User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 12:37:12 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 1:07:38 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. I also remember the whole engine blew up thing or something in the last call that disappeared. I wish the audio/video of ALL television coverage on 9/11 should be played verbatim every 9/11 from the confused initial reports to the shock and somber mood everybody was in, it has been cheapened now. The original estimate was 5 or 6 hijacked aircraft and there was a brief mention on the news about "luckily there were f16s on a training mission in that area" but didn't directly mention them shooting it down and AF Denied anything of the sort. Still, many lives were lost and we don't know exactly why even now as there are contradictions from everything to all the airplanes were landed safely and shaped charges took down the buildings to the official story and all sorts of variant theories in between. We know for sure many lives were lost, and it was a tragedy not to be made into a joke with crazy theories of UFO abductions and the like. The only thing mentioned in the report that changed the world was that the US Intelligence had the information about this attack "longer than the night before", but it was not acted upon. Terrorists were named before all bodies were recovered and buildings still on fire. That "glitch" created the Department Homeland Security system and many sweeping search/seizure/airport rules and agents popped into existence and all intelligence was shared. A quite complex new and Huge nationwide agency completely staffed, operational, and deployed inside One Year. Things like that make you go hmmm. It also gave us the Patriot Act which was also written quite quickly and voted upon when there should have been respectful grieving, along with Part ][ of Gulf War where all the targets were already known and even Bill Clinton warned of Osama Bin Laden after having friendly relations with him and his buddies. WaPo details on Clinton and Bin Laden Slightly alternate history but it is WaPo... The terrorists which have hurt us should have been found if they're able to locate so many "Right Wing Extremists" even before they do anything like have a peaceful demonstration burning down a town.  That's enough of a hijack from me, back to TWA, sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 3:23:11 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder Fuel can vent out the wings sometimes. Probably what was happening there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 4:36:58 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I also remember the whole engine blew up thing or something in the last call that disappeared. I wish the audio/video of ALL television coverage on 9/11 should be played verbatim every 9/11 from the confused initial reports to the shock and somber mood everybody was in, it has been cheapened now. The original estimate was 5 or 6 hijacked aircraft and there was a brief mention on the news about "luckily there were f16s on a training mission in that area" but didn't directly mention them shooting it down and AF Denied anything of the sort. Still, many lives were lost and we don't know exactly why even now as there are contradictions from everything to all the airplanes were landed safely and shaped charges took down the buildings to the official story and all sorts of variant theories in between. We know for sure many lives were lost, and it was a tragedy not to be made into a joke with crazy theories of UFO abductions and the like. The only thing mentioned in the report that changed the world was that the US Intelligence had the information about this attack "longer than the night before", but it was not acted upon. Terrorists were named before all bodies were recovered and buildings still on fire. That "glitch" created the Department Homeland Security system and many sweeping search/seizure/airport rules and agents popped into existence and all intelligence was shared. A quite complex new and Huge nationwide agency completely staffed, operational, and deployed inside One Year. Things like that make you go hmmm. It also gave us the Patriot Act which was also written quite quickly and voted upon when there should have been respectful grieving, along with Part ][ of Gulf War where all the targets were already known and even Bill Clinton warned of Osama Bin Laden after having friendly relations with him and his buddies. WaPo details on Clinton and Bin Laden Slightly alternate history but it is WaPo... The terrorists which have hurt us should have been found if they're able to locate so many "Right Wing Extremists" even before they do anything like have a peaceful demonstration burning down a town. That's enough of a hijack from me, back to TWA, sorry about that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. I also remember the whole engine blew up thing or something in the last call that disappeared. I wish the audio/video of ALL television coverage on 9/11 should be played verbatim every 9/11 from the confused initial reports to the shock and somber mood everybody was in, it has been cheapened now. The original estimate was 5 or 6 hijacked aircraft and there was a brief mention on the news about "luckily there were f16s on a training mission in that area" but didn't directly mention them shooting it down and AF Denied anything of the