Flt 93 crater was not unique

leftysergeant said:
What part of the humanities would that be? Most fields require a little better ability to interpret data.

I would really recommend technical college instead, something in the hospitality industry.
Click to expand...
note that or (doesn't say or something else harmless, says or something harmless) if I meant the humanities were harmless, I would have put the else in!!!:)
 
fuelair said:
note that or (doesn't say or something else harmless, says or something harmless) if I meant the humanities were harmless, I would have put the else in!!!:)
Click to expand...

On behalf of Humanistas everywhere (and you know who you are) ... I, well, nothing. Sorry, I'll just go away. Somewhere safe. Where I can do no damage.
 
TC329 said:
UA93FDR3small.jpg


it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.
Click to expand...
You just can't see very well, you lack knowledge in accident investigation. First of all you have no idea what the final angle really was. But the impact looks exactly like about 40 degrees in the wing impact then a steep pile to the south where most the mass ended up. You lost this one but next time you should take an accident investigation course at USC if you want to know what happen or have any credibility. You have zero expert status unless you can come up with something better than hearsay BS and junk science. When will you use some facts and knowledge. Hearsay opinion junk does not work. Shallow research is showing.

No, only idiots would say the FDR is not supported by witnesses, or the other way around. Fools! The FDR confirms what witnesses said. Are you unable to understand what they said because you are blinded by stupid belief in 9/11 truth. You need to read the witnesses statements first before you state the FDR junk. You have to correlate the FDR with the statements, which you never really did. If you did you would present the time vs. witnesses statement and show why the plane rolled over on it's back and the witness saying the plane rolled over on it's back does not make sense. They said it, oops, FDR confirms witness. You got it backwards. 9/11 truth false information guy gets it wrong again; FDR says roll over on back, witness says roll over on back~!

You are WRONG on this one! Next time read what the witnesses said and understand the FDR came from the crash site. Bingo, you guys are not very good at this.
 
Last edited:
Beachnut:
For my curiosity, How much different would the crater have looked if the plane was not inverted? I envision a much larger crater due to the fact that the lift on the wings would increase the speed of the plane in relation to the ground. Would this be correct?

Thanks in advance.
 
leftysergeant said:
Bad Science. You have the plane going in right-side up. It was upside down.
Click to expand...
Not quite upside down. It had a 150° right roll according to the FDR data posted by Gravy in another thread awhile back. 150° is 30° short of being fully inverted, but probably close enough for general discussion purposes.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Beachnut:
For my curiosity, How much different would the crater have looked if the plane was not inverted? I envision a much larger crater due to the fact that the lift on the wings would increase the speed of the plane in relation to the ground. Would this be correct?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I like the example below. The speed should be the same upside down or right side. I think the impact would be similar.

WilliamSeger said:
Uh, yes it does. Perhaps a visual aid will help (although it didn't seem to help Tweeter/Spooked911 any).

93-crater-anim.gif
Click to expand...
I have no idea why some thinks the plane would bounce. Some things are ejected, at random.

A plane would only bounce if you land, or hit a rate of descent the plane can handle or almost handle. That speed is like 700 feet per minute, not 700 feet per second. At 700 fpm, the plane can bounce some, at 700 fps the plane is destroyed and parts are ejected from the explosion like impact! Even 1400 fpm, parts of the plane may bounce along, but at 700 fps, the plane will make a hole and bury a lot of parts. Who makes up this junk about bouncing?

TC's diagram confirms the impact too. Funny debunking themselves as they post the debunking proof. Did he even look at the crater?

[stupid]note; since the 9/11 truth world said bounce and the plane is upside down, did it bounce down? stupid yes, but it fits the bounce; just tell them yes it should bounce but it was upside down, it bounced down. [/stupid]
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
I have no idea why some thinks the plane would bounce. Some things are ejected, at random.

