Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

[TJM]

I imagine a plane crashing head first into soft ground to leave huge parts, start a fire and cause a huge crater.

Not a small little ditch that has nothing in it.....At least the perps could have dumped the contents of a 55 gallon drum of kerosene in the hole to make the crash somewhat more plausible.


There is no more evidence of 93 crashing there than it having crashed in my backyard

They should have also rented the backhoe longer and dug a bigger hole with it, 20 minutes wasnt enough

So what about flight 1771 Roundhead? You know, the one that's very similar to flight 93 in nearly every detail? The one that's routine ignored by truthers?

 

[TJM]

Quickly Roundhead! Which crater is which flight? Oh and the bottom pic? See those smoldering trees? That's a common result of a fire.

 

[roundhead]

So what about flight 1771 Roundhead? You know, the one that's very similar to flight 93 in nearly every detail? The one that's routine ignored by truthers?

I dont ignore anything.

All i know is looking at a vst array of photos of the site, and listening to people who were there describle what it looked like, leaves zero doubt a giant airliner DIDNT crash there...


what do you make of the fact no kerosene smell was noted, or for that matter found in the ground..we know it sure didnt burn up, as there is no sign of anything burnt adjacent to that tiny hole????

No plane, no fuel, no pieces.....equals giant lie


There are of course, many mysteries about 9/11, to me happened to the" planes" is the hardest to sniff out.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I dont ignore anything.All i know is looking at a vst array of photos of the site, and listening to people who were there describle what it looked like, leaves zero doubt a giant airliner DIDNT crash there...

what do you make of the fact no kerosene smell was noted, or for that matter found in the ground..we know it sure didnt burn up, as there is no sign of anything burnt adjacent to that tiny hole????

No plane, no fuel, no pieces.....equals giant lie

I see, so that also means that the flight 1771 crash was also faked. I mean as you know having watched the provided video they clearly didn't see much there either. No plane, no fuel, no pieces after all equals a giant lie amidointhisrite?

_{Something tells me it's finally hitting judging by your edit that your argument has a slight problem}

 

[TJM]

I dont ignore anything.

All i know is looking at a vst array of photos of the site, and listening to people who were there describle what it looked like, leaves zero doubt a giant airliner DIDNT crash there...


what do you make of the fact no kerosene smell was noted, or for that matter found in the ground..we know it sure didnt burn up, as there is no sign of anything burnt adjacent to that tiny hole????

No plane, no fuel, no pieces.....equals giant lie

Are you sure nothing burned up?

 

[Justin39640]

from: http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-pa1771.shtml

A Call comes in to the San Luis Obispo County, California Sherrif's Office citing a small plane crash in the mountains of southern California. Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Two days later, an FBI Agent working the scene found what appeared to be the barrel and trigger of a handgun. Forensic Analysists examined the pieces, and found a small piece of skin wedged between the trigger and the barrel. By matching the skin prints to the passenger manifest, investigators were able to conclude that the gun had been in the hand of USAir employee David Burke at the time of impact.

 

[JimBenArm]

So the whole basis of this thread is that RedIbis looked at photos of the crater at Shanksville, used his vast experience in aircraft crashes and determined it didn't look right, therefore:

COVERUP!

I am duly impressed.

 

[roundhead]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_268324a2170eb0ae49.png[/qimg]



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_268324a21710f67ead.jpg[/qimg]


Quickly Roundhead! Which crater is which flight? Oh and the bottom pic? See those smoldering trees? That's a common result of a fire.

See that dinky hole, there isnt anything in it, the bulldozer that made it isnt there anymore

 

[roundhead]

So the whole basis of this thread is that RedIbis looked at photos of the crater at Shanksville, used his vast experience in aircraft crashes and determined it didn't look right, therefore:

COVERUP!

I am duly impressed.

As opposed to you, he is mighty smart, as he thought for himself. He looked, saw it was small and had nothing in it, and came to the correct conclusion that a huge jetliner didnt crash there.

Stick around and learn something, you have a great chance

 

[Grizzly Bear]

See that dinky hole, there isnt anything in it, the bulldozer that made it isnt there anymore

So they used bulldozers to dig both holes?

 

[roundhead]

I see, so that also means that the flight 1771 crash was also faked. I mean as you know having watched the provided video they clearly didn't see much there either. No plane, no fuel, no pieces after all equals a giant lie amidointhisrite?

_{Something tells me it's finally hitting judging by your edit that your argument has a slight problem}

Dont derail the thread..start your own if you want to talk about plane crashes, as this thread isnt about crashes, its about phantom flight 93 which DIDNT crash in that dinky bulldozer made hole in Shanksville.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Dont derail the thread..start your own if you want to talk about plane crashes, as this thread isnt about crashes, its about phantom flight 93 which DIDNT crash in that dinky bulldozer made hole in Shanksville.

