Flight 93 VDR Recorders

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jan 11, 2012 12:49 AM

So, some conspiracy theorists are complaining that on the recently released VDR recorders from Flight 93 are missing 3 minutes.
What ever they decide to put on the last 3 minutes is what is on it.
Why?

Cockpit voice recorders spool inward onto themselves when recording.
So if any part is damaged it is the older material and not the newer.

So, to simplify, the last three minutes could not have been damaged without the entire tape being damaged.

Therefore they are concealing them, if they exist.

The only reason they could be concealing them is in the case that they do not yet exist.

Flight 93 did crash there. This I can prove.

The official story states that the plane hit the ground at 550mph and it vaporized. This does not sound impossible but can it be proven mathmatically possible?
Yep.

You must, as a degree of reason eliminate all the impossible, then whatever remaining - however unlikely is the
cause. Planes can vaporize. They have before and they did that day.
This I can prove.

Get ready for school.

The boiling point of aluminum is 4566 °F . This is the point at which it goes from liquid to gas.
Most of the aircraft consists of this. There are about 47 tons of it in this air frame.
The boiling point of iron - the primary component of steel is 5182 °F.
The engines and gear are made up of this.
There is about 13 tons of this in this air frame.

The maximum you can get JP-8 fuel to is 1796 degrees Fahrenheit.
4566 - 1796 =
2770F that need to be created by impact to vaporize the bulk of aluminum.

I know it has been a long time since chemistry class but you need this.

The heat required for vaporization is 294,000J per mol of aluminum.

Since 39% of this heat could be made up by the burning jet fuel. If it competly covered the aircraft and it was at max temperature. Which would require 5 times the aircraft's amount of maximum fuel to be aboard, but this I will overlook.

That only leaves about 177,000J of energy that needs to be made up by force of impact. Per Mol of aluminum.

There are 26.9815386 grams in a mol of aluminum.
So how much energy, in this case heat, does 27 grams make when it hits an object at 550mph? An immovable object for sake of equation.
Standard energy equation.
Energy = 1/2 mass *velocity (sq)
When your parents tell you that speed kills in vehicle accidents THIS is why.
.026 kilograms * 887 kph (550 miles per hour) squared = energy
.026kg * 786854 = 20,458 Joules created by impact at 550 mph
For a total of about 197,000 Joules applied to each mol of aluminum. Which is not enough to vaporize any of the aluminum or any of the steel. Titanium is even higher on the scale.

So just like Mythbusters I will find how fast it would need to be going to vaporize on contact with an immovable surface.
177,000 Joules is required on top of jet fuel heat.
177,000 /20,000 = 8.85 times faster than that
So 550mph * 8.85 = 4867.5 mph which is roughly Mach 7 would do it.
This is if the jet fuel was applied evenly over the entire airframe and if the entire airframe came to the surface at the same time. If the nose hits first it slows down the fuselage some and reduces the energy that will be needed for the tail of the aircraft.
This is why all aircraft disasters produce wreckage.

This is why it is scientifically possible to vaporize an aircraft. Unless its going Mach 7. In a jet fuel fired furnace. So it IS possible - under those circumstances. That shows the cockpit was possibly damaged, maybe in the insuing scuffle.

Theories of Flight 93 will be different now.

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jan 11, 2012 11:09 PM

Ok, update. Some people also say that the crater was too small for a Boeing 757.

In MY opinion it left a fairly-sizeable hole. If it had lots of fuel, no doubt it would have a huge gaping hole. Considering THIS is what the aircraft looks like.

stefani88 · Jan 12, 2012 7:26 AM

Thank you so much for your post.

Clock-la · Jan 12, 2012 4:44 PM

^ Its a bot

Anyway sorry Max, im a bit ofd a dummy here, but are you on about the 9/11 flight that crashed in the feild?

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jan 13, 2012 11:41 PM

Clock-la wrote:

^ Its a bot
Anyway sorry Max, im a bit ofd a dummy here, but are you on about the 9/11 flight that crashed in the feild?

Yes I am.

Neotyguy40 · Jan 14, 2012 2:20 AM

Do we really need to go through another 9.11 thread? Let alone one that is conspiratorial?

I'll admit, a surprising amount of conspiracies seem to be making sense, but conspiracies tend to make a lot of sense while still being false.

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jan 14, 2012 2:37 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Do we really need to go through another 9.11 thread? Let alone one that is conspiratorial?
I'll admit, a surprising amount of conspiracies seem to be making sense, but conspiracies tend to make a lot of sense while still being false.

I don't believe in any conspiracies, just need some help debunking them. Half of Flight 93 I've got covered, and I just need help with the rest, like the collapse of WTC 7, or how all four angles of footage from the Pentagon dont show a plane. I know there's no conspiracies, no missles. I'm trying to show other people that too.

G-Man_93 · Jan 14, 2012 2:59 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

I'll admit, a surprising amount of conspiracies seem to be making sense, but conspiracies tend to make a lot of sense while still being false.

Dude, have you yet heard of the NDAA bill which allows Americans to be detained without trial all under the premise they might be a "terrorist". Sorry dude, the conspiracy theorists have been right from the beginning on all of this stuff going on with the "war on terrorism". It was only a few years ago when people who opted to have The Federal Reserve abolished were called "crazy" or "kooks". Now many, MANY people, Americans and non-Americans alike, are waking up to how the monetary system is basically a self-generating debt designed to screw us up the @$$ while big wealthy business interests get paid off from the suffering of regular working middle-class (and yes the lower-class people as well).

I probably could rant all night about this, but I'll stop myself here. Just thought I'd give you some food for thought.

Clock-la · Jan 14, 2012 4:44 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Do we really need to go through another 9.11 thread? Let alone one that is conspiratorial?
I'll admit, a surprising amount of conspiracies seem to be making sense, but conspiracies tend to make a lot of sense while still being false.

TBH thought SOME of them do make sence and I would'nt be surprised they they were true

Neotyguy40 · Jan 14, 2012 6:38 PM

G-Man_93 wrote:

Dude, have you yet heard of the NDAA bill which allows Americans to be detained without trial all under the premise they might be a "terrorist". Sorry dude, the conspiracy theorists have been right from the beginning on all of this stuff going on with the "war on terrorism". It was only a few years ago when people who opted to have The Federal Reserve abolished were called "crazy" or "kooks". Now many, MANY people, Americans and non-Americans alike, are waking up to how the monetary system is basically a self-generating debt designed to screw us up the @$$ while big wealthy business interests get paid off from the suffering of regular working middle-class (and yes the lower-class people as well).
I probably could rant all night about this, but I'll stop myself here. Just thought I'd give you some food for thought.

I've been hearing about the bill for at least 3 months (along with SOPA). I've also read the entire thing, and know exactly what is going on inside of it. For starters, this bill does not give the president the ability to detain American citizens (or anyone) without trial:

NDAA wrote:

(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

See? Everything is fine... Until you realize the president has already had this power for years.

The AUMF has given the president the ability to detain anyone they want for almost a decade now. The NDAA does not affect this at all, and people that are worried about this bill are a little late to the party.

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jan 14, 2012 7:13 PM

So let's see. This clearly shows unedited footage of a mushroom cloud.

And some say this phone call from Flight 93 is of a man AND a woman. It's just a woman. Her voice breaks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=17LE38xaL9Y[/youtube]

And THIS is a pretty accurate description of what happened on the plane.

G-Man_93 · Jan 14, 2012 7:25 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

I've been hearing about the bill for at least 3 months (along with SOPA). I've also read the entire thing, and know exactly what is going on inside of it. For starters, this bill does not give the president the ability to detain American citizens (or anyone) without trial:
NDAA wrote:
(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
See? Everything is fine... Until you realize the president has already had this power for years.
The AUMF has given the president the ability to detain anyone they want for almost a decade now. The NDAA does not affect this at all, and people that are worried about this bill are a little late to the party.

Don't let the seemingly pretty language in Section 1031(e) fool you. The only way for anything in 1031 to not be construed to American citizens would be through the Supreme Court, which to my understanding, was never voted in by the people of the United States anyways. So the Supreme Court is the only power that can more-or-less legally and explicitly repeal 1031 and construe the law. But if you read the full NDAA bill with a careful, discerning eye, considering all the BS that is happening today not only overseas but in the Western World you'll very quickly see why people are so worked up about the NDAA bill.

You mention the AUMF bill allowing the President to detain anyone in the USA for over a decade? You might want to read it through again since it says nothing about detaining US civilians without fair trial. Then again, I still wouldn't be surprised if there are guys who were detained in Guantanamo Bay without due process all under the suspicion they might be a "terrorist".

A little something for you to read: http://www.infowars.com/obama-administr … -citizens/

Neotyguy40 · Jan 14, 2012 9:35 PM

G-Man_93 wrote:

You mention the AUMF bill allowing the President to detain anyone in the USA for over a decade? You might want to read it through again since it says nothing about detaining US civilians without fair trial. Then again, I still wouldn't be surprised if there are guys who were detained in Guantanamo Bay without due process all under the suspicion they might be a "terrorist".

The president has been illegally interpreting that power to allow for anyone, including American citizens, to be captured or killed on order.

Remember the situation when Obama killed an American in Pakistan? That is what is said to give him that power.

So my question is, who is suppose to take this to the supreme court?

G-Man_93 wrote:

A little something for you to read: http://www.infowars.com/obama-administr … -citizens/

Yea... I'm not going to give Infowars the satisfaction of ad revenue by clicking on that link...

G-Man_93 · Jan 15, 2012 2:10 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

The president has been illegally interpreting that power to allow for anyone, including American citizens, to be captured or killed on order.

Is that so? Just simply "misinterpeting it"? Well, I guess given the fact that many Presidents of the United States long before Obama have been "misinterpeting" certain laws passed through Congress to be able to have certain things done which violates the basic rights of the American people. But before we continue this debate (that is, if you're wishing to of course) lets get one thing clear: Politicians, generally in most developed countries, are only put in place by big business interests to give the citizens of whatever country the idea they have a real freedom of choice. Guess what? They have no choice. We have no choice. Want to know what 'we' have? Owners! Big wealthy businessmen who have had wealth & power for a long, long, long time own our @$$e$! They own everything political including almost all of the politicans, they have all the judges in their back pocket, and through buying off the politicans and judges they control the authorities. The police? Owned! The FBI? Owned! The military? Definitely owned! The CIA? Not even run in any shape or form by anyone in the White House!

I'll stop at this as a response to your first quote. Apologies if your head explodes from reading all of that!:-P

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Remember the situation when Obama killed an American in Pakistan? That is what is said to give him that power.
So my question is, who is suppose to take this to the supreme court?

Again, the supposed "misinterpetation" is only a result of bigger interests telling the President to order the strike. Don't forget the Patriot Act which was signed into law by George Bush as a means of "ensuring homeland security". As you maybe well aware, the so-called Patriot Act is comparable the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act signed into law in Germany by Hitler in 1933 to suspend most civil liberties of the German people to help put the Nazi's into power. Read both the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act and compare the information in both of them. You might be shocked to find that their titles aren't the only similarity they share.

Who is gonna take the 'this' to the Supreme Court? Why, the people of the United States of course. Assuming that many, if not all the Americans, wake up to how badly they're getting f****d by the system and being brainwashed by the corporate-controlled media.

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Yea... I'm not going to give Infowars the satisfaction of ad revenue by clicking on that link...

LOLwut? The only way that site could get "Ad Revenue" would be if you clicked on one of the ads on the site. Don't worry, the only interests I serve is truth, honour, and courage. I don't actually work for Infowars. Open your mind a little bro.

Neotyguy40 · Jan 15, 2012 6:34 PM

At some point that I was posting, I must have given you the impression that I disagreed with something that you've said. I'm not. While our viewpoints are different, it still leads to the same conclusion on each subject. The NDAA is front right unconstitutional and should have never been passed.

I really don't want to get into an argument for argument's sake if we already see the same situation.

And ad revenue actually comes from unique visitors. If a new IP address is registered on the site, then they do get paid. Clicking on ads are just a bonus.

G-Man_93 · Jan 15, 2012 8:57 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

At some point that I was posting, I must have given you the impression that I disagreed with something that you've said. I'm not. While our viewpoints are different, it still leads to the same conclusion on each subject. The NDAA is front right unconstitutional and should have never been passed.
I really don't want to get into an argument for argument's sake if we already see the same situation.
And ad revenue actually comes from unique visitors. If a new IP address is registered on the site, then they do get paid. Clicking on ads are just a bonus.

Yeah, unfortunately the USA isn't the only country where people's rights seem to get crushed by bigger interests! hmm

Yeah, don't want to get into pointless arguements over things which can be solved by uniting together-regardless of where you live or whatever you believe in.

I never knew new IP addresses made ad revenue for a site. Go figure!:-P

#1 Jan 11, 2012 12:49 AM

Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#2 Jan 11, 2012 11:09 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#3 Jan 12, 2012 7:26 AM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#4 Jan 12, 2012 4:44 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#5 Jan 13, 2012 11:41 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#6 Jan 14, 2012 2:20 AM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#7 Jan 14, 2012 2:37 AM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#8 Jan 14, 2012 2:59 AM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#9 Jan 14, 2012 4:44 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#10 Jan 14, 2012 6:38 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#11 Jan 14, 2012 7:13 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#12 Jan 14, 2012 7:25 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#13 Jan 14, 2012 9:35 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#14 Jan 15, 2012 2:10 AM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#15 Jan 15, 2012 6:34 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

#16 Jan 15, 2012 8:57 PM

Re: Flight 93 VDR Recorders

Board footer