Thanks for all those who contributed in Part One. You can follow it
here.
Before we start Part Two, let me do some quick housekeeping:
SUPER-IMPORTANT NON-LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM BASED ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OF
9/11. THESE SITES ARE CREATED FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR OPINIONS. IF THAT UPSETS YOU, THEN PERHAPS THIS IS NOT THE SITE FOR YOU. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD
FIND A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY, AND SLAP EACH ON THE BACK EVERY TIME ONE OF YOU TALKS. IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVING OPINIONS
DOESN’T UPSET YOU, AND YOU CAN REMEMBER YOUR MANNERS, I’D BE HAPPY FOR YOU TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD.
There… that feels better.
For Part Two, I’ll be discussing direction, most notably that which can be deduced from the alleged crater.
Here is a photo which a number of people in other threads and sites are using to compare with the alleged Shanksville crash, pointing out the lack of
large pieces of debris.
For the purpose of full disclosure, I’m led to believe this is the result of a fighter jet crashing, not a Boeing. However, as this photo was
originally brought into the 9/11 debate by an ‘Official Story’ supporter, I will assume it’s OK if I refer to it as well. Further, as waypastvne
posted a video of a crashing fighter jet in Part One of these threads, I’ll assume that it’s OK for me to do as well. Lastly, if you’re not
happy with me using this photo, you can go to
this online archive showing hundreds of photos of crashed
planes which will show exactly the same thing.
With regards to direction, this photo shows a number of inconsistencies with the Shanksville site. Firstly, the impact clearly shows DIRECTION. You
can tell from the spray of dirt/debris that something with momentum crashed here (generally moving from left to right). This is created by the force
of the plane crashing, causing ejecta and debris to spray in the direction of the momentum.
Secondly, you can also tell that the crater in the middle is ALIGNED WITH THE PERCEIVED DIRECTION the plane would have been traveling. In other words,
this (and all of the other plane crashes in the archive link above) shows a crater which is PARALLEL with the direction the plane was traveling in.
Yet at Shanksville, the OPPOSITE is true – the crater left if PERPENDICULAR to the direction of the plane (which is why people refer to them as
‘wing imprints’).
Many ‘OS’ supporters claim this is perfectly natural, as Flight 93 hit the ground in a ‘nosedive’. But did it? In the traditional sense, no.
As much as the ‘OS’ supporters like to claim that Flight 93 crashed in a nosedive, in reality it was only at 40º. The crater left behind
certainly suggests that a plane landed at an angle almost perpendicular to the ground, but it’s important to remember that the official record notes
the angle of impact at 40º to the ground.
Let’s see what that would look like:
The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally before impact:
“Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire -
NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM
(N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind
direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts.
Pitch angle - 40 deg down.
Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA -
20 deg negative”.
So what does that mean for the momentum carried by the plane?
According to simple physics, an object traveling at an angle has a combination of vertical movement and horizontal movement. Flight 93 moving at 40º
means that the plane had more SIDEWAYS (horizontal) momentum than it had VERTICAL momentum. We know this because the horizontal and vertical
components of a force moving at an incline are calculated as the COS and SIN ratios of the angle of the incline. The following diagram shows this
clearly:
In simple terms, an object traveling at 45º will have the same vertical momentum as it does horizontal momentum (for those fans of trigonometry who
want to prove this – the sin and cos ratios for 45º are the same).
As waypastvne correctly, and belatedly, pointed out in Part One, this is a GENERIC forces diagram. It is only being used here to demonstrate how
forces are comprised of horizontal AND vertical components in very precise ratios (the sin and cos ratios). There were other forces acting on Flight
93.
The most commonly raised by the ‘OS’ supporters is the notion of the ‘inverted lift’ (regular lift created by the wings, although inverted as
the plane is upside-down). Some would argue that this inverted lift would push Flight 93 further towards the ground, thus rendering the simple vector
diagram above moot.
Although Flight 93 would have experienced this ‘inverted lift’, it is important to remember HOW lift is created. The mere presence of wings does
not create lift, because lift is not a byproduct of wings. Lift is created by air moving above and beneath the wing surface at speed (and the
different distance the air has to travel going above or going beneath). And what causes this air movement? The thousands of pounds of thrust created
by the engines. So, yes, Flight 93 would have experienced ‘inverted lift’, but this is only due to the thousands of pounds of thrust moving the
plane in a forward direction, further adding to the horizontal momentum. In other words, the ‘inverted lift’ does not change the fact that the
plane had more horizontal momentum that vertical, as it is more than amply compensated by the thousands of pounds of forward thrust provided by the
engines.
Continued...
[edit on 19-10-2009 by Rewey]
I have always wondered about that shallow hole in the field up there.It simply does not look like a nosedive crash
to me.Don't get me started on the lack of debris and the other oddities surrounding this crash.
