging on it.

+1, this is the Main Plotline of all the Truther threads. They have no plausible alternative to the commonly accepted narrative.

ETA: LIHOP theories do possibly present a plausible alternative, but no proof I have seem has been presented to validate them.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The impact energy would heat the fuel to above its boiling point, instantly evaporating it all. Most of it would then burn in a fireball.

That's actually not the answer. And Red knows it, because he's tried to bring it up before.

The reason the EPA said this was because they were advertising their successful cleanup of the area. There were two tests that were conducted (and that truthers freely flip back and forth between): A small series of groundwater well tests, and the soil tests. The soil tests were conducted after the cleanup was completed. We covered this back in 2009:

"Site samples indicate that the site meets Pennsylvania's Act 2 statewide health standards for soil and groundwater for the fuel known as jet "A" fuel. We consider cleanup work at the site completed."

Original link is deprecated; 9/11 Myths covers it here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Crash_site_cleanup

The point is that his was a dishonest post. He well knows that the soil test was conducted after cleanup because we told him so. Besides, niggling about soil and water tests doesn't change the fact that the airfone calls, the DNA testing, the radar data, the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, the first responders, the cleanup workers, the wreckage and remains they were cleaning up, etc. all demonstrate that Flight 93 crashed there. Our conspiracy peddlers are pointing out a minute detail that doesn't contradict the weight of all the lines of evidence.

Link to earliest thread on this topic that I can recall: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143280&page=4

Yes, Red's recycling a point that was already discussed and shown to not be suspicious. He's simply subtracting the refutative part of the discussion in order to resurrect it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, Red's recycling a point that was already discussed and shown to not be suspicious. He's simply subtracting the refutative part of the discussion in order to resurrect it.

Or, as it's commonly known around here, rebunking.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Or, as it's commonly known around here, rebunking.

Dave

Ha! I forgot about that term! Rebunking it is!

 

[RedIbis]

That's actually not the answer. And Red knows it, because he's tried to bring it up before.

The reason the EPA said this was because they were advertising their successful cleanup of the area. There were two tests that were conducted (and that truthers freely flip back and forth between): A small series of groundwater well tests, and the soil tests. The soil tests were conducted after the cleanup was completed. We covered this back in 2009:


Original link is deprecated; 9/11 Myths covers it here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Crash_site_cleanup

The point is that his was a dishonest post. He well knows that the soil test was conducted after cleanup because we told him so. Besides, niggling about soil and water tests doesn't change the fact that the airfone calls, the DNA testing, the radar data, the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, the first responders, the cleanup workers, the wreckage and remains they were cleaning up, etc. all demonstrate that Flight 93 crashed there. Our conspiracy peddlers are pointing out a minute detail that doesn't contradict the weight of all the lines of evidence.

Link to earliest thread on this topic that I can recall: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143280&page=4

Yes, Red's recycling a point that was already discussed and shown to not be suspicious. He's simply subtracting the refutative part of the discussion in order to resurrect it.

Thanks for posting that link so I won't have to repeat myself. Nor will I have to point out the fact again that the soil samples were taken days after the crash, not after the clean-up.

 

[A W Smith]

Anyway, I'm still not really convinced of the likeliness of the engine being found that far, not convinced at all of those bandanas being recovered intact or a piece that large surviving the impact as officially alleged. I'll try and post some crash photos of near vertical high-speed impacts.

 

[000063]

I'll put the Flight 93 crash site up there with WTC 7 as the two most perplexing and unconvincing aspects of the official story.
...

Yes, that's a very good point. How much money to Larry make again? I seem to recall someone saying something about bandits.

Of course, since it was and is physically impossible to predict how WTC 1 would strike 7, there was no assuredly safe place to put the hypothetical charges and wiring. Heck, it was impossible to predict exactly how either of the towers would be damaged by the initial impacts and subsequent fire, and thus put the charges in safe locations there, either.

And while I'm discussing things Truthers never explain, where did the passengers go? Did the government land the plane, kill hundreds in cold blood, add a remote control, then "salt" the plane with passengers remains and personal effects? How, then, were calls made from the planes if the passengers were already dead?

I'm not expecting any actual answers to these questions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thanks for posting that link so I won't have to repeat myself. Nor will I have to point out the fact again that the soil samples were taken days after the crash, not after the clean-up.

Do you think flight 93 Crashed?

If you do why would there be any need to tamper with the crash site?

If you don't what happened to flight 93 it's passengers and crew? Where are they now?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Do you think flight 93 Crashed?

If you do why would there be any need to tamper with the crash site?

If you don't what happened to flight 93 it's passengers and crew? Where are they now?

People really should just put him on ignore. Latter posts in that thread deal with their claims, plus none of it rises to the level of undoing any of the other evidence (again, the FDR, CVR, radar, airphone calls, wreckage, DNA, etc.). Conspiracy peddlers just want to pretend they've identified something significant.

Back in 2009, Hokulele pretty much summed up his, and other truther's modus operandi. It's a pretty accurate indictment of their habits, plus a good argument for not bothering to engage with them anymore:

OK, I am going to tiptoe up to the line of what may or may not be acceptable on JREF.

RedIbis, this is a perfect example of why many people here consider you to be a dishonest participant in this area of the forum. The dishonesty isn't in the fact of the questions you ask, but in how you appear to choose which questions you ask.

Almost every issue I have seen you raise has been one where you seem to be deliberately angling for the "right" answer. It makes it look as though you couldn't care less about the truth of what happened on and around September 11, but only in finding confirmation of your own conclusions ("See, they can't answer that one, or the only answer is the one I want!"). I see this all the freakin' time with the CTists who bring up the stupid No Airplane Parts with Serial Numbers topic.

The few times where you have bought up other points and have watched them be systematically demolished (such as Jones' red chips paper being dismantled by Sunstealer and ElMondoHummus), you have never acknowledged the counter-argument, just abandonded the thread without even a "Huh, I never knew that."

It is intellectually dishonest to cling to one minor point while dismissing the larger context. It is disheartening to feel as if one's rational examination of a topic is largely ignored. And that is why people like BenBurch, who have honestly tried to point you to the next logical step in finding out about the larger context, are so frustrated with your role in the discussion. Quite frankly, it is one of the major reasons I rarely join the threads in which you are participating.

*Peers over the edge and decides to stop here.*

2009. Nothing has changed.

Anyway, context is key. The entirety of the evidence demonstrates the presence of FL93. There's no reason to pretend the allegations have any significance against all that's known about the event. You'll probably be happier just snorting and ignoring him. Rebunking is a tired tactic.

 

[RedIbis]

Do you think flight 93 Crashed?

Could have been shot down.

If you do why would there be any need to tamper with the crash site?

Perhaps to hide the fact that it was shot down.

If you don't what happened to flight 93 it's passengers and crew? Where are they now?

I have no idea. Now take a shot at my questions.

 

[000063]

Could have been shot down.

By what?

Perhaps to hide the fact that it was shot down.

I'm noticing a whole lot of "maybe" here.

I have no idea. Now take a shot at my questions.

Says the person who can't explain or retract a claim they made over a year back which has been proven conclusively false.

 

[nomuse]

Bouncing engines:

According to Popular Mechanics, the engine was around 300 yards from the main crash site, and had travelled in the direction the plane was moving.

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."
ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html​

Maximum range of anything on a ballistic path is x = v²/g. For 300 yards or 273.8 meters, given g = 9.81 m/s², this means a lowerbound velocity limit of 51 m/s assuming optimum bounce back angle of 45 degrees. Given an impact speed of 250 m/s according to the official story, this means a plastically deforming metal engine on soft ground would have a coefficient of restitution at an absolute minimum of 51/250 ~= 0.2. For anything other than 45° optimum bounce back angle, you'll soon enough find your Flight 93 engine is behaving like an elastically deforming metal object impacting rubber in a perfect vacuum. Sure.

Any thoughts Hans?

What happened to the forward component at the time of impact? Are you postulating the aircraft had, despite the source you quote, no net direction of travel and was actually heading straight down?

Also, is it required for the engine part to arrive at the final location following one single ballistic arc? Can you think of other scenarios that might describe its movement, particularly on rugged terrain?

 

[nomuse]

Fact is you cannot prove or disprove God. That's a fact agnosticists believe. Similarly, I cannot find full proof in the official story nor proof in the conspiracy theories. The best version is still the officially sanctioned one and atheism respectively, I will give you that.


Great, do I win an award for your out of context quoting and interpretation?



Fine. Give me the coefficient of restitution of an elastically deforming (I'm being nice to you) steel ball on soft earth.

Now THERE's a physics student for you! The heck with empirical observation, I'm gonna substitute a simplified idealized equation instead!

Heck, you left out so many factors it would be surprising if your answer even came into the same ballpark.

 

[twinstead]

Anybody who calls the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 the "official story" has no business debating it

 

[dafydd]

Why does redIbis think that the pictures he found on the Internet are the only pictures that exist or that the pictures of the recovered artifacts on the internet show everything that was recovered.

There is a whole huge world that isn't on websites.

If it's not on youtube it doesn't exist as far as the truthers are concerned.

 

[dafydd]

I have no idea..

That's a leidmotief for you, isn't it?

 

[LSSBB]

Anybody who calls the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 the "official story" has no business debating it

Yeah, we had a whole thread or more on that one too.

Rebunking indeed.

 

[Redwood]

The fan, compressor and turbine sections all rotate perpendicular to the forward direction.

They sure do, and in an intact aircraft this exerts a torque that the aircraft must counteract. The effect is more pronounced in propeller-driven aircraft. Some twin-engined aircraft, such as the Cessna Skymaster or the Lockheed P-38, counteract it by having one propeller rotate in the opposite direction of the other.

An unsecured jet engine with its fan blades still turning will "want" to have the outer part rotate in the opposite direction. For the same effect on a dramatic scale, look what happens to a helicopter that loses its tail rotor.