POPCORN! Gravy is on...! :D

[Arus808]

How is the hijacking relevant?

becuase its relevant to flight 93, flight 77 and those planes that crashed into the wtc towers (flight numbers escape me right now). This shows that it was intentional, not accidental.

 

[stateofgrace]

How is the hijacking relevant?

Beachnut says he has seen cases of planes burying themselves so I am waiting to see them

Oh, let me think, emmmmmmmm, maybe because the hijacker flew the plane into the ground at high speed. Other than that , I see your point.

Now stop side tracking where are your examples of planes that have been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried themselves?

It´s ok if you have none, you can admit it.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

You can't back up your claims? Fair enough

You can't back up your claims? Fair enough

 

[Wizard]

Oh, let me think, emmmmmmmm, maybe because the hijacker flew the plane into the ground at high speed. Other than that , I see your point.

Now stop side tracking where are your examples of planes that have been hijacked and flown at high speed into the ground and not buried themselves?

It´s ok if you have none, you can admit it.

I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?

 

[gumboot]

Common sense and the lack of any precedent.

Planes have hit the ground at high speeds such as air show crashes where planes have failed to pull out of loops at the last minute

That's really not comparable. When aircraft misjudge a loop and hit the ground, they're right at the bottom of the loop and their impact force is very lateral. They don't generally hit the ground early in the look, at a nose-down angle, because if that were going to happen they'd know well in advance they were too low and pull out of it.

(If it's a 2000ft loop and they are gonna hit the ground at 90 degrees straight down, that means they're 1000ft too low!)

-Gumboot

 

[stateofgrace]

I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?

I look forward to it. Now stop spamming this thread, which is not about Flight 93 but is actually about Gravy debating the LC guys.

When you get back to me , start a new thread all about Flight 93 and I´m sure you will get exactly the type of debate you wish.

I look forward to seeing your new thread.

 

[ConspiRaider]

20 minutes in...

I kinda feel sorry for Dylan. I think he was just a silly kid with big dreams who came up with a crazy idea, and it turned into a monster when those around him believed it. He obviously doesn't believe any of it, judging by this interview.

-Gumboot

That's a bullseye assessment, Gumboot. Wow. Take a look at Avery's body language. Very uncomfortable to be there. And it's as if he couldn't wait to disregard his own films, couldn't wait for the opportunity to slam them himself. And his facial expressions and body language when Bermas was talking are very telling.

I think there is hope for Dylan Avery. He seems to be starting a move in a more positive direction. He seems to want to distance himself from Bermas, who is obviously pure tinfoil.

Dylan Avery is thinking, and questioning and reevaluating. Good signs.

 

[Quad4_72]

That's a bullseye assessment, Gumboot. Wow. Take a look at Avery's body language. Very uncomfortable to be there. And it's as if he couldn't wait to disregard his own films, couldn't wait for the opportunity to slam them himself. And his facial expressions and body language when Bermas was talking are very telling.

I think there is hope for Dylan Avery. He seems to be starting a move in a more positive direction. He seems to want to distance himself from Bermas, who is obviously pure tinfoil.

Dylan Avery is thinking, and questioning and reevaluating. Good signs.

I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.

 

[Wizard]

I look forward to it. Now stop spamming this thread, which is not about Flight 93 but is actually about Gravy debating the LC guys.

When you get back to me , start a new thread all about Flight 93 and I´m sure you will get exactly the type of debate you wish.

I look forward to seeing your new thread.

I did not mention Flight 93 first. It was in the debate and another poster commented on it. I replied with a single sentence and was then asked numerous questions, so I am not spamming the thread.

If I find examples I will start the thread.

 

[Quad4_72]

I did not mention Flight 93 first. It was in the debate and another poster commented on it. I replied with a single sentence and was then asked numerous questions, so I am not spamming the thread.

If I find examples I will start the thread.

Which you won't find examples, so a thread will never be started. Good work.

 

[Wizard]

Beachnut may I see these examples you speak of?

 

[gumboot]

I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.

Dylan can't let go of his theory entirely... I think that's evident. But consider... the only point he pushes evidence on is whether the hijackers were "ruthless". Yet to do that, he has to admit the hijackers exist and WERE on the planes.

Look at key points of LC:2E that Dylan never even mentions when Gravy hits on them:
-UA93 never crashed at Shankesville
-No hijackers on the aircraft
-Fake phone calls

etc...

When Bermas digs into "no bodies at Shankesville" and the "hijackers alive" angle Dylan looks positively ill.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

You can't back up your claims? Fair enough

I have studied high speed impacts, all is in the hole.

I and thousands of Air Force pilots can back up my claims. You have failed to back up you claim. I have studied Accidents, have you.

I have been to the University of Southern California school for Safety and Systems Management and the Air Force School for accident investigation. Have you had training in safety and accident investigation? I have; have you.

