Did you read what I was responding to? You asked me in what way the two crashes were different. I can't compare the two crashes unless I've studied both crashes. You on the other hand have no problem at all equating the two after looking at a few photographs. That's not investigation. Those aren't the actions of someone seeking the truth.
No response to the photo of the size of the plane would have to be that supposedly buried itself underground huh?
I'm sure HFD will find them for me and put out eventually. They were done on and old thread. I could replicate them but I'm late for the gym this morning. HFD...be a dear and fetch that post for me honey.
Unfortunatily I can't, because you never offered any calculation to disprove a shoot down. You made your arbitrary conclusion based on the idea that the debri field MUST be at least 20 miles for a shoot down, and since this was bigger than observed a shoot down didn't happen. Unfortunatily, despite the fact that I asked you repeatedly in that thread, you did NOT specify a calulation, i.e. mathematical operation, that resulted in the figure of 20 miles.. Such a figure was clearly just pulled from your arse, the same place you get all your posts. Since I can't show you the calculation you never made, I can still be a help.. I can repost your original post, as well as my thorough refutation of it, in order that you may relive your humiliation: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...cking-claim-most-flight-93-had-buried-33.html
No problem.. Now I've done a favor for you, why don't you do one for me please. Why don't you highlight or quote the mathematical operation that resulted in 20 miles. Also explain why you left gravitational acceleration out when the world we live in clearly has gravitational acceleration.
Thanks again for finding it for me. I knew you'd come through. Simply put when a missile hits a plane, there is going to be an explosion. Depending on where the explosion is, how the airframe is oriented, etc, a 720 degree sphere of ordinance will ensue (more or less). Some of the airframe will be propelled upward, some downward, some to the east, some to the west, some to the north and yes even some to the south. Some will even travel back toward the path the supposed missile took toward the airframe albeit not much. Now depending on the density of the area of supposed missile impact, the force of the explosion will be considerable of course. The denser the material, the less collateral damage in that direction. So you'll get heavier pieces of debris since it wasn't obliterated by the missile outside of the more dense area. likewise, the less dense areas create a shrapnel shower that will penetrate other areas of the air frame and cause even more damage. What it amounts to is that since we don't know where this supposed missile hit, how the aircraft was oriented to the ground at the time of this supposed shoot down, the altitude, the velocity, and the type of missile that was supposedly used...it is impossible to deduct what would have happened. Suffice to say however that the plane would have been in many more pieces than it was when it did crash in SE Pennsylvania. Hence the height of likely 5-6 miles, and the time of the pieces that would have dropped, your debris field would have been much larger than it was. The 20 miles is an approximation but I feel comfortable with the approximation. Like most twoofers, you wish to have strictly black and white answers to hypothetical situations. Sorry, such remedies for sheer madness don't exist in the real world; perhaps in twooferland.
No problem.. I don't have the same problem of stubborn refusal to play ball that you do. That's great but none of this is a calculation.. Like a car going 70 will slow down to 50 mph, we'll call it filler. You're just making up numbers.. No calculation that resulted in this figure? Nope... It's just a bunch of rambling followed by you arbitrarily declaring a figure you pulled out of your butt. An approximation.. Okay.. That is NOT a "calculation"... You claimed you had a "calculation" and proved this via "mathematics". You didn't use any math or science.. You just invented the figures you posted. Let me give you an example of what calculations and mathematics is.. An object begins a freefall descent from 30,000 feet. How long does it take to reach the ground? This is reached via the very simple and easy to use Gallilleo formula that high school physics students use. t = the square root of 2d/g where d is the distance fallen and g is the gravitational acceleration constant (32.144 feet per second squared). Plug in the numbers you get 43 seconds. Not 300 like you claimed. THAT is mathematics.. THAT is a calculation. Now that you concede this was an "approximation" why are you comfortable with it? I mean, you claimed before your figure of 20 miles was derived using a fall time of 300 seconds, right. Yet I proved to you the fall time outside fantasy land with no gravitational acceleration where you must live, is 43 seconds. That's 700% difference. So why then is the approximation STILL 20 miles? Why haven't you revised it with the true figure now that I taught you? Shouldn't it be 1/7 of 20 miles or something now? You see, the fact that you claim your approximation is the SAME for a fall time of 300 seconds as a fall time of 43 seconds, and you didn't bother to revise it for the updated figure, you still stick to 20 miles, this PROVES you're not actually basing your approximation on any numbers or real world science, because it SHOULD have been different. It PROVES that 20 miles is just a figure you pulled from your butt. You're going to insist it must be 20 miles regardless if it fell for 300 seconds, 1 second or a million seconds. YOU claimed to have a black and white answer! Mathematically proving or disproving something via calculations IS the black and white way to find a truth... I'm not insisting on this, YOU claimed you had the black and white maths. Obviously you were lying.
You forgot about the drag coefficient. In a vacuum the object would hit the Earth in 43 seconds. (at well over 900 miles an hour) On Earth the object has to fall through air. That air provides resistance in the form of drag. This drag prevents the object from experiencing a linear rate of acceleration. The object will reach a terminal velocity at the point where the drag equals the acceleration. The mass, and area of the object are important to determining the drag coefficient, so not all pieces of the plane will have the same terminal velocity. Some will hit the ground sooner. Some will hit the ground much later. For example, a penny doesn't have a lot of mass in relation to its area. A penny will hit terminal velocity at about 100 miles an hour. That means it would take > 205 seconds to hit the ground from 30k feet. However, that also means that a penny traveling parallel to the Earth at 500 miles an hour will rapidly decelerate due to its high drag coefficient. It won't go as far during those 205 seconds as something with a lower drag coefficient, like a dart. Regardless of the exact area, however, I think the point is well made that an aircraft that was hit with a missile at 30k feet would have a much larger debris field then an aircraft that slammed into the ground at 500+ MPH.
Air will provide resistance both vertically and horizontally.. So how are these objects with a high surface area to mass ratio, which are falling slower because of drag, still managing to cover that horizontal distance when also subject to drag. A penny might fall slower than in a vacuum, however it's also not going to go flying twenty miles on an horizontal trajectory either, for the same reason of drag. That same penny may take 200 seconds to fall to Earth, however long before this 200 seconds, it's horizontal travel will have stopped thanks to air resistance, at which point it will more or less, float, or fall slowly or whatever, straight down. Picture a firework perhaps.. Soon after it explodes you see stuff going in all directions, but you'll notice the trajectory become more and more verticle and less horizontal quite soon afterwards, and you'll see the stuff more or less be travelling down and not so much across. No doubt a shot down aircraft should have a larger debri field than one that crashed into the ground. That's not the point... The point was a shot down aircraft must necessarily have a debri field greater than eight miles, or whatever it was that was observed.. I have yet to see any calculations or evidence for that.
No dear, planes usually travel between 25 and 35 thousand feet. Do they not? Honey, none of the supposed events happened. Anybody who was charged with simulating it would be doing the same thing; one has to guess the altitude, the orientation of the plane, the speed it was traveling etc... This is your private little fantasy dear, don't blame me for not knowing what goes in inside the twoofer mindset. If a missile hits the object, some of it is blown upward into the air. Some of it is blown downward. Do both the upward portions and the downward portions hit the ground at the same time or do you have new calculations to perform? Lets say that the object is complex. Like an aircraft for example. Some portions are more dense than others. The higher density areas will absorb the blast more than hollow areas like wings or fuseloge. If the missile hits there, the areas are almost destroyed in total where as engines will maintain more of their integrity. While you're contemplating all of that, think about this. Lets say that two missiles are fired instead of one (hell it may miss)...what then? The calculations become more chaotic. You're forgetting what you just learned and assuming that it was one mass of plane continuing on at the same speed. It obviously is not. Actually, I said "ruled out" more than I said "proven". I may have used proven in a short-hand type of way but shoot down is ruled out. Maths? he he he
Were you just trying to repeat what I had already said in the post you quoted? I said: It is to be expected that had the plane been hit with a missile that caused the plane to explode while traveling at high speed there would be debris that fit the profile of pennies, and debris that fit the profile of darts. Some debris would slow rapidly and have a low terminal velocity. Some debris would slow more moderately and have a higher terminal velocity. That was my point. A penny might quickly slow to 100mph from 500mph within the 205 second time from, but a wheel rim might take longer to slow to 250 mph in the 90 or so seconds it takes to hit the ground. The rim would obviously travel further from the point of missile impact then the penny. Understand that? Eight miles, or whatever it was that was observed? Can you narrow that down a bit? What part of debris was found 8 miles from the impact?
Yes. I'll have to refer you to candy for that... HE claimed that a shoot down was ruled out mathematically. To do so, you'd need to show calculations demonstrating what the debri field must be for a shoot down, which would have to be larger of course than whatever it was that was observed.
Before we continue we need to agree on the size of the observed debris pile. What do you think the size was? I think that an 8 mile radius is not correct.
I don't know.. Whoever says they can disprove a shootdown because of a minimum debri spread size ought to know the necessary figures.
