Am I becoming a crackpot?
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
1. Maybe they got lucky, if it can happen it will given enough tries and sometimes unlikely things happen 1st time... basically not a strong argument.MMike said:
2. So what if it missed? Given two planes had already hit the WTC what would be the problem with missing the Pentagon so long as someone 'tried' to hit it.
You.....(searching searching searching....ah!), numpty!fluff said:
What if they hit something they REALLY REALLY don't WANT to hit?
You're really not very good a this whole terror planning thing are you?
So two of the parts of the 9/11 story that don't make sense are the whole flight 93 (debris scattered over a large area) and WTC7 collapsing for no apparant reason.
So what if flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7? That would answer a lot of questions.
So what if flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7? That would answer a lot of questions.
Not unheard of if it was out of control prior to impact, parts could have been falling of the airplane as it exceeded Vne and thus made the debris feild larger. I worked an accident with an early 60's V-tail Bonaza that was about 2 miles long......and that's not a very big airplane compared to flight 93.Changleen said:
Or traveling at a pretty good speed when things started to fall off, the heavier things going the farthest and the lighter items that fell off prior to impact being on the opposite end of the debris feild.Changleen said:
Andyman_1970 said:
That's actually a very good point. If the failure of the plane wasn't a single event (crash), but series of events, the debris field would be larger. If the plane went into something like a transonic dive and exceeded it's design speed it could have been breaking apart long before impact. Since most crash investigations involve low speed planes, usually during take-off and landing, so the debris field would be a lot smaller anyway. Now you take an airplane traveling around 600+ knots in a shallow dive, already breaking apart, and you're talking about a lot of energy and a lot of momentum, which would make an even larger debris field.
Perhaps it collided with the cruise missile destined for the Empire State Building...
The crusing speed of a typical airliner is in the neighborhood of 400 knots (about 450-500 mph). 600 knots would be approaching the "never exceed" speed of the airframe.....that's about .93 mach well above the cruise speed of most airliners which is in the mid .8 mach area (remember the mach is a function of air temp and not air density) so at altitude where it's colder you get a higher mach number even though your KIAS (knots indicated air speed) is not different.Changleen said:
600 knots at altitude (30+ k feet) is a whole different ball game than 600 knots below 10k feet........that whole density of the air thing. Not to mention the CVR indicates there was a struggle in the cockpit and the controls were being moved to their limits.......at 600 KIAS abrupt control movements can quickly over g the airframe resulting in stuff falling off the airplane.
I understood that modern planes were susceptable to relatively low vertical wind shear velocities, but I've also seen airbus test footage with planes doing crazy stuff. Your 'do not exceed' seems a little low in terms of the failure point of the aircraft.
Well it WAS a 757-222......POS......Changleen said:
8 miles at 500mph = pretty much 1 minute.
I believe in 1 minute of freefall for a human is 18,000 ft.
So without allowing for the decelleration effect of air resistance, which would be especially prevelant on especially small pieces of debris such as were found at the farthest points away from the fusilage and the engine, the lowest the plane could have possibly finished coming apart at is 18,000ft. This assumes bit of cloth and small bits of aluminium which is what we're actually talking about being found furthest from the main crash site (which were all small components) travelled at 500mph for the entire time they were in the air. They clearly were not. If the plane just broke up under no internal expulsive force, the deceleration of small bit of plane would still be massive requiring an equally huge increase in the height it might have to fall from to obtain 8 miles of seperation from the engine and fusilage in impact. Cruise is at around 30,000ft.
It seems to be the most obvious (Occams razor) situation to explain the wreckage distribution is spontaneous destruction of part of the plane at cruising height and velocity, followed by a gravity powered dive of the major lumps into the ground. The fact that the engine and cockpit were found so close together also suggests that both left the break-up point at a highly precise time and with a similar velocity. This is consistent with a very fast breakup of the plane's structure. As you know the nacelle is designed to shear first on plane, and so a sudden acceleration force that is so strong to ensure both the weaker component and the body of the plane fail at the same time must be very a very fast acceleration indeed.
It seems to me most likely that the plane failed at cruising altitude and velocity due to some sort of explosive failure.
People speculate that this might have been onboard explosives or a missile directed at the plane.
Either seems more plausable to me than the passengers nose diving the plane into the ground, even with the 'possibility' that it might have broken up during a dive. Even if it did reach such speeds, the distrubution of the wreckage would be different - much more contained and with larger lumps in general. So much of the total mass of this crash is small ('sub-suitcase size' was the phrase I think) pieces distributed over a huge area.
I believe in 1 minute of freefall for a human is 18,000 ft.
So without allowing for the decelleration effect of air resistance, which would be especially prevelant on especially small pieces of debris such as were found at the farthest points away from the fusilage and the engine, the lowest the plane could have possibly finished coming apart at is 18,000ft. This assumes bit of cloth and small bits of aluminium which is what we're actually talking about being found furthest from the main crash site (which were all small components) travelled at 500mph for the entire time they were in the air. They clearly were not. If the plane just broke up under no internal expulsive force, the deceleration of small bit of plane would still be massive requiring an equally huge increase in the height it might have to fall from to obtain 8 miles of seperation from the engine and fusilage in impact. Cruise is at around 30,000ft.
It seems to be the most obvious (Occams razor) situation to explain the wreckage distribution is spontaneous destruction of part of the plane at cruising height and velocity, followed by a gravity powered dive of the major lumps into the ground. The fact that the engine and cockpit were found so close together also suggests that both left the break-up point at a highly precise time and with a similar velocity. This is consistent with a very fast breakup of the plane's structure. As you know the nacelle is designed to shear first on plane, and so a sudden acceleration force that is so strong to ensure both the weaker component and the body of the plane fail at the same time must be very a very fast acceleration indeed.
It seems to me most likely that the plane failed at cruising altitude and velocity due to some sort of explosive failure.
People speculate that this might have been onboard explosives or a missile directed at the plane.
Either seems more plausable to me than the passengers nose diving the plane into the ground, even with the 'possibility' that it might have broken up during a dive. Even if it did reach such speeds, the distrubution of the wreckage would be different - much more contained and with larger lumps in general. So much of the total mass of this crash is small ('sub-suitcase size' was the phrase I think) pieces distributed over a huge area.
What altitude and airspeed was the test you cite conducted at? What were the loads imparted on the airframe during those tests? There is some spectacular footage of a Boeing 707 on one of its earliest test flights doing a 1g barrel roll. While that looks spectacular (crazy stuff) thats a pretty benign maneuver when done at 1 g.Changleen said:
So the subjective crazy stuff may or may not be an appropriate comparison to a terminal dive as flight 93 experienced.
Are you assuming no forward motion to those pieces?Changleen said:
Again I refer back to the Bonaza crash I worked, it started breaking up under 6000 feet, the left ruddervator failed and fell off, then the right aileron, then the left wing failed and the aircraft spiraled into the ground. Even with a spiral, and a forward airspeed near 200 knots at 6000 feet the debris field was 2 miles long, and thats a Bonanza that weights less than 12,500 pounds and has less stuff to scatter than a 757.
So again, from all the accidents Ive analyzed and studied an 8 mile debris field is not unheard of. Have you examined the debis distribution diagram?
Ive seen a 6 cylinder reciprocating aircraft engine leave over a 100 yard gouge in the earth where it slide to a stop, and thats only going about 200 knots. That same engine was on the opposite end of a 2 mile long debris field from the first part that fell off the aircraft ..and that was from an altitude of only 6000 feet.Changleen said:
So I dont believe your assumptions to the situation to be accurate.
The first thing I was taught in those graduate level aircraft accident investigation classes is that the most obvious cause to an accident is rarely the case. The simplest explanation does not apply to aircraft accidents, analyze a sampling from say the last 15 years and youll see that.Changleen said:
Or it means they were both attached prior to impact. Unless youve got access to the debris distribution diagram and a copy of the data from the FDR youre highly precise is speculative.Changleen said:
Its also consistent with multiple other scenarios including a semi controled dive into the ground.Changleen said:
And you know this how? Do you have the structural substantiation report for that particular nacelle installation on that particular wing?Changleen said:
That C-5 Galaxy that landed short a few weeks ago I guess didnt listen to your nacelle design requirements .only one engine left its mounts the other 3 were still attached after that abrupt deceleration. Aircraft accidents are highly complex multilayered events that are rarely if ever explained by common sense or the simplest answer.Changleen said:
Without knowing the impact angle, the airspeed prior to impact and whether or know the aircraft was still in one piece prior to impact youre just speculating lets be honest.Changleen said:
What about the post crash fire and how that would affect what debris is left intact after said fire? Remember the aluminum can in the camp fire.Changleen said:
Of course the skin is basically nothing. But really, would the fuel burning (in essentially "puddle" form) be hot enough to consume wing spars, floor beams, landing gear....all the big stuff?Andyman_1970 said:
I'm really not trying to subtantiate the conspiracy here...I'm really just asking. I really didn't think a jet A fire would be THAT hot (relatively speaking).
I dont think the Jet A would be in puddle form after the impact, more like splashed, sprayed (what wasnt ignited) over an area. The melting point of aluminum is about 660 °C, most jet engines have turbine inlet temperatures (the gas leaving the combustion chamber and being directed onto the turbine section) of about 900+°C .so I think its entirely possible that a post crash fire could burn hot enough to consume a good portion of the fuselage and structure.MMike said:
Look at the Concorde crash, theres a good chunk of that fuselage that was consumed in the post crash fire but no ones running around screaming its a hoax, its a hoax. Look at the crash in the 80s at DFW the L-1011 that crashed on landing due to wind shear ..the only portion of that plane that was left was the last few rows of seats and the #2 engine, the bulk of the rest of the airframe was consumed in the post crash fire.
Again, when you compare the United 93 and the Pentagon crash to the airliners that have crashed over the last 20-30 years theres nothing really unique about either events from a purely aircraft accident point of view ..both instances are fairly typical.
I know I'm not a crackpot, but there are some valid questions about the crash sites.
1. The lack of debris and the untouched lawn are huge.
2. The pictures of the light poles were also in question. The fact they were broke off at the base without being bent or busted at the top seems a bit strange to me.
3. The security cam footage from any other angle might answer a lot of questions, so why not release it.
4. In the 5 frames they release, I can't for the life of me see a plane. Not even the tail section as the fire breaks out.
5. Was there any DNA evidence at either of the crash sites? You would think there would be body parts or blood or something.
If you combine all the angles from all the various locations, you would think there would be a clear shot of a plane hitting the building. Even the crappy security cam footage SHOULD show something, so why not release it?
Then there are the cell phone calls. How the hell did they get all those calls to go through? The son to his mom call is also strange to me. The flight attendant saying people have been stabbed in such a calm tone is also strange to me.
1. The lack of debris and the untouched lawn are huge.
2. The pictures of the light poles were also in question. The fact they were broke off at the base without being bent or busted at the top seems a bit strange to me.
3. The security cam footage from any other angle might answer a lot of questions, so why not release it.
4. In the 5 frames they release, I can't for the life of me see a plane. Not even the tail section as the fire breaks out.
5. Was there any DNA evidence at either of the crash sites? You would think there would be body parts or blood or something.
If you combine all the angles from all the various locations, you would think there would be a clear shot of a plane hitting the building. Even the crappy security cam footage SHOULD show something, so why not release it?
Then there are the cell phone calls. How the hell did they get all those calls to go through? The son to his mom call is also strange to me. The flight attendant saying people have been stabbed in such a calm tone is also strange to me.
Sure the fuel burns really hot at stoichiometric, and in crazy compressed air, in a nice blue flame. But just dropping a match in a bucket of fuel, without excess oxygen...(and all that Thermo stuff which I've long forgotten)....It would HAVE to be cooler than the exhaust gases of a the engine.Andyman_1970 said:
Yeah like 300°C cooler.........LOL
Does Jet A burn hotter than a campfire?
Does Jet A burn hotter than a campfire?
I would assume o, but it is just kerosene...... there's a lot of titanium and stainless steel too though.......Andyman_1970 said:
Ti melting point is 1668 °C. I still fail to see how that would vaporize in a kerosene fire.
I think I need you to help me out with proof that a plane will break apart under certain dive conditions, because I'm just not buying it.Andyman_1970 said:
No, that's my point, such tiny pieces as were found would have decelerated really quickly due to wind resistance.
Yeah, and that's fine. It's still not 8 miles with remaining large components in one area.
I'm not saying it's not - Yes I've seen various versions of the debris distribution diagram. They all show a long spread of lightweight debris with the remaining major components relativley closely grouped.
So you said. You still need to explain the huge fan of micro-debris. How is that consistant with a mid air break-up? I can see a part or parts of the plane falling off, and falling as relatively uniform lumps, but then to be shreded into tiny pieces in the air? How does that happen without some sort of other forces being involved? Do planes regularly 'turn to confetti' in the air? I think not.
So if they were attached prior to impact what happened to the rest of the plane which made up the material in the debris fan?
Again, please explain the mechanism that can shred aluminium that has broken away from the plane?
That is a normal design feature of any commercial jet. You know this.
And did anthing else break off?
According to the reports about the debris for the main crash site, the impact was nearly vertical, the speed at impact was 500 knots, and not all of the palne was present at the site. One engine was nearby and there was a fan of small debris much of which again 'fell like confetti' over an 8 mile fan behind it. All this stuff is out there. I am speculating as little as possible. Have a google for it yourself and see what you make of it.
I still think the cell calls are important. In 2001, you couldn't make a decent phone call from an airplane. How did they make so many that were that good of a connection?
Ok, now I have watched "911 In Plane Sight". Between the two presentations, I can say there are way too many unanswered questions about the "plane" that hit the pentagon.
There is no possible way that the heat from the crash would melt the plane and leave the cable spools and have no effect on the lawn. With all the cameras mounted on the roof and hallways of the pentagon, the only footage they have is 5 frames and none of them show a plane.
There is no possible way that the heat from the crash would melt the plane and leave the cable spools and have no effect on the lawn. With all the cameras mounted on the roof and hallways of the pentagon, the only footage they have is 5 frames and none of them show a plane.
jimmydean said:
Or the stool with the book on it, directly above the proposed impact area.
Are we really expected to buy that one??
Ooh good spotting!
Actually, this still sounds like the plane exceeded it's maximum design airspeed, possibly in a shallow dive. Then the passengers with no flight experience could have tried to pull up too violently and put the plane into an unrecoverable departure from flight. For that matter, you probably had multiple people in the cockpit fighting for control of the jetliner, most of whom had very little idea of what to do, or even what controls did what.
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I know airplane crashes are complex events and difficult to suss out even when you have experienced pilots at the controls, and all the information. This was an unusual situation, to say the least, and I doubt all the information will ever be known.
So does this little tidbit from 1908:
But there is nothing to suggest it wasn't a natural phenomena. In fact it was later (about 80 years) duplicated in a laboratory setting.
Maybe they were rubbish lampost mounts?
So your saying that if a lap post is clipped at the top at 540mph that is would snap at the bottom and the top would not be dented or broken at all?syadasti said:
If something clipped my lap post at 540mph I expect it would be shredded...jimmydean said:
Sheared off (like the tops of those bent and broken poles above), not shredded...fluff said:
Like a soft lead projectile, AKA a bullet, puts holes through hard steel plates at high speed or a tornado throwing straw/other soft objects fast enough to pierce through a wall/pole.
'lap post...'? Trying to bring a little levity, in vain it appears.syadasti said:
Still doesn't explain the lack of lawn damage, fire damage and the fact that out of 10+ cameras that had perfect view of the crash sight, 5 frames from a parking lot camera are all that has been released to the public.
I would love to see the inside hallway or the hotel view. The traffic control angle was a good one too.
The slow motion views on "9/11 in Plane View" showing the 2nd plane hitting the tower. It is tough to see, but it doesn't look like a commercial plane. That part creaps me out.
I would love to see the inside hallway or the hotel view. The traffic control angle was a good one too.
The slow motion views on "9/11 in Plane View" showing the 2nd plane hitting the tower. It is tough to see, but it doesn't look like a commercial plane. That part creaps me out.
watched that live.... looked like one to me?