It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

page: 34
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
For those who use individual thought, this is the debris field from a high speed impact; Flight 93. It is amazing how stupid ideas are made up out of ignorance on the impact of Flight 93. Training in aircraft accident investigation would help people make correct conclusions instead of false ideas. ]


So what aircraft accident school did you go to?

And yes it could be the impact area of a plane that was shot down.


[edit on 12-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

mirage.....I don't think I can accept your analogy of the bottle breaking up. UNLESS the bottle in question is moving at about 580 MPH at impact.

Hmm - looks like you missed one of my posts then.

The bottle analogy involves 1 bottle and a frangible window.

Throw the intact bottle at the window - it goes through the window and breaks it.

Now break the bottle into lots of small pieces and throw all the pieces at the same time at the same window. They bounce off.

The reason is because the individual bits have much smaller energies, even though the whole equates to the mass of one bottle.

The equation you're trying to remember is KE = 1/2 m v^2.

@Beachnut: not all of us here are ignorant of either physics or aircraft disasters. You forget the laws of conservation of energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted".

What happens? The nose of the jet impacts the ground. It makes a noise (sound), the earth gives way (dissipation of energy), the nose collapses, the nose buckles (dissipation of yet more energy), the airframe and everything behind it slows down (loses energy).

This continues for the length of the entire jet, losing energy the whole time. By the time it gets to the tail, the tail has far less mass than the rest of the jet that crashed ahead of it, and not only that, it has far less energy before it hits anything, as everything ahead of it absorbed energy.

Given the fact the aircraft will also not remain intact, individual pieces will break off, and now, having reduced their mass, have much reduced kinetic energies.

So, taking the lower velocity of the tail, and its significantly reduced mass, we conclude it has nothing like the energy of the nose at impact with (something). It's why the FDR/CVR are located in the tail, and why the tail is the only large discernible piece of the aircraft at any given crash scene.

To get debris that looks like it went through a shredder (maybe they shredded the Flight 93 evidence first?
) you'd need more energy than a simple collision with the ground. You're talking about ripping sheets of metal into tiny pieces (and not just some sections - the whole thing).

Also forgotten is the impact angle. 40° nose-down according to the official report (that is what we're discussing here, right? The accuracy of the reports vs. the evidence?). The first bit of resistance the nose encounters is going to rip it off. This will then cause the fuselage to then swing tail-over-nose, as the rest of it digs in. Seeing as you are inferring you know something about aircraft and crashes, you will know that aircraft are like Formula 1 cars - strong in the directions they're stressed in/designed to move and take loads in, but very weak in any other direction. The fuselage will rip itself to bits.

Refer back to the energies involved after you start breaking the mass up.

Again, I see no APU, no tail. Where are they?

Whilst I commend you posting photos of alleged debris, I don't see these objects. No-one has mentioned them in any reports. They talk of the engines, but not APU. Why is that?

Please also refer to my photos of the Tu-154M crash - it crashed near supersonic speeds. Look at what is clearly visible.

(Edited to tidy up the English and clarify a point).

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I think the following is also important:

The OS has the aircraft lawn-darting, and burying itself completely underground. Show me ANY crash of ANYTHING of that scale, that has just disappeared straight into the ground without breaking up and being quite visible on the ground.

The engines were at quite high power at the point of the crash (according to the OS). I'd expect them to break out their mountings at impact. FYI they're designed to break off in the event of excessive vibration (they shake themselves off their mountings).

By chance, this just happened to be on the front page of LiveLeak:

www.liveleak.com...

Watch carefully how the trucks break to pieces. If it isn't held down, it flies on.

WARNING! Graphic images: www.liveleak.com...

This one shows the wreckage of the flight that crashed in Italy (?) after it depressurized. Note also the 747 with the nose broken off. This simply ran off the end of the runway.

To see just what the NTSB might not know, or realize about a crash they're allegedly investigating, see my thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I came across that info when looking for details for this thread.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


USAF, by USC. Need proof?

Just prior to impact of Flight 93 was intact. NOT SHOT DOWN; Why? Due to the fact all debris starts at the impact point of 93. Those who understand the FDR was not faked or made up like the truth movement ideas; can use the FDR to show 93 had all systems normal, a fact not true if shot down. One key is the hydraulic pressure and the engine parameters from the FDR. But for the truth movement, the FDR is ignored, they use hearsay, faulty investigation techniques, false information, and lies to justify unfounded conclusions about 93.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


May I suggest you study TWA Flight 800 then. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can't dispute the evidence (and this is the whole problem the debunkers have).

I see you didn't respond to my posts above.

You can't trust the FDR data as it CAN be fabricated. If you don't understand that it can, then you need to do some background research before trying to comment further.

Remember that the data everyone was looking at was at least 2nd generation - no-one actually had access to the FDR memory module itself as the FBI took jurisdiction of it and sent it to the manufacturer. After that it wasn't seen again.

Allied Signal (now Honeywell) will not actually release who saw the FDR and downloaded the data. There is an article kicking around here that shows they can't legally comment (might be in this thread). This is totally bizarre as (including for every other crash investigation), this information is completely useless. Obviously someone looked at it to get the data off it, but in the case of Flight 93, it's secret. WHY?

You can't go ignoring stuff like that. It seems on 9/11, just about everything we know about due process, etc.. went out the window.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


It is cool we rarely had FDR in the USAF, we used the evidence on the ground. Flight 93 crashed into PA, it was not shot down, this can seen by the impact and debris footprint. The rest of your post is off topic, 800, another accident, has nothing to do with 9/11, but does show your propensity to ignore facts, to ignore evidence and jump on hearsay and false information to form you conclusions.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

The rest of your post is off topic, 800, another accident, has nothing to do with 9/11, but does show your propensity to ignore facts, to ignore evidence and jump on hearsay and false information to form you conclusions.

Actually, it's very relevant to the discussion, if you read the post (and the linked thread) properly.

I suggest you read before making false accusations. Second, I suggest you look into the link I posted regarding TWA Flight 800, and specifically the part where it is to do entirely with the way the TWA crash was investigated. It has every relevance to Flight 93.

If nothing else, it demonstrates a trend of ignoring facts, and drawing false conclusions based, not least, on bad data.

If you really were in the USAF, and really did study crash investigation, I'm surprised you can't see this TBH.


If you can't see the relevance of the TWA investigation as it relates to the Flight 93 investigation, and the manner in which the conclusions don't fit the facts, and demonstrate unequivocally that key evidence was ignored during the investigation, then I'll try and clarify.

As I said before: debunkers have a problem tackling hard evidence.
Please don't resort to ad hom attacks - it's against ATS rules.

en.wikipedia.org...

An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.




USAF, by USC. Need proof?

If you're offering, I'm asking.


[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Very interesting theory....

Let's think about USAir in Pittsburgh. The engines were not at a 'really high power' setting there.

On downwind, while awaiting a vector to turns to final approach, the flaps were, as I recall, at 5. So, to maintain altitude and speed, the N1 was likely about 65 to 75% (depend on GW at the time)

UAL 585, years before, in Colorado Springs, also a B737....augured in, straight in, while at approach speed. Just after the turn to Final. So, flaps 30, Gear down and locked....and Ref speed of about 125, or so, plus wind additive. We ALWAYS add 5 knots to REF. REF is based on the weight for landing...UAL585 was a B737 with a very light load.

So, start with the REF, always add 5 knots. THEN take one-half of the steady-state reported wind, at the landing field, plus all of the reported gust.

See how we do stuff in our heads???

So...example....you calculate Landing REF as 125K. You set the bug on the A/S indicator to 130. THEN, you are told the wind is 15, gusting to 25.

Add one-half the steady, that's 7.5 (round-up) to 8. Divide by two, you get four. ADD the gust....which is 25 minus 15....that's ten. SO NOW, the new REF speed is 125 PLUS 14.....THIS is what professional airline pilots do, every day.

Hint....The usual maximum additive is 20 Knots.

A good pilot can feel what's going on, and use the extra speed as an advantage. But in any case, there is something called the 'TouchDown Zone'.....it's the first one thousand feet of the runway....

But, too much information, I did it again!!!

The debris fields seen at the USAir flight, in Pittsburgh, and the UAL flight, in COS, are very similar....even though NEITHER airplane was going nearly anything close to 580 MPH!!!!

AND they seem eerily similar, but not exactly, to UAL93. Because they WERN'T going as fast, at impact!



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The debris fields seen at the USAir flight, in Pittsburgh, and the UAL flight, in COS, are very similar....even though NEITHER airplane was going nearly anything close to 580 MPH!!!!

AND they seem eerily similar, but not exactly, to UAL93. Because they WERN'T going as fast, at impact!

So, you agree with my post?



Just a check: 15G25 means the steady is 15, so half = 8 (in round numbers). You then divided that by two which gives you a quarter.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


No, mirage....15 G 25....take half of the 'steady state' (that's the 15) then add all of the gust (that's the ten).

So again, class.....one half of 15 is...7.5....round up to 8. ADD the gust, that's ten, total of 18. VREF is 125, normally we always add five....but ignore THAT FIVE, add the 18.....up to a MAX ADD of 20.....That is how it works, in our heads.

Hope this clarifies things.....



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Not to split hairs or anything, but you said...


Add one-half the steady, that's 7.5 (round-up) to 8. Divide by two, you get four. ADD the gust....which is 25 minus 15....that's ten. SO NOW, the new REF speed is 125 PLUS 14.....THIS is what professional airline pilots do, every day.



I wasn't asking, I was pointing out.


[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage....LOCUTUS....your point?

One half the wind, plus all of the gust.

My example, steady at 15 (7.5) gusting at 25, that's the GUST....(25 MINUS 15 = 10)

See? One half the steady....7.5, round to 8. (make THAT one/half) Plus ALL of the gust, that's ten. UP TO A MAX of 20, added to VREF.....that is the standard in the airline biz.

My example...assuming VREF is 125. In calm winds, we add 5 knots. ALWAYS. NEVER more than 20 Knots.

Say, for example, it's a steady wind, as reported, of twenty knots (no gusts) how much do we add to VREF????

Now, new example....16 gusting to 35....how much to add??? Quick, use your mental math skills!!!


EDIT for answers....no peeking!

steady wind of twenty knots, as reported. If the original VREF was 125, we add, simply, 10 Knots.

second example....16 G 35....we add 8 (one half of 16) plus the gust....in this case, 19. BUT, 8 + 19 equals 27.....but we only add +20....so, we set the bugs on the Airspeed indicator at VREF + 20 Knots....and fly that speed, based on how we feel, on the approach. I good pilot can tell when he/shee is too fast or too slow, based on conditions.

Don't know how else to describe it....guess I need to take you up for a flying lesson, would work better.


[edit on 8/12/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
This has got out of control now!


Re-read my quote of your math. You took half the steady (so half of 15) which you said was 7.5 and rounded to 8. You then divided it by two! Half of a half, is a quarter!

I know how to work it out! I was pointing out an error in your math so you could correct it, so for those who don't know how it is calculated would see the correct working!


I guess your last post works.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Oh dear! Your are a difficult student!

One half of eight, is four. The gust....difference between 15 and 25....that's is the gust, that is ten.

SO, 4 plus ten is 14.

VREF is calculated this way....one half of the steady-state reported wind, plus ALL of the gust.

VREF is ALWAYS plus 5. BUT, that 5 is not taken into account, in windy conditions, as I've mentioned.

Look....I've had years to practice this, in my head. I understand it's difficult, if you haven't done it as long as I have.

Here's another mental example....6 Celcius equals WHAT in Fahrenheit?

Take 6, double it....that's 12....take away 10%.....that's 1.2....so, figure 11. THEN, add 32...now you have degrees F!

Here's one I like....28 degrees C is about 82 degrees F.

28 x 2 = 56. minus 10 %....equals 51.4....add 32....and you get 83.4

If you can't do this kind of math, in your head....then I feel for you. I really do.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Thanks for the perseverance - it's appreciated, but you just made the same mistake again:


One half of eight, is four. The gust....difference between 15 and 25....that's is the gust, that is ten.

SO, 4 plus ten is 14.

So half of 15 is 4?

See the error yet?

Just so we're on the same wavelength, and you know that I know these things, here are a few more:

TAS = 2% of IAS per 1,000 ft + IAS so if at 3,000 ft the TAS is 3x2% = 6% of 250 kts = 1.3 or so + 250 = 251.3 kts.

GS = TAS in NO WIND conditions!

To make a 6.5% gradient in the climb, assuming a climb speed of 210 kts, the minimum rate of climb to achieve is Gradient x IAS = 6.5% x 210 = 1.1 or 1100 ft/min

When on a 3° glide, take half the GS and times by ten. So if GS = 130 kts, 50% = 65 x 10 = 650 ft/min.

etc....

Really - I know this! I'm just correcting your single error in your original post about this, but you can't see it (yet, anyway).

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Oh my gosh, you know what you're talking about, but then you beat me up.......ONE HALF OF THE STEADY WIND, the ALL of the gust....the gust being ABOVE the steady wind part.

My math is accurate, please check yours.

Now...the three degree G/S....wonder if you know that from experience, or just from Flight Simulator?

Doesn't matter....I'm falling into the trap, of arguing with another member, when I should be discussing the topic.

Back to the OP....I pointed out the crash scene similarities with the USAir outside Pittsburgh, and the UAL 585 in Colorado Springs.

THAT is the topic of discussion, as relates to UAL 93. Period, end.

NOW, please discuss......



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage....PLEASE let me teach you to fly!!!! PLEASE!!!!

OK....focus on the topic, not the posters.....focus on the topic, not the posters...focus on the topic, not the posters.....my new MANTRA.....



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Back to the OP....I pointed out the crash scene similarities with the USAir outside Pittsburgh, and the UAL 585 in Colorado Springs.

THAT is the topic of discussion, as relates to UAL 93. Period, end.

NOW, please discuss......

I'm discussing!!


Any links to photos? Given these aircraft ARE flying so much slower than Flight 93 (allegedly), and it seems you're saying the pattern of debris at these sites is similar to that of Flight 93, are you suggesting that Flight 93 was in fact flying *SLOWER* than reported?

PS: I fly on the weekend with a friend. No ticket of my own (yet), but he's an instructor so it's great! I do fly FS, too. My entire family are pilots.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


OK, mirage. Glad you fly with an instructor....but, how many hours do you have? Is he instructing, or are you just flying with him??

Your first question....no, of course the USAir and UAL 585 airplanes were NOT at the speeds, on impact, that UAL93 was.

I was kinda making THAT point....if you care to look up the crash scenes of those tragic events, you'll see they are very, very similar...not exact, of course, but similar to UAL 93.

Some has t to do with the terrain, at impact. Some has to do with the impact speed, of course.

Airplanes have been flown into mountains, in previous accidents....not intentionally.

A B-25 hit the Empire State Building....in the 1940s...again, not intentionally.

Here's an idea, perhaps someone can look up another accident, in California. A disgruntled, fired employee of PSA got aboard a flight from LAX to SFO, it was a BAE-146. It could be classified as a murder-suicide, since he burst in, shot the pilots, and the airplane crashed, killing everyone, and thusly the perp....but no one on the ground, thankfully.

Anyone care to look up that wrechage site???

Again, may not be pertinent, based on speed at impact....but, every little piece of data may help!



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Just prior to impact of Flight 93 was intact. NOT SHOT DOWN; Why? Due to the fact all debris starts at the impact point of 93.


So what aircraft accident school did you go to?

Problem is we have government documents that state it was intercepted and the jets had shoot down orders.

Also there are 2 distinct debris fields which dos not go along with plane being intact. Do not forget about the engine core found quite a distance away from the crash site.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join