Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Closest accident scenario to UAL93
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Flight Number > United 93
rob balsamo
USAir Flight 427 lost rudder control on approach to Pitt airport. It went into a vertical dive crashing straight into the ground at high speed. Just like UAL93.

Notice the difference in debris field...

USAir 427







UAL93


url if above picture doesnt show...
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc.../pacrater2.html
milehighwoody
According to the NTSB flight 427 hit the ground doing 300mph. The pilots were struggling to control the aircraft right up to the moment of impact wouldn't you agree? As you know, airspeeed-g relationship is exponential not linear. A crash at 600mph would produce 4 times the g-force at impact vs 300mph. Is it that hard to imagine that there would not be much left of flight 93?

Woody
UnderTow
QUOTE (milehighwoody @ Feb 23 2007, 10:48 AM)
According to the NTSB flight 427 hit the ground doing 300mph. The pilots were struggling to control the aircraft right up to the moment of impact wouldn't you agree? As you know, airspeeed-g relationship is exponential not linear. A crash at 600mph would produce 4 times the g-force at impact vs 300mph. Is it that hard to imagine that there would not be much left of flight 93?

Woody

QUOTE
The pilots were struggling to control the aircraft right up to the moment of impact wouldn't you agree?


How did you determine this?

While 600mph versus 300mph impact force relationship is comparable to 300mph versus 150mph, the only thing that really matters is the impact force actuall of 300mph and what resulted.

Why didn't you say "A crash at 300mph would produce 4 times the g-force at impact vs 150mph. " ?
Wilbert
Besides, the plane crashed under an angle of 40 degrees (according to the fdr). This means that if it was flying at 600 mph, the vertical speed would be 600*cos(45/180*pi)=424 mph. So it's at most 424 vs 300 and not 600 vs 300.
thyket
QUOTE (milehighwoody @ Feb 23 2007, 10:48 AM)
According to the NTSB flight 427 hit the ground doing 300mph. The pilots were struggling to control the aircraft right up to the moment of impact wouldn't you agree? As you know, airspeeed-g relationship is exponential not linear. A crash at 600mph would produce 4 times the g-force at impact vs 300mph. Is it that hard to imagine that there would not be much left of flight 93?

Woody

That is about 261KIAS, and it hit with seven times less energy than flight 93. 427 had some parts buried 6 feet. I forgot what was the deepest on flight 93 with 7 times more impact energy? Flight 427 only weighed 108,600 pound. Another reason for less impact energy. No wonder 93 looked messed up. 93 looked like some of those fighter guys who were buried real deep in the ground with plane. All in a little teeny tiny ball of metal and guts.
p.w.rapp
QUOTE
Flight 427 only weighed 108,600 pound. Another reason for less impact energy.


You guys from www.loyalist.gov are really convincing.


Everything is so simple, if you look at things in a simple and logic way.

Why do we CTers question everything all the time and try to think 3-dimensional when everything in the official theory is so simple and linear.

Of course! IMPACT ENERGY!
doh1.gif

Less impact energy --> more mess
More impact energy --> less mess
Much impact energy --> little mess
Goverment loyalist impact energy --> nice and tidy little crater completely eats big Boeing.





Everything vaporized and buried. Period.


BTW
How much impact energy (onto your head?) do you guys need to vaporize and burry red, jihadist bandanas?


Sorry, loyalists, I know I've lost you there.
3 dimensional CTer inside joke.

Couldn’t resist
Zap
amazed!
Funny picture, Zap biggrin.gif
georgie101
Your'e funny today Zap, lol
p.w.rapp
QUOTE (georgie101 @ Feb 26 2007, 11:27 AM)
Your'e funny today Zap, lol

Not easy to be funny after reading gov.loyalists' crap.
But I'm under Carl's good influence... biggrin.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.