• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Flight 93?

The video frame that GregoryUrich posted above gives a misleading impression of the impact crater due to long shadows from a setting sun late in the evening. What looks as imprints from the wings in the ground is not. I will write a longer post to night(GMT+1) explaining way when I have more time, to much going on at the moment, sorry. Any way Untied 93 crashed were it did, the evidence is overwhelming.
 
you are assuming that the crater was made solely at the moment of impact, and not by the passage of said material into the earth, and some striking the earth, and then going elsewhere. IF it were to pass through a paper wall I MIGHT expect the cookie cutter outline you envision, but not when an aluminum jet airliner smacks the ground going 500mph. I am not an expert, find a plane crash investigator, and when you have him on the record as saying that the plane should not have made such a crater, than I will look into your claim more seriously.

TAM:)
 
I can think of one thing to add that may help us think about the crater and its shape. if the plane was flying in a strait line into the ground, the crater (IMO) isn't right. but what if the plane, at the moment of impact was in the middle of an arc?

I'm not sure how to describe what I'm thinking but I'll give it a shot. if you think of the plane's path as a big circle. the plane will only be flying along part of the circle at the time it hit. I'm thinking that the smaller the radius of this circle would introduce some angular forces that may or may not explain the crater as it is shown in all the pictures. without seeing the path the plane actually took, this is just speculation.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Just being upside down shouldn't change the position of the wings relative to the fuselage. The 757 is low wing, which means they should not be on the same side as the tail imprint. The wings would need to go through the fuselage to accomplish this.

This is what the crater looked like (looks like a high-wing aircraft).

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleCrater1.jpg[/qimg]

This is something like what the crater should have looked like.

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/shanksvilleCrater2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I guess you've missed my posts. In space, you would be correct because the plane would have followed a straight path into the ground. However, you, and the rest of the "Truth Movement," forget about two very important aspects of flight: Gravity and Lift. Now, take the diagram of the airplane at the 40 degree angle. Now draw the arrow for gravity and lift. Maybe you'll see how that changes the flight path from a straight line along the 40 degree path to a different angle of say 45 degrees (plus or minus a couple of degrees). Then you'll see the difference.
 
Lapman,

I just followed your suggestion but I'm not sure it supports your argument. if the plane's (attitude?) as it moves through space is 45 degrees, following a 40 degree path. I would think that it would look more like Gregory's interpretation. I actually used a soda bottle pointed down and away from me. Do I have the plane tilting the right way as you see it?

edit,
I just reread your post, you're saying the planes attitude is 40 degrees but the path is 45 degrees. which way should the nose tilt in relation to the path?
 
Last edited:
tanelorn said:
Lapman,

I just followed your suggestion but I'm not sure it supports your argument. if the plane's (attitude?) as it moves through space is 45 degrees, following a 40 degree path. I would think that it would look more like Gregory's interpretation. I actually used a soda bottle pointed down and away from me. Do I have the plane tilting the right way as you see it?

edit,
I just reread your post, you're saying the planes attitude is 40 degrees but the path is 45 degrees. which way should the nose tilt in relation to the path?
Click to expand...
The nose will still be at 40 degrees. So the wings and tail are not going to hit in the same place as the nose.
 
lapman said:
I guess you've missed my posts. In space, you would be correct because the plane would have followed a straight path into the ground. However, you, and the rest of the "Truth Movement," forget about two very important aspects of flight: Gravity and Lift. Now, take the diagram of the airplane at the 40 degree angle. Now draw the arrow for gravity and lift. Maybe you'll see how that changes the flight path from a straight line along the 40 degree path to a different angle of say 45 degrees (plus or minus a couple of degrees). Then you'll see the difference.
Click to expand...

Gravity acts on all parts of the plane, intact or dissociated. If you assume I do not think about gravity, you have not read very many of my posts here.

I did think about lift. The problem is that the lift would need to drive the wings through the intact part of the fuselage which is built to handle that force.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Gravity acts on all parts of the plane, intact or dissociated. If you assume I do not think about gravity, you have not read very many of my posts here.

I did think about lift. The problem is that the lift would need to drive the wings through the intact part of the fuselage which is built to handle that force.
Click to expand...
Commercial aircraft are designed and tested for Positive g, not Negative g.
And no wing box is designed for THAT kind of force (as seen during a 150 degree roll, 40 degree attitude crash at 500kt+)
 
You are also forgetting that the fuselage, as it hits the ground, will transmit strong and hard-to-predict forces to the wings. How the wings get torqued around in the last tenths of seconds before they too hit the ground depends on how the fuselage performed, and that is hard to guess.

We're talking about the wings moving "up" or "down" only a couple of feet.

On top of that, you're assuming the crater accurately reflects all of the impact points. There could have been dirt raining back down. The impact could have pushed dirt around. Residual heat from impact could have mounded it oddly. There's just no precision to be had in such an argument.

I think you're trying way, way too hard to find an anomaly here. Apply that same level of incredulity to any alternate hypothesis -- anything! -- and what happens?
 
when a plane moves through the air is the plane's nose normally "up" a couple degrees from its path? if that is the case, it would be an attitude of 40 degrees (from the fdr?) and a path of 35-37 degrees? do I have that backwards?

I'll see if I can find your posts....
 
tanelorn said:
I can think of one thing to add that may help us think about the crater and its shape. if the plane was flying in a strait line into the ground, the crater (IMO) isn't right. but what if the plane, at the moment of impact was in the middle of an arc?

I'm not sure how to describe what I'm thinking but I'll give it a shot. if you think of the plane's path as a big circle. the plane will only be flying along part of the circle at the time it hit. I'm thinking that the smaller the radius of this circle would introduce some angular forces that may or may not explain the crater as it is shown in all the pictures. without seeing the path the plane actually took, this is just speculation.
Click to expand...

Unless the wings went through the fuselage there is no way they can end up on the top side of the airplane as appears in the crater. Any angular momentum would not contribute in this regard as the wings are at the center of mass.
 
rwguinn said:
Commercial aircraft are designed and tested for Positive g, not Negative g.
And no wing box is designed for THAT kind of force (as seen during a 150 degree roll, 40 degree attitude crash at 500kt+)
Click to expand...

Negative G's would bend the wings downward relative to the plane, upward relative to earth when inverted, resulting in an even more pronounced effect than I am assuming. I'm not sure, but the 757 could probably withstand a barrelroll. The 707 could.

In the WTC impacts, at similar speeds, there is no evidence the wings were dissociated from the fuselage before that part of the airplane impacted.
 
R.Mackey said:
You are also forgetting that the fuselage, as it hits the ground, will transmit strong and hard-to-predict forces to the wings. How the wings get torqued around in the last tenths of seconds before they too hit the ground depends on how the fuselage performed, and that is hard to guess.

We're talking about the wings moving "up" or "down" only a couple of feet.

On top of that, you're assuming the crater accurately reflects all of the impact points. There could have been dirt raining back down. The impact could have pushed dirt around. Residual heat from impact could have mounded it oddly. There's just no precision to be had in such an argument.

I think you're trying way, way too hard to find an anomaly here. Apply that same level of incredulity to any alternate hypothesis -- anything! -- and what happens?
Click to expand...

I am not trying to find anomalies. They just happen to exist.

The impact definitely would push dirt, but in the direction of motion. To me it looks like the plane hit almost perpendicular to the ground. Otherwise there would have been the type of plowing that is commonly seen.

Regarding you first point, there is no evidence from the well documented WTC crashes of wings getting torqued around. The imprints are nearly perfect.
 
pomeroo said:
If a person is "undecided," has "mixed feelings about," thinks "both sides make valid points" concerning the Holocaust or the Moon landings, can that person be considered rational?
Click to expand...

Everything in your world is black and white pomeroo.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Negative G's would bend the wings downward relative to the plane, upward relative to earth when inverted, resulting in an even more pronounced effect than I am assuming. I'm not sure, but the 757 could probably withstand a barrelroll. The 707 could.

In the WTC impacts, at similar speeds, there is no evidence the wings were dissociated from the fuselage before that part of the airplane impacted.
Click to expand...

Nice straw man, there.
There is a big, BIG difference between a barrel roll and an aileron roll. Look it up some time.
A properly ferforrmed barrel roll is a +1g manuever throughout. If it were not for the windows, a passsenger would never know a barrel roll had been performed.
An aileron roll--AKA an axial roll-- is an entirely different breed of cat. And commercial aircraft are not stressed for axial rolls at high speed.
At the WTC, the aircraft were very nearly upright and not in a dive when they struck.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I am not trying to find anomalies. They just happen to exist.
Click to expand...

That's simply not the case. You're assuming that you know perfectly well exactly what the impact should look like.

You don't.

GregoryUrich said:
The impact definitely would push dirt, but in the direction of motion. To me it looks like the plane hit almost perpendicular to the ground. Otherwise there would have been the type of plowing that is commonly seen.
Click to expand...

This proves my point nicely. The FDR proves that the plane didn't hit the ground perpendicularly. Thus, as you state, there was some "plowing." But how much? You don't know.

But since you don't see what you expect, you insist the plane hit almost perpendicularly. We know you are wrong about this. Therefore, your expectations are incorrect.

GregoryUrich said:
Regarding you first point, there is no evidence from the well documented WTC crashes of wings getting torqued around. The imprints are nearly perfect.
Click to expand...

Don't look "nearly perfect" to me. Or to you, for that matter, since you think they're in the wrong place.

With respect to the WTC impacts, the WTC 1 impact was within about six degrees of perpendicular, while the WTC 2 impact was within about fifteen degrees. Flight 93 hit the ground with a totally different geometry. Flight 11 and 175 hit a steel structure, Flight 93 hit fill dirt. No reason at all to think the impacts would be comparable.
 
rwguinn said:
Nice straw man, there.
There is a big, BIG difference between a barrel roll and an aileron roll. Look it up some time.
A properly ferforrmed barrel roll is a +1g manuever throughout. If it were not for the windows, a passsenger would never know a barrel roll had been performed.
An aileron roll--AKA an axial roll-- is an entirely different breed of cat. And commercial aircraft are not stressed for axial rolls at high speed.
At the WTC, the aircraft were very nearly upright and not in a dive when they struck.
Click to expand...

So the axial roll turns a low-wing aircraft into a high-wing aircraft.
 
R.Mackey said:
That's simply not the case. You're assuming that you know perfectly well exactly what the impact should look like.

You don't.

If I knew, there wouldn't be much point in discussing it. With someone who is sure they know that I am wrong.

This proves my point nicely. The FDR proves that the plane didn't hit the ground perpendicularly. Thus, as you state, there was some "plowing." But how much? You don't know.

It is very evident from the crater images that there was very little plowing.

But since you don't see what you expect, you insist the plane hit almost perpendicularly. We know you are wrong about this. Therefore, your expectations are incorrect.

I don't insist the plane hit perpendiculary. I am assuming the FDR was correct. The fact that there was so little plowing as evidenced by the crater raises questions.

Don't look "nearly perfect" to me. Or to you, for that matter, since you think they're in the wrong place.

Here I was talking about the WTC imprints and I have said nothing about anything being in the wrong place there.

With respect to the WTC impacts, the WTC 1 impact was within about six degrees of perpendicular, while the WTC 2 impact was within about fifteen degrees. Flight 93 hit the ground with a totally different geometry. Flight 11 and 175 hit a steel structure, Flight 93 hit fill dirt. No reason at all to think the impacts would be comparable.
Click to expand...

Both hit massive objects providing considerable resistance. No reason to assume they are not comparable.
 
Look, you can't have it both ways. Since you admit you don't know how the crater should look, you also must admit you're not in a position to say it looks suspicious.

Simple as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom