http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427

This is a flight that crashed straight into the ground just like flight 93. Here is what the scene looked like.

This part sounds familiar:

A significant point is that this plane impacted at 300 mph, not 500 like UAL93.

I watched a documentary involving this plane the other week. It's interesting to note that it took several years for the NTSB to conclude the cause of failure and three seperate incidents, two involving total fatalities.

So an extra 200mph makes the difference between large plane fragments and hardly none at all? Hardly.

Actually i would like to ask.....

How do we know it crashed into the ground at 500 miles an hour???

Actually, flight 93 hit at 563 mph, not 500.

The difference in kinetic energy between 300 mph and 563 mph is a factor of 3.5 - a 563 mph crash has 3.5 times the energy of a 300 mph crash. So with 427, there were a few pieces left, but on UAL 93 they all got destroyed.

But even the 300 mph crash obliterated most of the pieces, causing one person to ask where the plane was.

Both the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) survived the crash. The plane impacted at 563 mph, inverted, pointed down into the ground at an angle of 40 degrees.

With Flight 77 at the Pentagon, only the FDR survived, and on the planes that hit the towers, neither black box was recovered.

I see a rude awakening in ones future...

:D

I concur.

:D

How is it possible for anyone to officially know the speed of F93?

We have the Flight Data Recorder. Not only do we know (officially, of course) its speed, but the angle it was at when it hit, plus readings from all the flight systems showing the engines working normally until impact. And not only at the point of impact, but from the whole flight.

Was the public allowed to examine these black box'es??

Also i have been informed that they indeed did recover the Block Box'es from the WTC!
I maybe be wrong but this is what i was told!

The Pilots for Truth group is coming out with a new video based on the data. I guess they're looking for a new raison d'etre after they shot themselves in the foot with their release of the Flight 77 data, which basically completely supported the official story.

You want an interesting experience? Try to chase that story down - go back to the person who told it to you, confirm that's what he said, and find the person he heard it from. Continue until you realize that you're pouring water down a rabbit hole.

Someone is shooting themselves in the foot here. .including sinking that foot into said mouth... but i dont think its us...

Powerhouse.. you happen to have more experience than a USAF Accident Investigation Board President? The NTSB who put together AA77 data? L3 Communications who made the FDR? You might want to see the new interview(s) we put up on our home page.


Next,,, why have the JREF'ers censored/deleted this?.

I think i know why....

Its perhaps the same reason many of them refuse to debate us on this FDR information but go around all day long calling us "kooks" and "debunked!" without offering facts to back their claims. Typical.

Stay tuned folks.. lots of conflicts based on facts in the UA93 data vs the official story.. many of you wont be surprised, some will make excuses to remain in denial, others will be blown away.

Powerhouse, anytime you want to tell us your credentials and name to look up in the FAA dbase... let us know..

Cheers!
Rob

I just read that, and it sounds like that Lyte Trip dude is viewed as a laughingstock over there.

A suggestion would be to cut it down into bite-sized chunks. A forum discussion on a big list like that is impossible. Then get someone who hasn't blown his credibility already to post it.

JREF doesnt concern us much as many others already see how they spin and twist with ad homs litered throughout their debate style....

but the fact remains they wont address it (we even use one of their own arguments by their superstar anonymous "FDR Expert" who dodges every attempt at debate in person). Its the typical intentional side track of ad homs to avoid addressing it over there...

Only hurts their case.. so be it. Others will read it and have a brain...

New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.
.....
4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.
..... http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/200201311a_hr.jpg
..... http://www.nfpa.org/assets/images/journal/PENT04.jpg
"In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20070621/bs_...b/prweb534642_1

SPreston that is a great study.

Makes me think that the two pentagon policemen in the gas station were briefed to confirm this commercial aircraft was there, but they didn't get the flightpath right. I remember watching their testimony and they were too certain that the plane was an AA and the white guy was far too confident about the type saying "I have lived around airports all my life" And he was a bit too confident about the windows etc. At that speed he wouldn't have been able to get that amount of detail I don't think.