Russian Passenger Jet Crash Reminds Me That When Jets Crash..

[paparush]

they leave LOTS of debris that LOOKS like an airplane crashed.







Recovered Flight Data Recorders


And Bodies are Recovered:

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. It also reminds me that when jets crash...

...it's rarely a terrorist event.

Thanks for these pics. It's important to pay attention to detail.

[Blue Belle]

2. Weird... isn't it?

Of course, here in the states we have super incendiary jet fuel that burns all airplane parts and bodies, but doesn't singe the grass.

[Fridays Child]

3. The stuff pulverizes steel-reinforced skyscrapers, too.

[libhill]

4. Can you say:

"Inside job"?

[libhill]

5. We also have -

a willingly gullible public, who believe any lie the government or media feed them....

[greyl]

6. Witnesses said "it fell like a leaf".

Were the speeds the same? Seriously doubt it.
Was the angle of impact the same? No.
Was the composition of the ground they collided with the same? No.
Was wreckage recovered from Shanksville? Yes.

Check out the earlier thread:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x109522

[paparush]

7. And the bodies from Shanksville....what morgue were they taken to?

Bone fragments and bits of flesh..that's the official story of what was recovered at Shanksville. No skulls? No arms? No feet? No teeth? Just bone fragments and bits of flesh?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Matter does not simply disentegrate.

"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. There was just nothing visible. It was the strangest feeling."

[greyl]

8. A temporary morgue in Friedens, PA before going to Dover, DE.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922coronernat3p3.asp
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html

The Boeing 757 slammed into the countryside at more than 500 mph, bursting into flames and scattering debris over 50 acres. Investigators spent months identifying victims through fingerprints, dental records and DNA analysis, often working with remains that looked only remotely human, Miller said.

"None of the remains we recovered were very large," he said. "You'd have to be a forensics person or an anthropologist to know what you were looking at."

Miller -- who had never seen more than two bodies at once before Sept. 11 --

estimates that just 8 percent of the remains have been recovered.

"The whole site is a cemetery," he said. "A vast amount of remains will never be recovered. Once the weather warms up, and the winds slow, we're going to go back out en masse and make one last big concerted (search), and that will probably be it."
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/27/MN189800.DTL

[mhatrw]

12. 8%. And the biggest pieces were about the size of a quarter.

[Ezlivin]

9. Shanksville wreckage - Where is it stored?

Do you know?

I know that with all other accidents they put it in some spare hanger while they are doing the investigation.

[greyl]

10. Has your search come up short?

Why is it important where the wreckage is now?

[Ezlivin]

11. No, I meant at that time (9/11 - 9/30)

Did you hear about where they had put the wreckage DURING the investigation?

[mhatrw]

13. Exactly. If it was cut up and placed in dozens of different garbage cans,

why should we care now? Why should we concern ourselves with trivialities like the actual physical evidence when we have sites like 911myths.com to answer all our questions?

[greyl]

15. I didn't ask why we should care now.

I asked why it's important where it is now, in addition to asking if his search had come up short.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. Not to be argumentative

and, I mean this, greyl, but, it is hard for me to imagine that an object as weighty as an airliner full of passengers "fell like a leaf". Even if it's engines were operational (and attempted to avoid the crash), the rate of descent must have been significant.

Also, how do you know the angle at which it crashed differs from that of Flight 93?

[greyl]

16. What do you know about the cause of the crash?

I know the limits of the eyewitness statement of it "falling like a leaf". If you want to strike that statement, it won't hurt my case, nor will it help yours. Fact is, under certain circumstances - like stalling out - a plane can fall somewhat like a leaf. The weight doesn't preclude that, only the shape of what's falling.

We can presume the angle of incidence, by looking at the wreckage pattern.

[Grateful for Hope]

18. I am not sure what happened as yet

But, your statement that "We can presume the angle of incidence, by looking at the wreckage pattern." may be true, but, have you analyzed the wreckage pattern in contrast to that of Flight 93, or has anyone else?

[greyl]

19. I've only seen the pictures you've seen, probably.

The fact remains that the conditions of the crashes aren't nearly comparable, thus the OP is a bit of a silly straw argument. Just like trying to compare the collapses of very differently constructed buildings under totally different stresses.

[Grateful for Hope]

20. I can definitely see where you are coming from

and, I agree. Do we have precise info on the crash of Flight 93 so that we will eventually be able to compare these two crashes?

