Originally posted by Golfer
Okay I'm going to do some hole shooting in the paper theory here.
Woman says "the plane is at 40-50ft above my minivan"
No.
It seems like the airplane entered a dive, the hijackers being not the most experienced pilots around overstress the aircraft and in the process dislodge an engine from its mounts, this ruins the balance and thrust of the airplane. Hijackers still adding G's to the airplane to get it out of the dive don't compensate for asymmetrical thrust and wind up accelerating the airplanes rate of roll and before you know it...its in the dirt.
A small jet with 2 rear engines and a spoiler like that of a car sounds like an Adam A700, but that wasn't in the area because there's only prototypes built after 9/11. An unmanned air force drone? maybe. I bet looking straight up at this airplane she could confuse the upside down V tail of a predator for what she thinks she saw.
How much of this story is absolutely true if the woman clames an airplane was flying 40-50 ft above her head...thats low. Too damn low. So low there isn't any reason to fly that low unless you're approaching/departing an airport. I don't buy into this woman's description for a minute. I've read too many accident reports where turboprops had their engines sputtering or 'revving' like a car engine...it doesn't work like that. She might mean well, but she isn't close to accurate.
Hey Golfer, I'm glad to hear for the first time in this thread some balanced criticism without any
flee search in the opponent's behind.
Your explaination of the aeromechanics of the engine loss sounds convincingly enough, but it looks like it can be mainly applied in the case of
full (in one piece) rip off of the engine from its
mounts. Yet what we have here is a one-ton section of one of the engines. [THE DEBRIS
The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away].
Still your theory about the forced dislodging of the engine off its mounts could be validated if there is evidence that before finally hitting the dirt and while the plane was still flying at a very low altitude one of the plane's engines came into contact with the top of the high tree, for instance. I guess such a forced contact, if it really occured, could lead to the partial (one section only) rip off.
But I can't be of real help on this one because I still haven't read the official investigation records which are supposed to be somewhere in the public domain today after over the three years since the tragic event. I wonder if your smart bellybutton is aware of existence of such records available to the general public. Or are they still hidden under the cloak of top secrecy ? What do you expect of ordinary people who were not given sufficient information about this tragedy ?
I guess you prefer to punch holes in the "stupid" paper theories than to dig to the core of the matter in this case.
The rest of your "reasoning" is plainly and simply worse than the paper theory itself as it may seem to you.
Can you at least agree that "a mile away" one-ton section of the engine SHOULD BE OFFICIALLY AND WIDELY EXPLAINED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I wouldn't care much if it is a lie. The much bigger problem is that the government of this country has started to think that its subjects don't have to be given any explainations at all.
And if you doubt anything you become dubious.