sort. Still, many lives were lost and we don't know exactly why even now as there are contradictions from everything to all the airplanes were landed safely and shaped charges took down the buildings to the official story and all sorts of variant theories in between. We know for sure many lives were lost, and it was a tragedy not to be made into a joke with crazy theories of UFO abductions and the like. The only thing mentioned in the report that changed the world was that the US Intelligence had the information about this attack "longer than the night before", but it was not acted upon. Terrorists were named before all bodies were recovered and buildings still on fire. That "glitch" created the Department Homeland Security system and many sweeping search/seizure/airport rules and agents popped into existence and all intelligence was shared. A quite complex new and Huge nationwide agency completely staffed, operational, and deployed inside One Year. Things like that make you go hmmm. It also gave us the Patriot Act which was also written quite quickly and voted upon when there should have been respectful grieving, along with Part ][ of Gulf War where all the targets were already known and even Bill Clinton warned of Osama Bin Laden after having friendly relations with him and his buddies. WaPo details on Clinton and Bin Laden Slightly alternate history but it is WaPo... The terrorists which have hurt us should have been found if they're able to locate so many "Right Wing Extremists" even before they do anything like have a peaceful demonstration burning down a town. That's enough of a hijack from me, back to TWA, sorry about that. The above story is exactly why modern conspiracy theories exist. 1) news media generates a fuckton of video and radio content everyday. When a momentous news story occurs, sometimes commentators and “experts” stay on air for hours, and end up speculating or repeating unfounded speculation of others. The FCC should have a rule that all licensed broadcasts are archived in the Library of Congress at high resolution for a minimum of 1 year post broadcast, with timestamps of broadcast transmission date. They can downsample to lower resolution after footage is deemed inane if a superpower can’t afford the HD space. Hint: we already pay to archive all signals and internet traffic in an airconditioned data center. 2) if a story comes out and says “luckily f-16s were training in the area” the military, non military govt, and news media should investigate the statement. “Who told howard stern or dan blather this info?” And follow it back until they run into someone claiming 1st-5th amendment right not to say where they heard it. Then they should say, “we don’t know where the fuck X got this idea, we don’t have any record of the event, if this is a matter of public concern the public needs to demand X reveal their source because we as govt can’t compel it” followed by boycotts, shunning, shaming, cropdusting farts in the cnn elevator, etc. 3) if there is a training fuckup or pure accident, just say so 4) bin laden himself was named in the mmediate 2-3 day aftermath of twa800 as having been observed partying and high-fiving after crash, so maybe twa800 and 9/11 are connected by more than US civil aviation  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 7:19:41 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from Atlantic City ANG after it also. Draw your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 7:21:25 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuel can vent out the wings sometimes. Probably what was happening there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder Fuel can vent out the wings sometimes. Probably what was happening there. I have over 10,000 hours as an airline pilot and have never had nor ever heard of fuel venting in flight. Sometimes if a valves is stuck, it comes out the wing vent while refueling on the ground. I have seen that happen once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 7:57:35 AM EST
[#7]
Three stories for this thread.
Suffolk County Fire Marshal I knew was outside that night on the water. Swears he saw a streak go from the ground to the sky. The streak entered the clouds and a bright light occurred within the clouds. He said he never reported it because he knew it would be discounted and he wasn't crazy enough to say it. I used to be a volunteer FF on Long Island. We got a new member who was a local FBI agent. One day, in the firehouse, we were discussing flight 800 and he volunteered that it was shot down. Fast forward to 10 years later and a few of us were discussing it at the firehouse again. In walks the FBI guy and I say "Hey. Remember you said you thought it was shot down by a missile." He replied "I never said that. You're crazy if you think it was shot down." There was a televised press conference given by Senator Schumer immediately after it happened where he said it was shot down by the military and they needed to ensure a tragedy like this never happened again. Who knows at this point what happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 9:36:57 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have over 10,000 hours as an airline pilot and have never had nor ever heard of fuel venting in flight. Sometimes if a valves is stuck, it comes out the wing vent while refueling on the ground. I have seen that happen once. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder Fuel can vent out the wings sometimes. Probably what was happening there. I have over 10,000 hours as an airline pilot and have never had nor ever heard of fuel venting in flight. Sometimes if a valves is stuck, it comes out the wing vent while refueling on the ground. I have seen that happen once. I remember it venting in the T-37 at least once on a formation ride. Happened on my E-3 at least twice that I can recall (once was on a check ride). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 9:39:03 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 10:43:17 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t have any information that leads me to believe the plane went down because of anything but the official reason. I personally don’t think Andy thing was done by anyone with the US military or government to cover up the details about flight 800. I could be wrong, and I know the CIA hasn’t got a perfect track record. Look at MK Ultra, Iran Contra, etc etc. I will also say our enemies love nothing more than for our populace to hate and blame our own government for things that didn’t even happen. Read “The Sword and the Shield” by Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, as well as “The World Was Going Our Way” by the same to catch a glimpse of (now dated) KGB influence operations that were planted to make it appear our own government did horrible things which were never done. It’s called “Active Measures” in their terminology. They still do such operations, aimed at causing confusion and discontent. A huge amount of effort was made by the Russians this last year about the COVID vaccines. Much of it was bought hook, line and sinker by people in the US. It’s very easy to do: take something true, mix it with something false that sounds plausible, introduce it to Reddit, let it go and sit back and laugh. ?????????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 3:43:23 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2021 7:38:36 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 6:40:38 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. …or was it Trump? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 8:52:49 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: …or was it Trump? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. …or was it Trump? Trump can’t swim or wear a black beanie hat, messes with his hair. Here is what Trump was doing July 22, 1996: Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 1:49:58 PM EST
[#15]
@AeroE
Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 4:43:07 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 4:53:17 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. On a news broadcast that day, they had a ticker that said Flight 93 was shot down because it was getting too close to DC. They weren't taking their chances and I also had heard that at least on F15 came back with a missile missing from one of its rails. Hush hush ever since and the audio from the 'Lets Roll' gave them the out they needed. No doubt it was shot down. Zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 5:33:28 PM EST
[#18]
I apologize if this has been posted
As Group Chairman of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group, I also spun off an additional group to conduct a comparative analysis between the damage to the airplane and the passengers’ injuries. This required building two distinct databases (one documenting the forensic evidence pertaining the damage and the other documenting the passenger injuries and locations) and then correlating them. Our resulting comparative analysis showed that in general, the injury to the passengers and the damage to the seats and the interior of the airplane correlated, i.e., if a passenger in a given seat was burnt, his seat was burnt. This was expected. What was unexpected was that unlike any other investigation my investigators and I had ever conducted, we discovered that there was no consistent pattern of thermal or impact injuries or damage anywhere on the plane. In other words, In one seat row, one person and his/her seat would be burned while the person and seat located right beside the burned person would have no visible injuries or burns and no significant seat damage. Then, the person and seat next to that intact passenger and seat, would be completely destroyed. This absolute inconsistency of damage or injury pattern from one seat and victim to the next, led us to conclude that the most likely cause of this as well as the high degree of separation of the component parts of the interior early in the crash sequence, was an ordnance explosion caused by high explosives. The localized low order explosion that NTSB officials said resulted from ignited fuel vapors in a fuel tank between the wings would not have been powerful enough nor dispersed enough to create this kind of widespread damage. Here is the entire document:https://flight800doc.com/affidavit/ I really wish people wouldn't be so naive to believe the government bullshit, especially now |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 5:33:56 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 5:37:07 PM EST
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 5:41:32 PM EST
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 5:55:46 PM EST
[#22]
The ray lahr FOIA lawsuit in the early 2000’s focused on figuring out who calculated the zoom climb physics.
I recall that the judge ordered cia to produce the backup data and they said the dog ate their homework. Boeing went on record saying they did not supply data (according to lahr) to back up zoom climb. I can’t find anyone coming forward since 2004 to claim they did the calcs. The same calcs would be possible today. Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 7:00:15 PM EST
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 8:20:48 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I apologize if this has been posted As Group Chairman of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group, I also spun off an additional group to conduct a comparative analysis between the damage to the airplane and the passengers’ injuries. This required building two distinct databases (one documenting the forensic evidence pertaining the damage and the other documenting the passenger injuries and locations) and then correlating them. Our resulting comparative analysis showed that in general, the injury to the passengers and the damage to the seats and the interior of the airplane correlated, i.e., if a passenger in a given seat was burnt, his seat was burnt. This was expected. What was unexpected was that unlike any other investigation my investigators and I had ever conducted, we discovered that there was no consistent pattern of thermal or impact injuries or damage anywhere on the plane. In other words, In one seat row, one person and his/her seat would be burned while the person and seat located right beside the burned person would have no visible injuries or burns and no significant seat damage. Then, the person and seat next to that intact passenger and seat, would be completely destroyed. This absolute inconsistency of damage or injury pattern from one seat and victim to the next, led us to conclude that the most likely cause of this as well as the high degree of separation of the component parts of the interior early in the crash sequence, was an ordnance explosion caused by high explosives. The localized low order explosion that NTSB officials said resulted from ignited fuel vapors in a fuel tank between the wings would not have been powerful enough nor dispersed enough to create this kind of widespread damage. Here is the entire document:https://flight800doc.com/affidavit/ I really wish people wouldn't be so naive to believe the government bullshit, especially now Wow.  Waiting for the rebuttal from the anti-missile crowd. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 8:23:45 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. Waiting for the rebuttal from the anti-missile crowd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I apologize if this has been posted As Group Chairman of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group, I also spun off an additional group to conduct a comparative analysis between the damage to the airplane and the passengers’ injuries. This required building two distinct databases (one documenting the forensic evidence pertaining the damage and the other documenting the passenger injuries and locations) and then correlating them. Our resulting comparative analysis showed that in general, the injury to the passengers and the damage to the seats and the interior of the airplane correlated, i.e., if a passenger in a given seat was burnt, his seat was burnt. This was expected. What was unexpected was that unlike any other investigation my investigators and I had ever conducted, we discovered that there was no consistent pattern of thermal or impact injuries or damage anywhere on the plane. In other words, In one seat row, one person and his/her seat would be burned while the person and seat located right beside the burned person would have no visible injuries or burns and no significant seat damage. Then, the person and seat next to that intact passenger and seat, would be completely destroyed. This absolute inconsistency of damage or injury pattern from one seat and victim to the next, led us to conclude that the most likely cause of this as well as the high degree of separation of the component parts of the interior early in the crash sequence, was an ordnance explosion caused by high explosives. The localized low order explosion that NTSB officials said resulted from ignited fuel vapors in a fuel tank between the wings would not have been powerful enough nor dispersed enough to create this kind of widespread damage. Here is the entire document:https://flight800doc.com/affidavit/ I really wish people wouldn't be so naive to believe the government bullshit, especially now Wow. Waiting for the rebuttal from the anti-missile crowd. The rebuttal is “it was a high explosive bomb onboard” but that doesnt explain what 270 witnesses stated to FBI. When the cia makes a video explaining what people actually saw, that is when you know it is BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 9:01:47 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 9:06:05 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know the context for a theory. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . Any known zoom climb from 14kft to 17k ft where “the front fell off”? My grandpa was in the bombardier nose of a b17 in a midair collision. Lost a few engines too. Pilot ordered bailout. Grandpa salvoed bombs and he and another guy bailed. Pilot made it all the way back to england from germany with two engines and no front nose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 9:14:57 PM EST
[#28]
If the forebody broke off just forward of the wing leading edge, then the airplane pitches up. What happens after that depends on engine thrust and I wouldn't be surprised if the airplane traveled ~3000 feet before falling.
. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 9:19:05 PM EST
[#29]
New Cashill article.
He called out a reporter on an article from the 16th 2021. Interesting. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/washington_post_gets_the_leads_for_a_bombshell_story.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 9:44:38 PM EST
[#30]
Here is a critique of official zoom climb.
Not sure what radar really said about airspeed. http://flight800.org/radar9.htm Whether zoom climb is correct or not, it doesnt counter witnesses who insist they saw something bright come up from the water surface. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 10:03:09 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 10:08:07 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: New Cashill article. He called out a reporter on an article from the 16th 2021. Interesting. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/washington_post_gets_the_leads_for_a_bombshell_story.html Yeah thats interesting. Something stunk then, it stinks now. The fact that they glossed over all of his information prove nobody wants to poke that bear. It does make you wonder what else they haven't told us the truth on. I can only imagine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2021 10:14:01 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I agree. If you are in a climb and who knows what the rate would be for a 747, say 2000 fpm? Like you said, once that nose fell off the immediate drag would be immense. Full depressurization would ensue and even if the engines were at full song, which they wouldn't be since the throttle quadrant was on it way down to the ocean, I doubt it could overcome the drag. No chance it climbed that much. A plane fully intact with a massive failure might, not one like you said that didn't have a nose anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 5:21:26 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I apologize if this has been posted As Group Chairman of the Airplane Interior Documentation Group, I also spun off an additional group to conduct a comparative analysis between the damage to the airplane and the passengers’ injuries. This required building two distinct databases (one documenting the forensic evidence pertaining the damage and the other documenting the passenger injuries and locations) and then correlating them. Our resulting comparative analysis showed that in general, the injury to the passengers and the damage to the seats and the interior of the airplane correlated, i.e., if a passenger in a given seat was burnt, his seat was burnt. This was expected. What was unexpected was that unlike any other investigation my investigators and I had ever conducted, we discovered that there was no consistent pattern of thermal or impact injuries or damage anywhere on the plane. In other words, In one seat row, one person and his/her seat would be burned while the person and seat located right beside the burned person would have no visible injuries or burns and no significant seat damage. Then, the person and seat next to that intact passenger and seat, would be completely destroyed. This absolute inconsistency of damage or injury pattern from one seat and victim to the next, led us to conclude that the most likely cause of this as well as the high degree of separation of the component parts of the interior early in the crash sequence, was an ordnance explosion caused by high explosives. The localized low order explosion that NTSB officials said resulted from ignited fuel vapors in a fuel tank between the wings would not have been powerful enough nor dispersed enough to create this kind of widespread damage. Here is the entire document:https://flight800doc.com/affidavit/ I really wish people wouldn't be so naive to believe the government bullshit, especially now I'd forgotten about that and just kind of thought everybody knew it was an attack of some sort since they were calling it that for quite a while before saying it wasn't before I stopped paying attention. Then the cause bounced back and forth with a couple different revisions to "The New Line" as issues were found with each, and the last correction included the CIA animation to say "See, like this" since what they were saying wasn't completely making sense. None of their versions addressed all the witness testimony, even from experienced pilots both civil and former military, just ignored and said they were seeing the falling fire reflecting off the water so it looked like it was climbing or some strangeness like that. Sounded a lot like "weather balloon" and "Swamp gas". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:38:44 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:48:01 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still remember hearing calls coming in from Flight 93 during the early hours of on 9/11. One of those recordings said “there’s a puff of smoke on the wing, we’re going down.” Never heard that audio again in days or years that followed. Always made me wonder I know this is a very unpopular theory but I remember listening to Howard stern that day and they were talking about 93 being shot down. He was saying something about witnesses seeing military fighters flying away from the crash and both He and Robin were saying feds knew it was hijacked and had to take it down. Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. Pretty sure the DC ANG F-16s only had dummy/inert training rounds, and no missiles. One of them was interviewed once saying she was prepared to ram with the hijacked aircraft then her plan was to punch out. I think you may be right, I think the Armed F-16s were from Atlantic City Atlantic City? Great, now the mob is part of the conspiracy. It's an ANG unit |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:49:34 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:51:33 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because shooting down an airliner over downtown NY would be a great idea. You definitely wouldn't kill a shit ton of people on the ground with the wreckage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. The fragments and fuel would hit ground at gravity terminal velocity rather than engine power velocity, and the biggest piece wouldn’t likely hit the tallest buildings in manhattan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:57:42 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because shooting down an airliner over downtown NY would be a great idea. You definitely wouldn't kill a shit ton of people on the ground with the wreckage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. What part are you disputing? They knew there was a second target. The first jet had already gone into the first tower. They knew it was an attack. They knew there were more hijacked aircraft. They knew where United |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 6:59:35 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . Mach, the “evidence” in the CIA zoom climb theory that the entire forebody broke off leading the main craft tail engines wings to climb is “that is what they said happened.” It was part of their theory of the new mass, new center of mass, new center of pressure of the main body.  