Having failed to convince you, that you should treat me as an expert, I will say that the speed and angle of flight 93 impact, plus the fact they found aircraft and people in the hole; that is what impacts look like at that speed and impact angle. (kind of self critiquing and to prove me wrong you have to prove they did not find the plane in the hole with the people)

The problem with most woowoos is they look at low speed impacts at shallow angles. They do not know a normal landing angle is 2 to 3 degrees. They fail to understand an angle much above 5 or 6 degrees will result in a very bad landing. They look at accidents where the pilot did everything he could to be slow and land normal. I doubt if any woowoos have seen a high impact angle accident.

Flight 93 is totally normal wreckage, buried in the ground with some parts ejected; you need to find a real problem. The only problem with your idea is it is not backed up with facts or experience. Bermas is full of false ideas, he is a liar. Are you a liar? I am telling the truth.

Parts being away from the wreckage is not unusually, in a U-2 accident some instruments were ejected from the instrument panel when the plane plowed into the ground. The instrument panel ejected the Vertical velocity indicator 200 yards away. We found parts over 300 yards away from an impact that was basically straight down stalled impact.

I will try to find something for you but I went to school in 87 or 88 and some more later. I was chief of safety at two bases in the Air Force. I have a few books out from some of the classes and I am looking for my accident book. One book may have a poor photo of a hole in the ground where most of the plane is buried.

Why should I waste time looking in my books to prove to you what you will not accept? (most pilots agree with me; ask one, not JDX he is mentally impaired by his unknown political biased brain)

 

[ConspiRaider]

I personally believe you are both wrong on that one. Just watch how eager he is to present some of his evidence. Especially when Mark starts to hit on the 9/11 commision report. He gets all riled up and can't wait to say something. His personality is weak and subtle, lets not confuse that with wanting to change views.

Hi Quad -

But clearly he is changing. Just based, if you will, on his statements that Loose Change was a "bunch of kids" and so forth. It's a move. Of course he may go no further - he might just get comfortable with a more LIHOPpish POV and hang onto that for dear life.

We're not seeing the laughing and sarcasm and cavalier foolishness that was so apparent in other media exposures.

True CTs give an inch on nothing. They'll do anything but admit they may have been wrong on whatever they've said. It's a small step - but Avery is actually admitting, publicly, that he was wrong about some things.

The 2 most interesting people in this first show are Mark and Dylan.

Mark, for what he DID say, how he said it, his deftness at handling multiple subjects with ease and confidence. Mark essentially destroyed their arguments with effortless presentation.

Dylan, for what he did NOT say verbally. He was a study in conflict, at point-blank range. He said everything with his eyes and his manner. He was clearly unhappy and very uncomfortable.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So which was it and why did you choose the one that suited you more?

Red herring. Now deal with the question that was posed to you.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Could you find me a case where a plane buries itself underground like Flight 93 is supposed to have done?

Lack of precedent <> impossibility.

 

[Spins]

I will get back to you on the examples.

Meanwhile , your friend Beachnut has definite examples of planes that have buried themselves. Why is he withholding them?

Nigerian air crash kills all 117 on board

At the site of the wreckage of the ill-fated plane, Ade Aboluyrin, commandant general of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps, told Xinhua "the crashed Bellview Boeing 737 was totally buried after a big explosion late Saturday night,"

"All people on board the plane were dead," he said. "There is no way any one boarding the plane could survive because the whole plane was buried underground."

Amid smoking debris at the site which is a big hole about 25 meters in diameter and 10 meters deep caused by the crash, scores of rescue members, most of them Red Cross members, are busy collecting parts of the dead bodies and moving parts of the ill-fated plane's tail and wings.

Documents, tickets, clothing, as well shoes are scattered everywhere at the site around the hole. Several ambulances were trying but could not get to the site only because there was no motorway.

Me109 discovered in France buried 6 meters underground

Recovery of three Italian G.55 Centauro shot down by USAAF P-47s

Time Team dig on the Wierre-Effroy Spitfire

 

[beachnut]

You can't back up your claims? Fair enough

Have you found one yet???

I have seen many, I have studied many. I wonder how many there are.

Air Force always was digging out planes.

From
"Military Aircraft Crash Sites" all secret and hush hush,
2002

That was one, gee, the plane was all smashed up into a ball a few feet big.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's really not comparable. When aircraft misjudge a loop and hit the ground, they're right at the bottom of the loop and their impact force is very lateral. They don't generally hit the ground early in the look, at a nose-down angle, because if that were going to happen they'd know well in advance they were too low and pull out of it.

(If it's a 2000ft loop and they are gonna hit the ground at 90 degrees straight down, that means they're 1000ft too low!)

-Gumboot

plus a small, light stuntplane is hardly comperable to a large jetliner

 

[gumboot]

Dylan, for what he did NOT say verbally. He was a study in conflict, at point-blank range. He said everything with his eyes and his manner. He was clearly unhappy and very uncomfortable.

It's worth pointing out that in other exchanges Dylan has had no problem speaking, and that even in this debate, when he DID speak he was confident and articulate.

When he didn't speak it was because he CHOSE not to. That in itself is telling.

Take note of his body language when Bermas is speaking. Then compare it with when Gravy is speaking.

-Gumboot