A plane would only bounce if you land, or hit a rate of descent the plane can handle or almost handle. That speed is like 700 feet per minute, not 700 feet per second. At 700 fpm, the plane can bounce some, at 700 fps the plane is destroyed and parts are ejected from the explosion like impact! Even 1400 fpm, parts of the plane may bounce along, but at 700 fps, the plane will make a hole and bury a lot of parts. Who makes up this junk about bouncing?
Click to expand...


In this vein, Beech: My last comment about "bouncing" was flippant, but this one isn't. Who the heck thinks any airplane has enough structural strength to handle anything more than a very shallow impact at very low speeds with the ground?

My reference for the inability of a plane to keep its integrity in a crash is the following:





(Pardon the NSFW tag - the video's not adult or obscene in any manner. It's just that I wanted to use some sort of "hide" tag that could also explain the video; I fear it might be emotional for any servicemember who knew anyone involved in the crash.)

I don't know how fast the plane was going, and I admit that it hit at a sharp angle - nearly perfectly vertical, as far as I can tell - but the bomber in the video just simply starts to collapse into itself the very instant it touches. I know I'm operating completely from personal opinion here, but the point is that I simply cannot imagine a plane not breaking up unless it hit at an extremely - and I mean extremely - shallow angle, and at a very low speed. For all the experts on this forum: Is that a reasonable statement? And: Just how shallow and how slow would it have to be, approximately, for a midrange Boeing passenger jet (like a Boeing 757) to "bounce" (i.e. not disintegrate)? Yes, I know that's not a figure that anyone would research, let alone publish ("Okay Earl, let's take this one in at 5 degress and see if it bounces..."), I'm just seeing if anyone has a reasonably informed guess on the matter. "Reasonably informed" meaning having some knowledge, however superficial, of how much stress it takes to disrupt the structure of such a jet.
 
Fixed your NSFW tags (it doesn't like apostrophes for some reason):

 
This is PROOF of an inside job because it PROVES that flight 93 should have bounced and ended up in a tree. Just look at the picture. There's a blue arrow that points up. If the blue arrow points up, it PROVES the plane should have impacted at a 180 degree angle.

UA93FDR3small.jpg
 
ElMondoHummus said:
In this vein, Beech: My last comment about "bouncing" was flippant, but this one isn't. Who the heck thinks any airplane has enough structural strength to handle anything more than a very shallow impact at very low speeds with the ground?

My reference for the inability of a plane to keep its integrity in a crash is the following:

I don't know how fast the plane was going, and I admit that it hit at a sharp angle - nearly perfectly vertical, as far as I can tell - but the bomber in the video just simply starts to collapse into itself the very instant it touches. I know I'm operating completely from personal opinion here, but the point is that I simply cannot imagine a plane not breaking up unless it hit at an extremely - and I mean extremely - shallow angle, and at a very low speed. For all the experts on this forum: Is that a reasonable statement? And: Just how shallow and how slow would it have to be, approximately, for a midrange Boeing passenger jet (like a Boeing 757) to "bounce" (i.e. not disintegrate)? Yes, I know that's not a figure that anyone would research, let alone publish ("Okay Earl, let's take this one in at 5 degress and see if it bounces..."), I'm just seeing if anyone has a reasonably informed guess on the matter. "Reasonably informed" meaning having some knowledge, however superficial, of how much stress it takes to disrupt the structure of such a jet.
Click to expand...
To bounce you would still want your deck angle at a landing attitude, but if you increase your decent rate, you can get a good bounce, but it is because of two things, you can bounce due to the landing gear and your change of attitude/AOA making your nose come up and you fly back into the air, you can bounce a few times as you loose speed and finally flop on to the runway. Instead, on the first bounce go around safely, if you end up in a great landing attitude, land, but you can always try again, later. But the only things that kind of bounce in a big crash are things that are ejected like the wing tip in the B-52 accident. If you hit hard enough you do not bounce, the plane breaks up. If you just keep pointing at the ground at steeper angles you will crash. If you land in a high sink rate, you crash. Hard landings : Both are just above the landing limit for sink rates!





The B-52 accident also shows that Val's photo is normal for a crashed plane.
Yes, if you land hard your plane falls apart. I think a fully loaded KC-135 rate of descent for landing was
Jet crash videos.

B-52 crash, stall, about 150 mph to 200 mph



Extra credit back ground read the youtube write up for lots more info, or find an Air Force pilot to ask his ideas on the B-52 accident.

 
LashL said:
Am I reading this correctly as Tweeter=Spooked of bunny cage arsonist infamy?
Click to expand...

Apparently so, since "Tweeter" referred to our discussion of the crater on the DU board and linked to one of Spooky's many, many blogs. In addition to the infamous flaming bunny cage, Spooky's scientific investigations include jamming a wooden model of an airplane into a wooden model of a WTC tower and noting that the wings broke off -- an experiment which hasn't gotten as much acclaim as the flaming bunny cage but which certainly has just as much scientific significance. He is equally at home with theory; he recently posted a long critique demonstrating that Bazant doesn't know what he's talking about -- and Spooky didn't need even a single equation to show it.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Wow! I just read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_aircraft_crash_at_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base

I had no idea of the magnitude of the story behind that crash. I only remembered it from seeing it on TV once. That's one whopper of a narrative.

[/digression]
Click to expand...
There was also a KC-135 accident, slow speed, stall, same base, near the tower or base ops. But the KC-135 crew got into the wake of a B-52 doing a low speed maneuver, but still practice for an air show.
 
Last edited:
Shills! Airplanes come apart like model airplanes!
Instructed you well...........the Neocons have.


:drool:
 
I have been reading through this thread and noticed one thing that has not been brought up in the "flight recorder does not match witness testimony" argument. Flight recorders were designed to assist accident investigators in finding out why a plane crashed. They are designed to find malfunctions or errors or other anomolies during flight that the crew might not have time to report. They were not designed to document every single occurrance to the microsecond of every function of every sensor all the way to the ground. There is a time lag, since data is fed to the FDR in a serial format, that can result in the last sensor readings being unrecorded.
Flight 93 hit the ground at (at least) 500 Knots...that's 580 mph...that's 850 fps...that's in the range of the velocity of your average .45 caliber hollow-point round fired from a gun.
The data recorded at the last cycle does not necessarilly reflect the actual precise attitude of the airplane, nor does it reflect the final speed, as Flight 93 was descending, accelerating, and flipping over before impact.
 
Last edited:
OldTigerCub said:
I have been reading through this thread and noticed one thing that has not been brought up in the "flight recorder does not match witness testimony" argument. Flight recorders were designed to assist accident investigators in finding out why a plane crashed. They are designed to find malfunctions or errors or other anomolies during flight that the crew might not have time to report. They were not designed to document every single occurrance to the microsecond of every function of every sensor all the way to the ground. There is a time lag, since data is fed to the FDR in a serial format, that can result in the last sensor readings being unrecorded.
Flight 93 hit the ground at (at least) 500 Knots...that's 580 mph...that's 850 fps...that's in the range of the velocity of your average .45 caliber hollow-point round fired from a gun.
The data recorded at the last cycle does not necessarilly reflect the actual precise attitude of the airplane, nor does it reflect the final speed, as Flight 93 was descending, accelerating, and flipping over before impact.
Click to expand...
Outstanding point and there may be more of delay than 9/11 truth can understand!
 
TC329 said:
[qimg]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/UA93FDR3small.jpg[/qimg]

it makes perfect sense that a plane approaching at a 40 degree angle would leave an imprint resembling a 90 degree angle.

the 40 degree angle also explains why the excavation hole was dug straight down to match a 90 degree impact.

it doesn't matter that the fdr contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts too.
Click to expand...


Your 2 dimensional image fails to take into account the fact that the aircraft was in fact 3 dimensional. It was not only upside down, at a 40 degree angle, but also in a starboard bank and upward pitch (relative to the aircraft axis, a down pitch relative to the ground).

Your image depicts expected debris direction based on a single axis of momentum. In reality the aircraft had three axes of momentum.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom