Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence flight 93 was shot down

mortimer said:
After that, you said:
Click to expand...

Yes they addmitted that their BEST hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. So their other hypotheses must have an even lower one.

Please try harder.

Preferably in a separate thread because Arkan is right that its unfair.l
 
beachnut said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

I looked at it and it seems the engines are turning and burning as they should. 500 mph towards the ground
Click to expand...
Loss of the tail section/vertical stab/rudder would tend to result in an extreme nose down attitude, and an acceleration toward the ground, engines running or no. The problem of "proving" a shoot down is in the massive destruction of the airframe near the crash site, and locating the parts of the vertical stab and rudders elsewhere, in parts.

Of course, most missiles head for wing root (radar guided) or engines (IR guided) so the tail is one of the less likely parts of the aircraft to be hit by a guided missile. If IR, one of the engines on FDR would be shown as off line. So, had to be a radar guided missile, if anything. Strike on wing root causes big plane to break up from wing root, which is from middle of plane, out toward extremities.

A few points to ponder. No CT has enough photographs of the tail (parts of which were found away from the crash site, right?) and the rest of the fuselage and can show, by ballistic trajectory, how they both arrived in separate spots based on a shoot down hit of the tail at position X, or of wing root at position Y.

In other words, no need to debunk, it is the argument of a moron. Had a missile been fired, the strike at the wing root creates both flight trouble (FDR evidence of systems failed) and a fire, and a shredding of the aircraft with WIDE Dispersion of bits a pieces over a wide area. (Think recent space shuttle crash for a rough analogue.)

DR
 
jessicarabbit said:
Yes they addmitted that their BEST hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. So their other hypotheses must have an even lower one.

Please try harder.

Preferably in a separate thread because Arkan is right that its unfair.l
Click to expand...

Like I said, go back and substantiate all your claims, and I will be happy to provide the evidence that you want me to give you on U93, since you seem to be unwilling to seek it yourself.
 
No it is you jessicarabbit - you have offered no OBJECTIVE evidence

I have no objective evidence, however maybe someone look at the FDR at NTSB and check to see if I missed something. I think it was not shot down. Here is the plot of the FDR

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

Yes it seems the engines are running, and the FDR is working, it stops when the power and connections are broken.
 
mortimer said:
Like I said, go back and substantiate all your claims, and I will be happy to provide the evidence that you want me to give you on U93, since you seem to be unwilling to seek it yourself.
Click to expand...

So you accept that the FEMA claim is now closed?

Start a thread if you must. Just me and you and I will happily back any claim you said I haven't.
 
jessicarabbit said:
So you accept that the FEMA claim is now closed?

Start a thread if you must. Just me and you and I will happily back any claim you said I haven't.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't accept that is closed. Simply repeating a claim is not evidence of the claim.

Go back to the Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD thread and substantiate the claims (such as this one) you made there. No need to start a new thread.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Loss of the tail section/vertical stab/rudder would tend to result in an extreme nose down attitude, and an acceleration toward the ground, engines running or no.
Click to expand...
No way. A plane traveling 500 mph is definitely going to lose speed if it suddenly loses engine power, even if it nose dives at 90 degrees. Air resistance is quite pronounced at such speeds, and it wouldn't be long before it decelerated to 200 mph or less. The only way to hit the ground at 500 mph after diving from altitude is to have the engines producing thrust.
 
rudder is still working, have to check, controls and movement of aircraft in the final seconds

Does anyone have the cvs file of data for 93 like 77?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Of course, most missiles head for wing root (radar guided) or engines (IR guided) so the tail is one of the less likely parts of the aircraft to be hit by a guided missile. If IR, one of the engines on FDR would be shown as off line. So, had to be a radar guided missile, if anything. Strike on wing root causes big plane to break up from wing root, which is from middle of plane, out toward extremities.
Click to expand...
IIRC, any fighter that were to have intercepted a hijacked flight on 9/11 would have had to make a positive identification. This means flying very close, close enough to make eye contact w/ the pilot. At this range the weapon of choice would have been the cannon, not missiles. Aimed at an engine, of course.
 
jessicarabbit said:
To be honest I don't think it matters. It isn't part of the conspiracy. If they shot it down they did a good job in my opinion. Doesn't prove anything either way.
Click to expand...

Jessica,

What it may prove is that they will concoct a massive cover up story and claim it over and over, make films and documentaries about it, create a false story and stick to it while using it for political gain and war support.

What it would prove is that they were willing to go to great lengths to hide one aspect of 9/11 begging the question what other lengths have they gone to to hide much more easily obscured facts.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Jessica,

What it may prove is that they will concoct a massive cover up story and claim it over and over, make films and documentaries about it, create a false story and stick to it while using it for political gain and war support.

What it would prove is that they were willing to go to great lengths to hide one aspect of 9/11 begging the question what other lengths have they gone to to hide much more easily obscured facts.

Russell
Click to expand...

We know what they are capable of anyway.

I hope you noticed the tactics of Mortimer in this thread. Its so transparent.
 
jessicarabbit said:
We know what they are capable of anyway.

I hope you noticed the tactics of Mortimer in this thread. Its so transparent.
Click to expand...

At least I made it clear what YOU needed to do in order for me to substantiate my claims for you. YOU simply make claims and completely ignore all calls for evidence.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Jessica,

What it may prove is that they will concoct a massive cover up story and claim it over and over, make films and documentaries about it, create a false story and stick to it while using it for political gain and war support.

What it would prove is that they were willing to go to great lengths to hide one aspect of 9/11 begging the question what other lengths have they gone to to hide much more easily obscured facts.

Russell
Click to expand...

Although interesting, and worthy of discussion, could we keep the political aspects (unless they are not something that is open to interpretation) over here?
 
From a post by Gumboot, after the FDR data were released.

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

Now, does anyone have verifiable, objective evidence of a shoot-down, as the OP asked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom