United Flight 93, What actually happened ? [somewhat edited by JT]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"First a question of my own. The altitude given by the transponder would probably be on standard setting. In other words it would be height above mean sea level. What is the elevation of the crash site/airport that you talk about? In other words, what was the aircraft's true height above ground?"
You have to tell me nugpot: here is the runway map which I don't understand (that's the reason I am here fighting along, lol read post# 48):
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05992L24.PDF
(I guess apt elv means airport elevation: 2272)
"Now to your questions. An average glidepath angle would be 3 degrees. You can compute the rest of your answers from that.
An airliner configured for landing, should be doing in the region of 120-140 kts, which would be just more than 2 nautical miles per minute at a rate of descent of approximately 700-800 feet/min. So your 600 foot difference would be just under a minute and approximately 2 miles apart, but this supposes a fully configured aircraft flown at normal approach speeds. There are way to many assumptions here for my liking."
Great, I will use these figures.
You have to tell me nugpot: here is the runway map which I don't understand (that's the reason I am here fighting along, lol read post# 48):
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05992L24.PDF
(I guess apt elv means airport elevation: 2272)
"Now to your questions. An average glidepath angle would be 3 degrees. You can compute the rest of your answers from that.
An airliner configured for landing, should be doing in the region of 120-140 kts, which would be just more than 2 nautical miles per minute at a rate of descent of approximately 700-800 feet/min. So your 600 foot difference would be just under a minute and approximately 2 miles apart, but this supposes a fully configured aircraft flown at normal approach speeds. There are way to many assumptions here for my liking."
Great, I will use these figures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's forget the airport by now.
EVENTS SEQUENCE:
Assuming that we start from New Baltimore. Set the time at 0 for the first event. Assuming at time 0, the altitude is 7000ft the speed is 140knots = 160 mph.
Event 1 (New Baltimore debris): New Baltimore is 8 miles from crash site, it will take 180 seconds to travel at 160mph.
Event 2 (First transponder signal): Drop down from 7000 ft to 6400 ft at 800ft/m decending speed, will take 45 seconds.
Event 3 (2nd transponder signal): Drop down from 7000 ft to 5800 ft will take 90 seconds.
Event 4 (Indian Lake debris): Reach Indian Lake (2.3 miles from crash site) will travel 5.7 miles from New Baltimore, it takes 128 seconds.
Event 5 (Engine part fell): Somewhere around here, maybe around 10 seconds before crashing, the engine part fell off.
Event 6 (Crashing): Reach crash site will take the total 180 seconds.
Now we can line up our events on time line, the sequence matters, but the time stamps don't.
EVENT/LOCATION --------- TIME (sec)
NEW BALTIMORE DEBRIS----- 0
FIRST TRANSPONDER SIG---- 45
SECOND TRANSPONDER SIG-- 90
INDIAN LAKE DEBRIS--------- 128
ENGINE PART FELL----------- 170
CRASHING------------------- 180
The purpose of this calculation is not numerically important, but simply lines all the ducks in a row, to line up the sequence of the events.
EVENTS SEQUENCE:
Assuming that we start from New Baltimore. Set the time at 0 for the first event. Assuming at time 0, the altitude is 7000ft the speed is 140knots = 160 mph.
Event 1 (New Baltimore debris): New Baltimore is 8 miles from crash site, it will take 180 seconds to travel at 160mph.
Event 2 (First transponder signal): Drop down from 7000 ft to 6400 ft at 800ft/m decending speed, will take 45 seconds.
Event 3 (2nd transponder signal): Drop down from 7000 ft to 5800 ft will take 90 seconds.
Event 4 (Indian Lake debris): Reach Indian Lake (2.3 miles from crash site) will travel 5.7 miles from New Baltimore, it takes 128 seconds.
Event 5 (Engine part fell): Somewhere around here, maybe around 10 seconds before crashing, the engine part fell off.
Event 6 (Crashing): Reach crash site will take the total 180 seconds.
Now we can line up our events on time line, the sequence matters, but the time stamps don't.
EVENT/LOCATION --------- TIME (sec)
NEW BALTIMORE DEBRIS----- 0
FIRST TRANSPONDER SIG---- 45
SECOND TRANSPONDER SIG-- 90
INDIAN LAKE DEBRIS--------- 128
ENGINE PART FELL----------- 170
CRASHING------------------- 180
The purpose of this calculation is not numerically important, but simply lines all the ducks in a row, to line up the sequence of the events.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where Was The Other Engine?
WHERE WAS THE OTHER ENGINE?
The engine wasn't at the crash site.
The only two possible other choices for the engine debris were Indian Lake and New Baltimore. The engine was most likely lost at the same time of one of those two events, we can see it's foot print in the debris if this was the case.
Let's see the New Baltimore signature debris:
Half burned pilot manual
US postal mail (half burned canceled check, stock statement)
A lot of half burned webbing (the insulation on bottom of the plane)
They all have two characteristics: half burned and light weight. What can cause the material of bottom of the plane burned, while the plane wasn't? What could cause the light weight material half burned and fell out of the plane? Was it possible for the engine to explode, debris penatrated the US Postal mail bags, scratched the bottom of the plane and some debris penatrated into the cockpit?
If not, any other possible reasons?
We don't care how the engine exploded, if the engine got lost either at the Indian Lake event or New Baltimore event, the most likely it was New Baltimore. All light debris had burning marks.
Ok, let assume that the first engine was exploded above New Baltimore (maybe due to the rought handling of the plane, rock it up and down. The violent movements cause the engine to explode). The engine debris would traveling several miles forward, light debris showered down. (There should be another debris field with engine debris, several miles south east of New Baltimore, if this assumption is correct.
We mark this event on our time line:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.
Time 45 First transponder signal
Time 90 Second transponder signal
Time 128 Indian Lake
Time 170 Lost last engine
Time 180 Crash
The engine wasn't at the crash site.
The only two possible other choices for the engine debris were Indian Lake and New Baltimore. The engine was most likely lost at the same time of one of those two events, we can see it's foot print in the debris if this was the case.
Let's see the New Baltimore signature debris:
Half burned pilot manual
US postal mail (half burned canceled check, stock statement)
A lot of half burned webbing (the insulation on bottom of the plane)
They all have two characteristics: half burned and light weight. What can cause the material of bottom of the plane burned, while the plane wasn't? What could cause the light weight material half burned and fell out of the plane? Was it possible for the engine to explode, debris penatrated the US Postal mail bags, scratched the bottom of the plane and some debris penatrated into the cockpit?
If not, any other possible reasons?
We don't care how the engine exploded, if the engine got lost either at the Indian Lake event or New Baltimore event, the most likely it was New Baltimore. All light debris had burning marks.
Ok, let assume that the first engine was exploded above New Baltimore (maybe due to the rought handling of the plane, rock it up and down. The violent movements cause the engine to explode). The engine debris would traveling several miles forward, light debris showered down. (There should be another debris field with engine debris, several miles south east of New Baltimore, if this assumption is correct.
We mark this event on our time line:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.
Time 45 First transponder signal
Time 90 Second transponder signal
Time 128 Indian Lake
Time 170 Lost last engine
Time 180 Crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INDIAN LAKE DEBRIS
It might be another wild move or some kind of impact happened over here, causing the debris to fall down. But we don't care now. Just assume that something happened, the debris fell.
Let's do this:
----------------------------------------Related to total time:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.----0%
Time 45 First transponder signal -------- 25%
Time 90 Second transponder signal-------50%
Time 128 Indian Lake--------------------71%
Time 170 Lost last engine----------------94%
Time 180 Crash -------------------------100%
It might be another wild move or some kind of impact happened over here, causing the debris to fall down. But we don't care now. Just assume that something happened, the debris fell.
Let's do this:
----------------------------------------Related to total time:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.----0%
Time 45 First transponder signal -------- 25%
Time 90 Second transponder signal-------50%
Time 128 Indian Lake--------------------71%
Time 170 Lost last engine----------------94%
Time 180 Crash -------------------------100%
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the airport elevation of 2272 feet and the surrounding terrain very level (MSA 4700 feet), the aircraft was 6400-2272=4138 and 4800-2272=2538 feet above ground (depending on local pressure).
As to the rest of your timeline/hypothesis: I'm not informed enough to venture an opinion. You talk about exploding engines though. I saw no evidence in any post about engines that exploded. An engine torn off from sideslip would not explode. It would just come off the wing and fall to the ground, probably on a very unpredictable trajectory, because it would be under thrust when it came off and you have no idea what the aircraft attitude and accelerations were at that moment. I used to drop bombs in my earlier life, and I can assure you that the slightest acceleration in pitch, yaw or roll would cause a bomb to be miles off target.
You must understand that the only interest professional aviators have in accidents is the cause (terrorist action) and how to avoid a reccurance (lots of recommendations and rules already implemented from 9/11). For us this accident is over and solved.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
nugpot
As to the rest of your timeline/hypothesis: I'm not informed enough to venture an opinion. You talk about exploding engines though. I saw no evidence in any post about engines that exploded. An engine torn off from sideslip would not explode. It would just come off the wing and fall to the ground, probably on a very unpredictable trajectory, because it would be under thrust when it came off and you have no idea what the aircraft attitude and accelerations were at that moment. I used to drop bombs in my earlier life, and I can assure you that the slightest acceleration in pitch, yaw or roll would cause a bomb to be miles off target.
You must understand that the only interest professional aviators have in accidents is the cause (terrorist action) and how to avoid a reccurance (lots of recommendations and rules already implemented from 9/11). For us this accident is over and solved.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
nugpot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we OK with the event sequence so far?
Let's look at the Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0...t93/index.html
and keep in mind that we are looking for our events sequence.
Please look at page 7: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0...riptf93.7.html
10:01:10 Unintelligible
10:01:11 Saeed (from the context, this seemed like the pilot hijacker's name)
10:01:12 ... ENGINE...
Was it possible the engine was lost here?
Let's say it was. Official crash time was 10:03:11. From 10:01:10, we assume that the First Event -- Engine exploded was here, to 10:03:11 crash, the total time span was 119 seconds. You may want to check to see if I get this right.
Ok, let's take 119 seconds as our total time for all the events. Based on our calculation of percentage as total time:
Let's do this:
----------------------------------------Related to total time:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.----0%
Time 30 First transponder signal -------- 25%
Time 60 Second transponder signal-------50%
Time 85 Indian Lake-------------------- 71%
Time 112 Lost last engine----------------94%
Time 119 Crash -------------------------100%
This calculation is crued, but it is sequencially ball-parkly right.
Let's find these time spots (roughly) on the Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recording Transcript:
Time---- Voice ----------Reverse Time(Sec) -- From First Event
10:00:06 There is nothing --------182--------------
10:00:07 Is that it? Shall we
finish it off? ---------------------181
10:00:08 No. Not yet. -----------180
10:00:09 When they all come,
we finish it off. ------------------179
10:00:11 There is nothing --------177
10:00:13 Unintelligible ------------175
10:00:14 Ahh. -------------------174
10:00:15 I'm injured. -------------173
10:00:16 Unintelligible. -----------172
10:00:21 Ahh.------------------- 167
10:00:22 Oh Allah. Oh Allah.
Oh Gracious. ---------------------166
10:00:25 In the cockpit.
If we don't, we'll die. -------------163
10:00:29 Up, down. Up,
down, in the cockpit. -------------159
10:00:33 The cockpit 155
10:00:37 up,down. Saeed,
up, down. ------------------------151
10:00:42 Roll it. ------------------146
10:00:55 Unintelligible. ------------133
10:00:59 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Gratest. ---------------129
10:01:01 Unintelligible. ------------128
10:01:08 Is that it? I mean,
shall we pull it down? --------------121
10:01:09 Yes, put it in it,
and pull it down. ------------------120
10:01:10 Unintelligible. ------------119---------0 FIRST EVENT: ENGINE LOST
10:01:11 Saeed. ------------------118---------1 might be the name of hijacker pilot.
10:01:12 …engine… ---------------117-------- 2
10:01:13 Unintelligible. ------------116 -------- 3
10:01:16 Cut off the oxygen. ------113 -------- 6 POSSIBLE COCKPIT FIRE
10:01:18 Cut off the oxygen.
Cut off the oxygen.
Cut off the oxygen. ---------------111 ---------8
10:01:34 Unintelligible -------------95 --------24 who was the co-pilot?
10:01:37 Unintelligible -------------92 -------- 27
10:01:37 Up, down. Up, down. -----92 -------- 27 FIRE EXTINGUISHER WAS HEARD IN THE RECORDING
10:01:41 What? -------------------88 -------- 31 SECOND EVENT: FIRST SIGNAL
10:01:42 Up, down. ---------------87 ---------32
10:01:42 Ahh. ---------------------87---------32
10:01:53 Ahh. ---------------------78 ------- 41
10:01:54 Unintelligible. -------------77 ------- 42
10:01:55 Ahh. ---------------------76 --------43
10:01:59 Shut them off. -----------72 -------- 47
10:02:03 Shut them off. -----------68 -------- 51
10:02:14 Go. ----------------------57 -------- 62 THIRD EVENT: 2ND SIGNAL
10:02:14 Go. ----------------------57 -------- 62
10:02:15 Move. -------------------56 --------- 63
10:02:16 Move. -------------------55 --------- 64
10:02:17 Turn it up. ---------------54 --------- 65
10:02:18 Down, down. ------------53 --------- 66
10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down.- 48 ---------71
10:02:25 Down. Push,
push, push, push. ------------------46---------73
10:02:33 Hey. Hey.
Give it to me. Give it to me. ---------38-------- 81
10:02:35 Give it to me.
Give it to me, Give it to me. ---------36---------83
10:02:40 Unintelligible. --------------31---------88 FORTH EVENT: INDIAN LAKE
10:02:45 --------------------------26---------93
10:02:50 --------------------------21---------98
10:03:00 ---------------------------11-------108
10:03:02 Allah is the Greatest. -------9--------110
10:03:03 Allah is the Greatest. -------8--------111
10:03:04 Allah is the Greatest. -------7--------112 FIFTH EVENT: LOST LAST ENGINE
10:03:06 Allah is the Greatest. -------5--------114
10:03:06 Allah is the Greatest. -------5--------114
10:03:07 No. -------------------------4--------115
10:03:09 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Greatest. -----------------2---------117
10:03:09 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Greatest. -----------------2---------117
10:03:11 crash -----------------------0---------119
Once we put our event sequence on the time line (remember that our time calculation may have a big margin of error, and the last event, I hand put in there for 10 seconds when we did the calculation based on nugpot's speed of 140knots).
Look at the event sequence and vincinity of our marked events on the time line of Voice Recorder Transcript, keep in mind of the following:
1. The plane lost one engine above New Baltimore while flying from Cleveland to Wahsington DC.
2. It made a U-turn above New Baltimore (assuming somewhere after New Baltimore)
3. It might be a cockpit fire (from burned pilot mannual, if an engine debris went into the cockpit, it was likely to cause fire)
4. The plane passed Indian Lake, endured some EVENT which caused a wide spread debris.
5. The last few seconds, the plane lost the last engine, stalled and dived into crash site.
Based on these event sequence, as a professional pilot, what could you tell from the script, especially regarding the airplane control and the two transponder signals?
Let's look at the Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0...t93/index.html
and keep in mind that we are looking for our events sequence.
Please look at page 7: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/law/0...riptf93.7.html
10:01:10 Unintelligible
10:01:11 Saeed (from the context, this seemed like the pilot hijacker's name)
10:01:12 ... ENGINE...
Was it possible the engine was lost here?
Let's say it was. Official crash time was 10:03:11. From 10:01:10, we assume that the First Event -- Engine exploded was here, to 10:03:11 crash, the total time span was 119 seconds. You may want to check to see if I get this right.
Ok, let's take 119 seconds as our total time for all the events. Based on our calculation of percentage as total time:
Let's do this:
----------------------------------------Related to total time:
Time 0 New Baltimore, one engine lost.----0%
Time 30 First transponder signal -------- 25%
Time 60 Second transponder signal-------50%
Time 85 Indian Lake-------------------- 71%
Time 112 Lost last engine----------------94%
Time 119 Crash -------------------------100%
This calculation is crued, but it is sequencially ball-parkly right.
Let's find these time spots (roughly) on the Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recording Transcript:
Time---- Voice ----------Reverse Time(Sec) -- From First Event
10:00:06 There is nothing --------182--------------
10:00:07 Is that it? Shall we
finish it off? ---------------------181
10:00:08 No. Not yet. -----------180
10:00:09 When they all come,
we finish it off. ------------------179
10:00:11 There is nothing --------177
10:00:13 Unintelligible ------------175
10:00:14 Ahh. -------------------174
10:00:15 I'm injured. -------------173
10:00:16 Unintelligible. -----------172
10:00:21 Ahh.------------------- 167
10:00:22 Oh Allah. Oh Allah.
Oh Gracious. ---------------------166
10:00:25 In the cockpit.
If we don't, we'll die. -------------163
10:00:29 Up, down. Up,
down, in the cockpit. -------------159
10:00:33 The cockpit 155
10:00:37 up,down. Saeed,
up, down. ------------------------151
10:00:42 Roll it. ------------------146
10:00:55 Unintelligible. ------------133
10:00:59 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Gratest. ---------------129
10:01:01 Unintelligible. ------------128
10:01:08 Is that it? I mean,
shall we pull it down? --------------121
10:01:09 Yes, put it in it,
and pull it down. ------------------120
10:01:10 Unintelligible. ------------119---------0 FIRST EVENT: ENGINE LOST
10:01:11 Saeed. ------------------118---------1 might be the name of hijacker pilot.
10:01:12 …engine… ---------------117-------- 2
10:01:13 Unintelligible. ------------116 -------- 3
10:01:16 Cut off the oxygen. ------113 -------- 6 POSSIBLE COCKPIT FIRE
10:01:18 Cut off the oxygen.
Cut off the oxygen.
Cut off the oxygen. ---------------111 ---------8
10:01:34 Unintelligible -------------95 --------24 who was the co-pilot?
10:01:37 Unintelligible -------------92 -------- 27
10:01:37 Up, down. Up, down. -----92 -------- 27 FIRE EXTINGUISHER WAS HEARD IN THE RECORDING
10:01:41 What? -------------------88 -------- 31 SECOND EVENT: FIRST SIGNAL
10:01:42 Up, down. ---------------87 ---------32
10:01:42 Ahh. ---------------------87---------32
10:01:53 Ahh. ---------------------78 ------- 41
10:01:54 Unintelligible. -------------77 ------- 42
10:01:55 Ahh. ---------------------76 --------43
10:01:59 Shut them off. -----------72 -------- 47
10:02:03 Shut them off. -----------68 -------- 51
10:02:14 Go. ----------------------57 -------- 62 THIRD EVENT: 2ND SIGNAL
10:02:14 Go. ----------------------57 -------- 62
10:02:15 Move. -------------------56 --------- 63
10:02:16 Move. -------------------55 --------- 64
10:02:17 Turn it up. ---------------54 --------- 65
10:02:18 Down, down. ------------53 --------- 66
10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down.- 48 ---------71
10:02:25 Down. Push,
push, push, push. ------------------46---------73
10:02:33 Hey. Hey.
Give it to me. Give it to me. ---------38-------- 81
10:02:35 Give it to me.
Give it to me, Give it to me. ---------36---------83
10:02:40 Unintelligible. --------------31---------88 FORTH EVENT: INDIAN LAKE
10:02:45 --------------------------26---------93
10:02:50 --------------------------21---------98
10:03:00 ---------------------------11-------108
10:03:02 Allah is the Greatest. -------9--------110
10:03:03 Allah is the Greatest. -------8--------111
10:03:04 Allah is the Greatest. -------7--------112 FIFTH EVENT: LOST LAST ENGINE
10:03:06 Allah is the Greatest. -------5--------114
10:03:06 Allah is the Greatest. -------5--------114
10:03:07 No. -------------------------4--------115
10:03:09 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Greatest. -----------------2---------117
10:03:09 Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Greatest. -----------------2---------117
10:03:11 crash -----------------------0---------119
Once we put our event sequence on the time line (remember that our time calculation may have a big margin of error, and the last event, I hand put in there for 10 seconds when we did the calculation based on nugpot's speed of 140knots).
Look at the event sequence and vincinity of our marked events on the time line of Voice Recorder Transcript, keep in mind of the following:
1. The plane lost one engine above New Baltimore while flying from Cleveland to Wahsington DC.
2. It made a U-turn above New Baltimore (assuming somewhere after New Baltimore)
3. It might be a cockpit fire (from burned pilot mannual, if an engine debris went into the cockpit, it was likely to cause fire)
4. The plane passed Indian Lake, endured some EVENT which caused a wide spread debris.
5. The last few seconds, the plane lost the last engine, stalled and dived into crash site.
Based on these event sequence, as a professional pilot, what could you tell from the script, especially regarding the airplane control and the two transponder signals?
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 11th Aug 2006 at 08:19.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be one way traffic here - SUPERMMM asks questions, gets an honest answer as far as the responders can. The answer then appears to be ignored when it is contrary to supermmm's fixation that this can all be worked out by simple physics and a few broad assumptions.
He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT.
It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice?
We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored.
I think that this is a wind up
He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT.
It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice?
We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored.
I think that this is a wind up
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There seems to be one way traffic here - SUPERMMM asks questions, gets an honest answer as far as the responders can. The answer then appears to be ignored when it is contrary to supermmm's fixation that this can all be worked out by simple physics and a few broad assumptions."
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 11th Aug 2006 at 08:16.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
If you drop from an aircraft two items of equal size, one heavy and another light, which of them will stray further from its predictable route?
The lighter one! In vacuum, both would be in free fall and travel on identical trajectory. In air, the air resistance at a given speed will affect the trajectory of the heavy item only slightly, while lighter debris travel very far from free-fall trajectory.
Now, if an item breaks in pieces in air, and 3 pieces fall to ground in separate places, they might come from two break up events. Alternatively, they might come from a single breakup event and wind up in three places because they have different mass and air resistance.
So, there were 4 discrete debris fields.
Which parts of the airplane went into each of the 4 fields?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be one way traffic here - SUPERMMM asks questions, gets an honest answer as far as the responders can. The answer then appears to be ignored when it is contrary to supermmm's fixation that this can all be worked out by simple physics and a few broad assumptions."
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
1. That the basic assumption of using an estimated height, speed and direction cannot be used without knowing the instantaneous attitude of the aircraft to calculate the track from a falling object - the error in the result will make the methodology invalid.
2. That you need HARD DATA of the initial conditions to do these calculations with any confidence, not guesses or estimates, and you DO NOT have it.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
3. Yes I have a serious issue with the analysis it is based on flawed assumptions - see 1. and 2. above
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
4. You are the physics and trajectory expert - you tell me how far a piece of paper can travel and in which direction when dropped from an aircraft at 5000 - 7000 feet (1 mile or more in height) with unkown winds (wind is not the same direction or speed throughout the atmosphere). Also how long was the piece of paper on the ground? how far was it moved by wind after landing?
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
5. It is not smoke it will be a demonstration that your methodology has some validity by proving it's applicability with known conditions. It is not for me to DISPROVE that your methodology and analysis is valid, it is for you to prove that it is, when others have already disproved it (see answers 1 and 2 above). This is your opportunity to show that this not a complete waste of time by demonstrating the applicability of your methodology.
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
1. That the basic assumption of using an estimated height, speed and direction cannot be used without knowing the instantaneous attitude of the aircraft to calculate the track from a falling object - the error in the result will make the methodology invalid.
2. That you need HARD DATA of the initial conditions to do these calculations with any confidence, not guesses or estimates, and you DO NOT have it.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
3. Yes I have a serious issue with the analysis it is based on flawed assumptions - see 1. and 2. above
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
4. You are the physics and trajectory expert - you tell me how far a piece of paper can travel and in which direction when dropped from an aircraft at 5000 - 7000 feet (1 mile or more in height) with unkown winds (wind is not the same direction or speed throughout the atmosphere). Also how long was the piece of paper on the ground? how far was it moved by wind after landing?
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
5. It is not smoke it will be a demonstration that your methodology has some validity by proving it's applicability with known conditions. It is not for me to DISPROVE that your methodology and analysis is valid, it is for you to prove that it is, when others have already disproved it (see answers 1 and 2 above). This is your opportunity to show that this not a complete waste of time by demonstrating the applicability of your methodology.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supermnnn
I opened this thread after the title caught my eye, expecting a level headed approach to this awful subject however...
Instead of any such approach, I found a man hell bent on proving that United93 was shot down with no real evidence to prove it.
In my humble opinion, I believe that the engine came off during a struggle in the cockpit, during which the terrorist flying the a/c became increasingly desperate and started to carry out high energy manouevres, pushing the 757 well outside of it's comfort zone. The engine was wrenched off and fell to earth.
We all know what happened next...
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
I opened this thread after the title caught my eye, expecting a level headed approach to this awful subject however...
Instead of any such approach, I found a man hell bent on proving that United93 was shot down with no real evidence to prove it.
In my humble opinion, I believe that the engine came off during a struggle in the cockpit, during which the terrorist flying the a/c became increasingly desperate and started to carry out high energy manouevres, pushing the 757 well outside of it's comfort zone. The engine was wrenched off and fell to earth.
We all know what happened next...
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tombstone
Instead of any such approach, I found a man hell bent on proving that United93 was shot down with no real evidence to prove it.
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
That's it for me on this thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Choxolate
There seems to be one way traffic here - SUPERMMM asks questions, gets an honest answer as far as the responders can. The answer then appears to be ignored when it is contrary to supermmm's fixation that this can all be worked out by simple physics and a few broad assumptions."
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
1. That the basic assumption of using an estimated height, speed and direction cannot be used without knowing the instantaneous attitude of the aircraft to calculate the track from a falling object - the error in the result will make the methodology invalid.
Sir, I didn't do any any trajectory yet. In New Baltimore, a lot of half burned webbings, a pilot manual, an inflight magazine was found. Please give me a reason why they were not fell from a signle, physical event on the flight path?
Again, we are not calculating in a very high precision. The distribution of the same typ of debris a mile radius on the ground wasn't caused by a single event in the sky?
As for the calculation, the excercise is simply line all the events in a sequencial order, timeline if you prefer, roughly. If the facts we didn't use for the calculation prove that the result doesn't make any sense, then it is nonesense. But if it does, then we can try to drill down to get the HARD DATA. Even a computer simulation can be done by graduate students.
We are doing a begining, make sense calculation.
2. That you need HARD DATA of the initial conditions to do these calculations with any confidence, not guesses or estimates, and you DO NOT have it.
That's right sir. But the debris fields were seperated miles apart, each was isolated from the other. We know the altitude was at 7500 ft at 10:00am, the plane was moving towards DC. We know it made a turn somewhere above the New Baltimore. No matter how violent, an airplane's movement is linear. Based on what we get, if we have the events sequence right, we should be able to see some "patterns" in all collected facts.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
3. Yes I have a serious issue with the analysis it is based on flawed assumptions - see 1. and 2. above
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
4. You are the physics and trajectory expert - you tell me how far a piece of paper can travel and in which direction when dropped from an aircraft at 5000 - 7000 feet (1 mile or more in height) with unkown winds (wind is not the same direction or speed throughout the atmosphere). Also how long was the piece of paper on the ground? how far was it moved by wind after landing?
We are not looking at one single piece of paper sir, we are looking at a wide area with debris such as burned webbings, a half burned pilot mannual, a half burned in flight magazine. Did the distribution of an isolated light debris come from a single event in the sky, 7000 miles? Or they were blown by wind from somewhere else? Please give direct answer to the particular questions first, then present your arguement, thank you.
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
5. It is not smoke it will be a demonstration that your methodology has some validity by proving it's applicability with known conditions. It is not for me to DISPROVE that your methodology and analysis is valid, it is for you to prove that it is, when others have already disproved it (see answers 1 and 2 above). This is your opportunity to show that this not a complete waste of time by demonstrating the applicability of your methodology.
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
1. That the basic assumption of using an estimated height, speed and direction cannot be used without knowing the instantaneous attitude of the aircraft to calculate the track from a falling object - the error in the result will make the methodology invalid.
Sir, I didn't do any any trajectory yet. In New Baltimore, a lot of half burned webbings, a pilot manual, an inflight magazine was found. Please give me a reason why they were not fell from a signle, physical event on the flight path?
Again, we are not calculating in a very high precision. The distribution of the same typ of debris a mile radius on the ground wasn't caused by a single event in the sky?
As for the calculation, the excercise is simply line all the events in a sequencial order, timeline if you prefer, roughly. If the facts we didn't use for the calculation prove that the result doesn't make any sense, then it is nonesense. But if it does, then we can try to drill down to get the HARD DATA. Even a computer simulation can be done by graduate students.
We are doing a begining, make sense calculation.
2. That you need HARD DATA of the initial conditions to do these calculations with any confidence, not guesses or estimates, and you DO NOT have it.
That's right sir. But the debris fields were seperated miles apart, each was isolated from the other. We know the altitude was at 7500 ft at 10:00am, the plane was moving towards DC. We know it made a turn somewhere above the New Baltimore. No matter how violent, an airplane's movement is linear. Based on what we get, if we have the events sequence right, we should be able to see some "patterns" in all collected facts.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
3. Yes I have a serious issue with the analysis it is based on flawed assumptions - see 1. and 2. above
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
4. You are the physics and trajectory expert - you tell me how far a piece of paper can travel and in which direction when dropped from an aircraft at 5000 - 7000 feet (1 mile or more in height) with unkown winds (wind is not the same direction or speed throughout the atmosphere). Also how long was the piece of paper on the ground? how far was it moved by wind after landing?
We are not looking at one single piece of paper sir, we are looking at a wide area with debris such as burned webbings, a half burned pilot mannual, a half burned in flight magazine. Did the distribution of an isolated light debris come from a single event in the sky, 7000 miles? Or they were blown by wind from somewhere else? Please give direct answer to the particular questions first, then present your arguement, thank you.
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
5. It is not smoke it will be a demonstration that your methodology has some validity by proving it's applicability with known conditions. It is not for me to DISPROVE that your methodology and analysis is valid, it is for you to prove that it is, when others have already disproved it (see answers 1 and 2 above). This is your opportunity to show that this not a complete waste of time by demonstrating the applicability of your methodology.
The principle is simple:
1. Three isolated debris fields, with 300 yards, 2.3 miles, 8 miles from crash site, were contributed to three independent event -- events have enough seperation in space, also in time.
2. Due to the linear movement of the plane in horizontal direction, with one reasonable speed, we can sequencially "arrange" all know events. Due to the fact that the linearity doesn't change, then the percentage of time doesn't change with the speed of the plane.
The prove should be in the voice recorder transcript once we overlay the event sequence on the transcript, do we make more sense or not. If not, I am wasting everyone's time.
I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING, SUCH AS CONSPIRACY, FLIGHT CLONE, MISSILES.... I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE OBSERVATIONS: MISSING ENGINE, ONE ENGINE (ENGINE PART 300 YARDS AWAY), THREE ISOLATED DEBBRIS FIELD... Yes, they can definitely be understood, to a very educated level, by scientific analysis.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am done with this guy, he is not here to listen but to lecture. He has said that he wants other people check to make sure he has "not made stupid mistakes" and when it is shown that he has (made stupid mistakes) he ignores it, restates the false assumption, and carries on in and endless loop. I would rather hammer needles in my eyes than try to work out what this guy is trying to achieve.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tombstone
Supermnnn
"I opened this thread after the title caught my eye, expecting a level headed approach to this awful subject however...
Instead of any such approach, I found a man hell bent on proving that United93 was shot down with no real evidence to prove it."
Where did I say anything about United 93 was shot down?
"In my humble opinion, I believe that the engine came off during a struggle in the cockpit, during which the terrorist flying the a/c became increasingly desperate and started to carry out high energy manouevres, pushing the 757 well outside of it's comfort zone. The engine was wrenched off and fell to earth. "
I haven't done any speculations yet, simply presented the data analysis. I could speculate the following:
10:00 am Terrorists rocking the airplane violently, causing the engine disintegrate, scrath the bottom of the plane, break the mail bags, penetrated cockpit, somewhere above New Baltimore, causing cabin fire.
Above Indian Lake, there was a fighting again, the violent movement of the airplane was the reason for the debris field below. As the result, 20 something seconds later, the engine fell and the plane crashed.
Trained as an experimental scientist, we try to present the data analysis with as little speculation as possible.
We all know what happened next...
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
"I opened this thread after the title caught my eye, expecting a level headed approach to this awful subject however...
Instead of any such approach, I found a man hell bent on proving that United93 was shot down with no real evidence to prove it."
Where did I say anything about United 93 was shot down?
"In my humble opinion, I believe that the engine came off during a struggle in the cockpit, during which the terrorist flying the a/c became increasingly desperate and started to carry out high energy manouevres, pushing the 757 well outside of it's comfort zone. The engine was wrenched off and fell to earth. "
I haven't done any speculations yet, simply presented the data analysis. I could speculate the following:
10:00 am Terrorists rocking the airplane violently, causing the engine disintegrate, scrath the bottom of the plane, break the mail bags, penetrated cockpit, somewhere above New Baltimore, causing cabin fire.
Above Indian Lake, there was a fighting again, the violent movement of the airplane was the reason for the debris field below. As the result, 20 something seconds later, the engine fell and the plane crashed.
Trained as an experimental scientist, we try to present the data analysis with as little speculation as possible.
We all know what happened next...
9/11 conspiracies are something that that American public do not need, they have suffered enough from this horrific ordeal. Let it rest.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 11th Aug 2006 at 12:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let readers be the judge!
If someone could explain to me for the events overlay on the cockpit voice recorder transcript, points out which line could be pilot language, please email me:
[email protected]
Thank you all for your time. I need to do some real work.
Tong Li
SuperNova International, Inc.
1709 Thompson St. Suite 311
Lansing, MI 48906
If someone could explain to me for the events overlay on the cockpit voice recorder transcript, points out which line could be pilot language, please email me:
[email protected]
Thank you all for your time. I need to do some real work.
Tong Li
SuperNova International, Inc.
1709 Thompson St. Suite 311
Lansing, MI 48906
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
The principle is simple:
1. Three isolated debris fields, with 300 yards, 2.3 miles, 8 miles from crash site, were contributed to three independent event -- events have enough seperation in space, also in time.
1. Three isolated debris fields, with 300 yards, 2.3 miles, 8 miles from crash site, were contributed to three independent event -- events have enough seperation in space, also in time.
Which parts of the aircraft did each debris field represent?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack
Let´s compare this against a "null hypothesis" - that the 3 isolated debris fields were contributed to 3 pieces of aircraft that separated from the aircraft at one event, then ended up in different places because each of them had different mass and air resistance.
Which parts of the aircraft did each debris field represent?
Which parts of the aircraft did each debris field represent?
That's why we did the calculation of the extimated time seperation of each event. It takes any piece of debris travel from New Baltimore, at the airplane speed of 160 mph flying for 128 seconds to land into Indian Lake. (Based on the cockpit voice transcript, it could be 88 seconds).
If we have enough ground space seperation, enough in-the-air time seperation, then all half burned webbings on ground of New Baltimore should be contributed to a single event on the flight path, somewhere above New Baltimore.
No matter how do you do your calculation with "different mass and air resistance". , it is impossible to have a piece of rib came from the same event above New Baltimore, flying 5 miles, landed into Indian Lake.
However, the different mass, shape, rotation, random factors, air resistance, plane movements... all can be done by some scientific modeling and computer simulation, if the simple calculation makes sense.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
However, the different mass, shape, rotation, random factors, air resistance, plane movements... all can be done by some scientific modeling and computer simulation, if the simple calculation makes sense.
I would note that a simple projectile released at 6000ft with no starting velocity will take some 20s to hit earth. With an airspeed of the order of 300 knots that would equate to a horizontal distance of about 2 miles. Add in the possibilities for initial vertical velocities and the unknown actual initial airspeed, plus the uncertain aerodynamic characteristics of the objects and even from a single 'event' the debris field could be HUGE.
For example ... how widespread was the 'debris field' at Lockerbie? Admittedly from a higher altitude, but IIRC it was pretty dispersed.
Last edited by Mad (Flt) Scientist; 11th Aug 2006 at 15:23.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I have not attempted to read through all the posts here, but would simply caution that on a technical basis, trajectory predictions are very much non-trivial. Even with data obtained directly from objects (planes, bombs, whatever) "in flight" it is often very difficult to reconstruct the path. With but a single known location (the endpoint) and a fairly vague definition of the starting position (the postulated breakup point(s)) its almost impossible to make any kind of reliable assessment."
I would note that a simple projectile released at 6000ft with no starting velocity will take some 20s to hit earth. With an airspeed of the order of 300 knots that would equate to a horizontal distance of about 2 miles. Add in the possibilities for initial vertical velocities and the unknown actual initial airspeed, plus the uncertain aerodynamic characteristics of the objects and even from a single 'event' the debris field could be HUGE.
For example ... how widespread was the 'debris field' at Lockerbie? Admittedly from a higher altitude, but IIRC it was pretty dispersed."
Yes, correct. However for a given group of "objects" have the same density, webbing pieces for example, leaving the plane at the same time, would generate a well located, isolate "debris field" with a certain dimension on the ground. If we can establish that it is impossible for the debris fields to over lap, i.e. it is impossible to drop a piece of webbing at initial velocity of 300 knots leveled, 7000 altitude, to end up 5 miles away. With a solid piece, a rock for example, ignoring the air resistance, it can land 2 miles away. For the webbing pieces, in-flight magazine, pilot mannual, it is impossible.
Also please remember, the Flight 93 was heading Washington DC from Cleveland, most likely changed it's direction after the first event. By the time it reached Indian Lake, it was at a much lower altitude at a lower speed flying in the opposite direction.
I would note that a simple projectile released at 6000ft with no starting velocity will take some 20s to hit earth. With an airspeed of the order of 300 knots that would equate to a horizontal distance of about 2 miles. Add in the possibilities for initial vertical velocities and the unknown actual initial airspeed, plus the uncertain aerodynamic characteristics of the objects and even from a single 'event' the debris field could be HUGE.
For example ... how widespread was the 'debris field' at Lockerbie? Admittedly from a higher altitude, but IIRC it was pretty dispersed."
Yes, correct. However for a given group of "objects" have the same density, webbing pieces for example, leaving the plane at the same time, would generate a well located, isolate "debris field" with a certain dimension on the ground. If we can establish that it is impossible for the debris fields to over lap, i.e. it is impossible to drop a piece of webbing at initial velocity of 300 knots leveled, 7000 altitude, to end up 5 miles away. With a solid piece, a rock for example, ignoring the air resistance, it can land 2 miles away. For the webbing pieces, in-flight magazine, pilot mannual, it is impossible.
Also please remember, the Flight 93 was heading Washington DC from Cleveland, most likely changed it's direction after the first event. By the time it reached Indian Lake, it was at a much lower altitude at a lower speed flying in the opposite direction.