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:07:08 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . The FBI / NTSB specifically said the cockpit was separated from the rest of the jet when the fuel tank exploded and that is why the aircraft zoomed due to the change in the CG relative to the CL and that is what the 258 eyewitnesses saw that looked like a strike of light climbing like a missile. The official accident investigation said everything forward of the wing departed the aircraft and the rest of it zoom climbed.for 3000 feet while on fire. That is what the official report claimed the eye witnesses saw and not a missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:11:53 AM EST
[#42]
@Mach
@AeroE Here is cia video. When they blather on about people reporting a boom before impact flash, and show cockpit voice waveform, ask yourself, “what if people heard a launch event” and “would a ground/sea launch register on CVR before a mach 2 missile hit the plane?”  TWA Flight 800 CIA Cartoon |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:12:09 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mach, the “evidence” in the CIA zoom climb theory that the entire forebody broke off leading the main craft tail engines wings to climb is “that is what they said happened.” It was part of their theory of the new mass, new center of mass, new center of pressure of the main body. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/8C65FB02-17BD-4163-B4F2-445192558293_jpe-2027167.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/0A6415DE-252F-47FA-A4B2-FBC1CB9C47E4_jpe-2027168.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/AAFE0E6D-F3ED-4E60-8812-1273FDD228A0_jpe-2027169.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/DC5F6153-C905-45BF-84AD-9F135749776E_jpe-2027170.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . Mach, the “evidence” in the CIA zoom climb theory that the entire forebody broke off leading the main craft tail engines wings to climb is “that is what they said happened.” It was part of their theory of the new mass, new center of mass, new center of pressure of the main body. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/8C65FB02-17BD-4163-B4F2-445192558293_jpe-2027167.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/0A6415DE-252F-47FA-A4B2-FBC1CB9C47E4_jpe-2027168.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/AAFE0E6D-F3ED-4E60-8812-1273FDD228A0_jpe-2027169.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/DC5F6153-C905-45BF-84AD-9F135749776E_jpe-2027170.JPG It was how the eye witness testimony was explained away of 258 people that saw a streak of light that looked like a missile hit TWA 800 including 18 that specifically said they say a streak of light leave the surface of the water and hit TWA 800. They made that up to explain away the witnesses saying they saw a missile hit it. ETA: detailed in the video above. It's fake story. No way would that happen, above 10,000 that just would been going between 300 and 350 knots. Separate the cockpit and fuselage forward of the wing and the drag and airspeed will break that aircraft up and lose all it's speed in a split second. It isn't going to climb 3000 feet after the front falls off, it's going to quickly break apart. But they needed to explain away the eyewitness observations, some of whom were airline pilots and current military pilots and other military members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:15:15 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was how the eye witness testimony was explained away of 258 people that saw a streak of light that looked like a missile hit TWA 800 including 18 that specifically said they say a streak of light leave the surface of the water and hit TWA 800. They made that up to explain away the witnesses saying they saw a missile hit it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @AeroE Do you have an opinion regarding CIA performing the breakup modeling and PR video versus nasa, USAF, NTSB, MIT, Boeing, another plane company not involved, a good aero engineering faculty at a university…. Does the CIA know more about how pieces of a plane fly than anyone else? Does the CIA know what burning wreckage will look like from the ground better than anyone else? Does the CIA perform breakup analysis regularly? The CIA would have hired expertise. NASA to oversee, since the perception they are experts in all things aeronautical, Boeing to be a good citizen, supply some data and maybe watchdog, and maybe a university to do the analytical work because they work cheap. The money wouldn't be enough to get Boeing to sign up for a contract or take the exposure for disagreeable analysis. After that the speculation committees meet, do some hand waving, and come up with an answer barely better than "yep, the pieces floated downwind". A report is written, presented at a conference, then slightly rewritten several times for different conferences. . Does anyone here know of a named individual or named group, CIA or outside, has ever claimed “i worked for/with CIA to develop and check the zoom climb theory before the video was published” or is this a fatherless bastard of a lie? It seems that maybe 20%-40% of knowledgable people in this thread (pilots, physicists, etc) feel zoom climb is possible or plausible and maybe a decent majority of the same categories of arfcommer do not believe zoom climb is possible. Have you (@AeroE) studied zoom climb enough to have an opinion one way or the other? I know that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to speculate about it. I don't know the context for a theory. Never mind, I read the summary above. A 3200 foot climb after the incident doesn't seem unlikely. The airplane was already climbing. I would say very few pilots have not flown a zoom climb, I'll say with confidence that every type has been climbed that way, and a very damn few individual airplanes have not. Piston or turbines airplanes. . except this is a zoom climb without the cockpit after the cockpit is ripped off the airplane. That alone will slow an aircraft way down and then add in the drag forces acting on the tube with no pointy end and the zoom climb story becomes fantasy. And even if it isn't fantasy, the angle from the horizon at 12 miles from the coast and 12000 feet is 10 degrees, add a zoom up to 13000 feet and it is a grand total of a 2.5 degree change as seen from the coast. nobody would even notice that never mind think it is coming from the ocean. the whole story is fabricated impossible bullshit. I have never read any of this before I was called to the thread. I agree that the drag would go out of sight if the forebody broke off. I don't know that there is any evidence that happened, parts on the seabed are weak evidence, impact with the water takes care if that. The only jets I have seen explode were AV-8B's when shot through a saddle tank with a Soviet 25mm HEI round. The fuselage is not survivable. . Mach, the “evidence” in the CIA zoom climb theory that the entire forebody broke off leading the main craft tail engines wings to climb is “that is what they said happened.” It was part of their theory of the new mass, new center of mass, new center of pressure of the main body. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/8C65FB02-17BD-4163-B4F2-445192558293_jpe-2027167.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/0A6415DE-252F-47FA-A4B2-FBC1CB9C47E4_jpe-2027168.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/AAFE0E6D-F3ED-4E60-8812-1273FDD228A0_jpe-2027169.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/239441/DC5F6153-C905-45BF-84AD-9F135749776E_jpe-2027170.JPG It was how the eye witness testimony was explained away of 258 people that saw a streak of light that looked like a missile hit TWA 800 including 18 that specifically said they say a streak of light leave the surface of the water and hit TWA 800. They made that up to explain away the witnesses saying they saw a missile hit it. Not only did they in fact make the BS video to discount eyewitnesses, the video itself says “this video is to explain what the witnesses saw, trust us we are experts with a commodore64” “YOU DID NOT SEE A MISSILE.”  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:27:46 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What part are you disputing? They knew there was a second target. The first jet had already gone into the first tower. They knew it was an attack. They knew there were more hijacked aircraft. They knew where United 93 was and where it was heading. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. What part are you disputing? They knew there was a second target. The first jet had already gone into the first tower. They knew it was an attack. They knew there were more hijacked aircraft. They knew where United 93 was and where it was heading. You need to make up your mind which aircraft you're talking about. I'm saying the idea of shooting down a fully loaded 767 over downtown NY is retarded. It's not like you're going to shoot the aircraft and it's going to turn into magic pixie dust and float away on the breeze. You're going to spread that burning wreckage over several blocks potentially creating a massive fire storm. I'm guessing some of you are probably in the "controlled demolition" conspiracy camp too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:29:41 AM EST
[#46]
Also, to anyone watching CIA video, when they get to the part where another pilot saw a small plane cross under, then a flare coming up, then a boom, ask yourself if that could be trying to shoot down a target trainer drone and the TWA grabs the seeker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:32:33 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You need to make up your mind which aircraft you're talking about. I'm saying the idea of shooting down a fully loaded 767 over downtown NY is retarded. It's not like you're going to shoot the aircraft and it's going to turn into magic pixie dust and float away on the breeze. You're going to spread that burning wreckage over several blocks potentially creating a massive fire storm. I'm guessing some of you are probably in the "controlled demolition" conspiracy camp too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kill authorization was given to the flight of F-15s chasing the United flight that struck the second tower, they just could not get there in time, then they went hunting the aircraft that ended up going down in PA. There was also a flight of armed F-16s from DC after it also. Draw your own conclusions. What part are you disputing? They knew there was a second target. The first jet had already gone into the first tower. They knew it was an attack. They knew there were more hijacked aircraft. They knew where United 93 was and where it was heading. You need to make up your mind which aircraft you're talking about. I'm saying the idea of shooting down a fully loaded 767 over downtown NY is retarded. It's not like you're going to shoot the aircraft and it's going to turn into magic pixie dust and float away on the breeze. You're going to spread that burning wreckage over several blocks potentially creating a massive fire storm. I'm guessing some of you are probably in the "controlled demolition" conspiracy camp too. I am not. I 100% believe that two highjacked planes took down two towers. We have multi-angle video showing what happened. We know exactly who most/all of the highjackers were. Only 911 conspiracy i buy is that they covered up how much they knew beforehand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:44:37 AM EST
[#48]
nevermind
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:55:39 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, to anyone watching CIA video, when they get to the part where another pilot saw a small plane cross under, then a flare coming up, then a boom, ask yourself if that could be trying to shoot down a target trainer drone and the TWA grabs the seeker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2021 7:57:34 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, to anyone watching CIA video, when they get to the part where another pilot saw a small plane cross under, then a flare coming up, then a boom, ask yourself if that could be trying to shoot down a target trainer drone and the TWA grabs the seeker. no. not a chance. Having another aircraft in that area is common place, it is a busy air corridor. It is nowhere near the live fire training area in W-105 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
