Flt 93 crater was not unique

JREF is great because of the new terms and expressions I'm always picking up.

A "lawn dart"? I never heard of them. Wait, wait, they were banned in 1997. http://www.kidsource.com/cpsc/lawn.darts.html Must be a generational thing.

"Crash and bounce"?? Somehow, that should be applied to Britney Spears' and Lindsay Lohan's escapades and collapses, only I don't exactly see how. Perhaps someone will help.

Edit: possible use of "crash and bounce:" "Boy, after that pop tart had too much booze and drugs, not only did she fall out of her Hummer, she really crashed and bounced."
 
Last edited:
StoneRook said:
Go to here:

yapdates.blogspot.com/2007/10/plane-crash-in-richmond.html

granted - it is a small cessna, but you can clearly see the wing marks on the wall.

so - if a small cessna, hitting a steel/concrete building can do that, imagine what a large jet, smashing into dirt can do.
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding me, I don't doubt that wings would leave marks in dirt. I doubt they would leave marks in soft dirt so similar to marks left in steel. I would image large plane wings loaded with fuel would blow up when it hit the ground and leave a crater in the dirt that would look more like a bomb crater.
 
Last edited:
Tweeter said:
At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.
Click to expand...


No matter what the angle of an impactor, craters are always round.
 
lack of knowledge?

tomm said:
I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.
Click to expand...
The sad part of your ignorance is 93 did hit in PA, as it looks. To make up false ideas is stupid. To make up false information is ignorance. Bounced out? In a high energy impact, as in lower energy impacts, objects are ejected in the chaos. 93's impact is as it should be. Lack of experience is leading to your ignorance on this topic and you have not learned since your last 93 lack of facts posts.

To display this much ignorance and ignore all the evidence is standard 9/11 truth methods. Implying 93 did not crash there you have to prove all the evidence is fake. But you have no evidence to do so.
 
Last edited:
tomm said:
That is interesting, however I fail to see how a plane crashing into a steel haul can be compared to crashing into a patch of soft dirt.

I want to see where a plane has left wing impressions in the ground after crashing other than what is observed at Shanksville.
Click to expand...

What hit the ground at Shanksville then?
 
tomm said:
I think you are misunderstanding me, I don't doubt that wings would leave marks in dirt. I doubt they would leave marks in soft dirt so similar to marks left in steel. I would image large plane wings loaded with fuel would blow up when it hit the ground and leave a crater in the dirt that would look more like a bomb crater.
Click to expand...
The soft dirt is the key. The wings and fuel were traveling at 600 mph. When the wings break up the fuel will still travel into the ground (most). With limited air to mix with (underground) you would not get the huge crater forming explosion. Just a fireball from the fuel that did not penetrate the ground.
 
DGM said:
The soft dirt is the key. The wings and fuel were traveling at 600 mph. When the wings break up the fuel will still travel into the ground (most). With limited air to mix with (underground) you would not get the huge crater forming explosion. Just a fireball from the fuel that did not penetrate the ground.
Click to expand...
OK, that would make sense then. I guess I didn't take that into consideration.

Just thought of something, how much fuel did Flight 93 still contain at the time of impact?
 
Hey tomm, in another thread you made the claim that flight 93 physics were impossible, or words to that effect. I asked you this question before, but have yet the answer it. Let us hope you are more willing to either answer or admit you cannot

Please, using math, show us what is wrong with the Shanksville crash physics.
 
DavidJames said:
exactly and nevermind the DNA, body parts, plane bits and pieces found by all the people who walked around the scene.

If it doesn't look like it from photos it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.
 
tomm said:
Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.
Click to expand...
Ignorance is 9/11 truth. You are continuously producing flawed ideas on 93.
You present no evidence just talk like 9/11 truth. False information and lies. Exposing your lack of knowledge across all disciplines that could help you understand 9/11. Lost in ignorance you repeat hearsay misinformation from 9/11 truth.

Like the mindless drones of 9/11 truth you have no evidence to support your smallest idea on 9/11. Zero evidence, zero use of facts, what will you tell us next?
 
Last edited:
tomm said:
Those are all the kinds of things I'd expect to have been recovered if the government had faked a plane crash.
Click to expand...

Then what would it take to convince you that you're wrong- if evidence simply will not do it, what will?
 
Can any "no flight 93" theorists tell us what post-911 event depended on the murder of grass? I believe this would be the first conspiracy in history targeting plants.
 
tomm said:
Planted evidence won't convince me.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer to my question, it's an evasion of the question.

Again, the question is what will convince you, if not evidence? If you're just going to claim that all evidence is planted (without any proof)- then you're saying that your position cannot be falsified.

Do you understand why this is important? You're arriving at your conclusion first, and then ignoring all the evidence which contradicts it.

Does that sound rational or scientific to you?
 
No one has planted any evidence in you.

tomm said:
Planted evidence won't convince me.
Click to expand...
No one has planted any evidence in you.





you are so safe from being accused of having any

So you have refuted all the evidence yet? FDR, DNA, ???
 
Last edited:
tomm said:
Planted evidence won't convince me.
Click to expand...

Planted how? No no-plane ranter has yet risen to my challenge.

Explain how that fresh crater got created by some means other than driving an airliner into the ground or admit you are talking out the wrong end of your body cavity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom