1. vodking

    vodking New Member

    Hello all, love the forum! I've signed up here because I absolutely hate 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    I am currently arguing with a guy who is absolutely hung up on Flight 93's crash physics. As we know debris was buried in the crater, and also found above ground. This guy simply cannot get over the fact that debris was buried and fragmented. He thinks that either the plane should have fragmented when it hit the ground (but not buried), or I guess should have buried in whole parts?? I'm still not sure on that front, however he simply cannot see how a plane could fragment and still bury itself. If I understand his super-duper 9/11 truth logic, he thinks all the momentum would be gone when the plane hit the ground and parts could not have had any more momentum to carry them (especially aluminum parts) into the ground. Follow?

    He also annoyingly keeps citing Newton's 3rd law, but has yet to fully explain how Newton's third law applies. Northwest Airlines Flight 710 has also been pointed out to him repeatedly but he is sort of dancing around that one.

    I'm sure this has been explained before. Anyone have a link or explanation for how the plane fragmented and buried?

  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Fragmenting does not mean things immediately stop. Shoot a .50 round at water and it will fragment. That does not mean it stops on the surface of the water.. Here's an example.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvSTuLIjRm8
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    As I was reading the OP... Something occurred to me as a possible reason why so few giant sized fragments existed, or would exist.... See if this makes sense to anyone:

    Assuming that flight 93 flew into the ground relatively straight (nose) down into the ground at a fairly high rate of speed. Wouldn't the fuselage buckled and compress down like a cigarette being pressed into an ash tray? When you do that, the tobacco inside gets pressed further into the body of the cigarette and the outer paper tends to split and rupture with the increased tobacco being pushed up inside. Wouldn't the air and materials inside the plane do the same? I would think that this would cause the plane skin to rupture and split as the nose and front of the plane was pressed into the ground. Because it happened so fast, it would probably act more like an explosion of air and materials and cause the fuselage to burst into smaller fragments; thus explaining the limited number of big plane parts found. The fact that the ground was very soft meant that it would have been happening at or just below ground level, reducing the amount of plane fragments that were expelled out onto the surrounding landscape.

    Just a thought. Does that make sense to any of the more scientific minds here?
  4. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    The impact speed and angle are some of the factors for the percent of parts buried or found above ground. The impact "crash landing", is usually low speed, low energy, with kinetic energy from 100 to 300 pounds of TNT. Flight 93's impact was about 1,400 pounds of TNT. I believe the impact angle was about 40 degree and 93 was partially upside down. The angle and speed are why an engine was buried, and the attitude of the aircraft play a role, as would the roll rate at impact. It was flight 93 that hit; what we see is what we get for the flight parameters of 93 in a high speed dive into the ground.

    As for the aircraft being fragmented, it depends on the speed at impact, like car crashes, low speed less damage, high speed more damage. The impact of Flight 93 had 7 to 10 times the kinetic energy of a "normal" aircraft crash people might be use to seeing. This is why Flight 93 was destroyed beyond recognition.

    Flight 93 at impact, from 93's FDR buried in the ground.
    pitch -41.1 degrees (not near an approach to landing pitch of 2.5 to 3 degrees)
    roll angle 142 degrees (rolling about 10 degrees a second)
    airspeed 487.5 knots (lots of kinetic energy)
  5. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The null hypothesis is that Flight 93, a Boeing 757, did crash at Shanksville, fragmented and ended up largely inside the crater. Because that is what photos, radar, FDR, witnesses, the coroner, the NTSB, United Airlines, their insurers, the victims' relatives, etc etc etc etc etc agree on.

    If someone claims that "Newton's 3rd" somehow invalidates all that, it's their burden of proof: Have them actually show work and apply Newton's 3rd! List assumptions, state the formulas and terms they are gonna use, plug in specific numbers, compute, show results, and interprete them in context.

    Newton's third states that for any two bodies A and B that interact, the forces mutually exerted follow the equation F(A) = −F(B).
    In order to show that something is impossible because of Newton's 3rd, they would have to define the two interacting bodies and evaluate the forces they can exert on one another.
    Has any Truther actually ever done that? -> Hell no.

    Have the person you are debating link to a truther actually applying Newton's 3rd with testable specificity. You will find that they can't and won't. And that removes Newton's 3rd from consideration.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. vodking

    vodking New Member

    Mick, first of all I wanted to say I really appreciate what you do and I'm honored you replied.

    Although this video is a sensible refutation, I bet this guy would somehow spin it in his favor.
  7. vodking

    vodking New Member

    This does make a lot of sense.
  8. vodking

    vodking New Member

    Here is some of the latest from this stubborn truther (redundant, I know)

    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2017
  9. vodking

    vodking New Member

    Outstanding reply from a fellow debunker on this. Can't wait to see how he'll spin this one.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2017
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Well that first line is clearly incorrect, so everything that follows from that misconception is invalid.

    Things don't magically lose their momentum just because they have been "severed". Ever seen a clay pigeon being shot? It fragments into pieces when struck by the shotgun pellets, but the individual pieces sill have their momentum. The fragments don't just instantly stop in mid air and drop to the ground!
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Martin Irving

    Martin Irving New Member

    The main fuselage at the crater in Lockerbie also left very little evidence of aircraft components, they calculated what hit the ground by counting rivets, if you look at the main crater picture, there are no disernable aircraft pieces at ground zero, I cannot comment more on my involvement but it's perfectly reasonable to deduce what happened at one location happened at the other, unless of course you wish to deny both events, insulting many people including those who lost life.
    • Agree Agree x 2