[AZCat]

22. We might eventually, but I'm not holding my breath...

for a release of the data from either aircraft. It's too bad, because using the data from the fdr they can recreate the last few minutes of flight for the aircraft, something that can be very revealing. I have seen one of these - a reconstruction of the Alaska Airlines Flight 261 that crashed in 2000. The NTSB released the video and you can watch it here, but I'm warning you - I have trouble watching it without getting pretty freaked out.

If you do watch it, imagine how helpful it would be to have the same thing for Flight 93, how many questions it would answer.

[Jazz2006]

29. AZCat - Mike Williams just received some detailed info pursuant to

his FOIA request:

http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html

[AZCat]

30. Oh - I didn't see that.

It's pretty unusual for them to release this stuff. I don't remember why they released it for the Alaska Airlines flight - maybe it had something to do with determining liability by the carrier (Alaska has a horrid maintenance record). I'll have to download it tomorrow at work (on a dialup connection here at home).

Thanks, Jazz.

[Jazz2006]

31. You're welcome

They gave him several documents containing quite a lot of data that I haven't seen anywhere before, including a few that you've probably seen which are the equivalent to a couple that were recently released to the National Security Archive, but Mike has them set out separately on his site with descriptions of each so you can just download the ones you want instead of having to download the whole thing.

It includes a lot of technical data including speed, trajectory, fuel on board, exact flight paths, autopilot activity, navigation systems activity, etc. Lots of good, detailed info, including raw data, which will be very useful for those who know how to interpret it and test the parameters and results themselves.

Enjoy :)

[Jazz2006]

28. Actually, yes, there is some precise info on Flt 93 and Flt 77 that

has just been received by Mike Williams pursuant to his FOIA request, just received yesterday:

http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html

[Grateful for Hope]

21. Really? n/t

[greyl]

26. Really what? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I tjhought eye witnesses were untrust worthy. Perhaps they saw a leaf

and mistook it for a plane?

So then, from the wreckage pattern, what was the angle?

[greyl]

32. 28 degrees. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. What difference in speed is there

from a passenger jet falling from 35,000 feet and Flight 93 falling from between cruising altitude and 2000 feet?

BTW: What was the altitude Flight 93 went down at so we can compare apples to apples?

[greyl]

25. Are you sure you're asking the question in the best way?

What difference in speed is there from a passenger jet falling from 35,000 feet and Flight 93 falling from between cruising altitude and 2000 feet?

Firstly, I don't think your descriptions of the motion of the two planes is accurate enough to be of much use. The Tu-154 , as far I can tell, was trying to be landed by the pilot in as gentle a manner as possible. It's true that at one point the pilot went over 35,000 to get above the lightning storm, but the last distress call was sent at about 9000 ft. Imagine what you would do to land a plane with the least damage, without the benefit of a runway. Wouldn't you try to sequentially reduce speed to just shy of stalling(lack of lift due to insufficient velocity, not engines cutting out) as you gradually decreased altitude? The Russian pilot was probably trying to stall out as low and as slow as possible. (If you've ever flown one of the RC planes in Grand Theft Auto, you'd understand straight away what this would look like.) This may very well explain the eyewitness description of the plane falling like a leaf or petal, and certainly jibes with photos of the crash site. We can conservatively guestimate that the minimum forward flying speed of a Tu-154 is about 150mph. Even if we use a figure of 250 mph for the speed at impact, it was going half the speed of Flight 93.

Because the two circumstances and planes involved are so clearly different, and even though we're lacking in data, I think it's possible to avoid detailed math calculations to illustrate that the OP is a silly straw argument.

Should I be surprised that nobody in this thread has doubted the Russian government's official version of the story? It's their 3rd deadly aircraft crash in 4 months afterall...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_re_eu/russia_plane
http://airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=7724

http://www.757.org.uk/767/sops/sop2.html

[John Q. Citizen]

23. What exactly was the angle of impact in Shanksville and what was

the angle of impact in the Russian crash?

What exactly was the the composition of the ground in Shanksville and what exactly was the composition of the ground of the Russian jet?

Thanks for clearing this up.

[greyl]

27. To clear it up:

What was the mass of both aircraft?
What was their velocity(speed + angle) relative to the ground?
What was their attitude relative to the ground?
How much fuel was on board?
Were both aircraft intact at impact?