Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: right_to_defend
OK folks. Now we are making progress. The next question is:
If the plane was ascending at 250+ knots, then following laws of trajectory, at which point did the engines actually separate from the plane? Remember, both fell within 2 blocks of the crash site. Given their close proximity, would then have both separated at the same time, within seconds of each other, ...etc?
28 posted on 11/13/2001 1:12:08 PM PST by rit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: rit
Last night on Nightline, John Nance, former airline pilot and ABC's Aviation Expert, gave the figure as 200 to 220 knots. FWIW

I wish they'd use mph.


53 posted on 11/13/2001 1:17:55 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rit
The tail section fell in the water, yet the engines fell on land. Which would you suppose came off the plane first. I don't know the aerodynamics of a falling aircraft engine, but it sounds like the tail section came off first.
64 posted on 11/13/2001 1:20:44 PM PST by Robear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rit
Remember, both fell within 2 blocks of the crash site.

The thing that bugs me the most, is that the tail was found in Jamaica Bay. In other words the tail fell off first. Can anyone tell me how the hell that happend?

Under what circumstances would you find the tail falling off before the engines if it was "mechanical failure"?

This is not a conspiracy angle, it's an honest question.

69 posted on 11/13/2001 1:21:31 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rit
would then have both separated at the same time, within seconds of each other

If you assume they were heading in a horizontal direction at 250 knots, that there are 12 city blocks in a mile, and that there was neglible difference in wind effect on the two engines, then the second engine separated 2 seconds after the first.

97 posted on 11/13/2001 1:27:45 PM PST by be-baw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rit
Here is my take right from the beginning:

Tail stabilizer was tampered with because of the way it was found with very little damage. It did not appear to be separated forcefully from the plane at all. I suspect it was somehow loosened prior to the flight.

When the tail falls off it disrupts the electronic controls of the plane and the pilot must accelerate speed in order to gain control. He may have done that which caused the engine to torque and break away, or the engine may have also been tampered with in some way causing it to break away when the plane was rattling.

In any case, I smell a rat.

159 posted on 11/13/2001 1:43:46 PM PST by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rit
"If the plane was ascending at 250+ knots, then following laws of trajectory, at which point did the engines actually separate from the plane?"

An English sparrow or a Continental sparrow?

--Boris

442 posted on 11/13/2001 4:40:45 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson