"The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
Misspoken my ass! Anyone that knows anything about flight 93 knows that it did not all crash where they claim it did. It was shot down without a doubt and Rumslfeld spilled the beans inadvertently by being so careless about remembering who it was that he was addressing.
Engines don't bounce 1/2 mile away from the crash scene like the idiots in government claim it did. You are again defending the indefensible. Take a course in physics and then get back to me with your absurd theories.
Engines...I assume you do know that the engines are designed and engineered to fall off when under certain stress condidtions.
That's news to me. It's hard for me to fathom engineers making that a design priority, particularly considering the hazard of having only one wing mounted engine drop off.
">>The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal stabilizers.)"
The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal stabilizers.)"
This is not the same thing as saying that they are designed to fall off under certain stresses, as though it's better to not have an engine on the wing than to have one. This is saying that, IF "something happens that causes the mount to break" that it would break off a certain way so as to minimize damage. Any time you have something mounted with more than one mount, one will be stronger than the other. In this case, the decided it's advantageous to make the rear one weaker.
Again, I think it's generally better to have a dead wing engine stay attached to the plane than to have it drop off. The plane will be easier to control.
Again, I think it's generally better to have a dead wing engine stay attached to the plane than to have it drop off. The plane will be easier to control.
I'll wait for an authoritative source to state otherwise. I'll qualify this with a description or list of the particular stresses which are intended to result in engine breakaway.
Applying this to the topic at hand, you're suggesting that 93 experienced some of these stresses that resulted in engine breakaway. Do you maintain that a cockpit fight would be one of them?
I am not interested in any theories, only what is realistic and rational about an accident.
Then what stresses, in particular, would realistically and rationally cause the engines of flight 93 to break away on 911 while in flight? Or otherwise cause an 8 mile debris field?
Then what stresses, in particular, would realistically and rationally cause the engines of flight 93 to break away on 911 while in flight? Or otherwise cause an 8 mile debris field?
I'll volunteer one realistic and rational possibility that I can think of, and that's flight 93 being struck by an anti-aircraft missle.
Why not?
It's very plausible that 93 was known to be hijacked and F-16's were on to it and shot it down. It would explain why the FBI refuses to release the last 3 minutes of cockpit recordings on 93. Politically, it's more desirable to have everyone think of the passengers as heros and without any divisive public controversy over whether it was proper to shoot down flight 93. About whether, just maybe, the passengers would have been successful in taking the plane back and safely landing it.
It explains the wide debris field quite nicely. Is there a more rational explanation?