I'm not derailing... you just said that no debris, no fuel, no pieces means that the entire crash site for flight 93 means that this is all a giant lie. That anyone who believes that a plane crashed there is a "misguided fool" or "something worse". I'm only asking of your opinion for a crash for which the end product was almost identical. Or are you that reluctant to apply a double standard? Don't be afraid, please explain to your audience what makes one crash scene an actual crash scene, and what makes the Shankesville crash scene a farse despite both being nearly identical.

Or do we now have two coverups in which "dinky bulldozers" have dug two "ditches" according to the standard of evidence you're applying?

why won't you answer the question?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So far every picture of a plane crash looks a hell of a lot more like a plane crashed there than does the ditch in Shanksville.

A ditch is a long narrow hole dug out of the ground. If anyone reads some negative, disrespectful connotation in that, I'm not responsible for that nonsense.

Hey red, if you ever return to this thread feel free to answer in roundhead's place. I doubt roundhead will be as forthcoming as you have been.

 

[roundhead]

I'm not derailing... you just said that no debris, no fuel, no pieces means that the entire crash site for flight 93 means that this is all a giant lie. That anyone who believes that a plane crashed there is a "misguided fool" or "something worse". I'm only asking of your opinion for a crash for which the end product was almost identical. Or are you that reluctant to apply a double standard? Don't be afraid, please explain to your audience what makes one crash scene an actual crash scene, and what makes the Shankesville crash scene a farse despite both being nearly identical.

Or do we now have two coverups in which "dinky bulldozers" have dug two "ditches" according to the standard of evidence you're applying?

why won't you answer the question?

I agree with you, any honest skeptic who looks at that hole, and superimposes a jetliner the size of 93 over it, sees there is nothing in it...yes, would be a fool to think a huge jetliner crashed there.

Remember, the ground there wasnt rocky, or made of concrete, it was extremely soft, easy to dig up(as was done) and nothing of the wings or fueselage is seen.

If nothing is there, nothing is there.


Where are those huge wings at??????

 

[JimBenArm]

As opposed to you, he is mighty smart, as he thought for himself. He looked, saw it was small and had nothing in it, and came to the correct conclusion that a huge jetliner didnt crash there.

Stick around and learn something, you have a great chance

Yes, unfortunately, it isn't going to be from people like you, as there is nothing you could teach me, except how to post off-topic insults. Now, based on your years of crash investigation, how big should the hole have been?

I'm sure you'll have a super-scientific answer like "bigger".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree with you, any honest skeptic who looks at that hole, and superimposes a jetliner the size of 93 over it, sees there is nothing in it...yes, would be a fool to think a huge jetliner crashed there.

... and would you say the same for this one:

If nothing is there, nothing is there.

According to your reasoning right????????

Remember, the ground there wasnt rocky, or made of concrete, it was extremely soft, easy to dig up(as was done) and nothing of the wings are fuesalage is seen.

At 600 miles per hour... and slamming into the ground at a high incline. Momentum isn't very friendly to large non-solid objects regardless of the ground composition. Hitting water at those speeds for perspective is akin to slamming head first into a block of concrete; it kills.

 

[roundhead]

Yes, unfortunately, it isn't going to be from people like you, as there is nothing you could teach me, except how to post off-topic insults. Now, based on your years of crash investigation, how big should the hole have been?

I'm sure you'll have a super-scientific answer like "bigger".

My guess is that a 100 plus ton airliner traveling at hundreds of miles and hour and impacting into very soft soil would have plunged more than 12/15 feet deep, and on impact its wings would certainly have broken off and apart.


Heck if i am to swallow what you support, a similar airliner went right through a reinforced wall at the Pentagon(making an even beigger hole in the reinforced wall) and kept right on a going, it sure didnt stop in 15 feet, hitting something much ,much harder. It went several hundred feet.

Well actually it didnt, they just told us it did. Sorry i cant keep track of all the OCT lies


Do you see why defending the Shanksville lie has zero resonable merit

 

[BenBurch]

Only an idiot fails to understand that the site was a STONE quarry. Not soft soil. There was a layer of topsoil and then ROCK.

 

[JimBenArm]

My guess is that a 100 plus ton airliner traveling at hundreds of miles and hour and impacting into very soft soil would have plunged more than 12/15 feet deep, and on impact its wings would certainly have broken off and apart.


Heck if i am to swallow what you support, a similar airliner went right through a reinforced wall at the Pentagon(making an even beigger hole in the reinforced wall) and kept right on a going, it sure didnt stop in 15 feet, hitting something much ,much harder. It went several hundred feet.

Well actually it didnt, they just told us it did. Sorry i cant keep track of all the OCT lies


Do you see why defending the Shanksville lie has zero resonable merit

I see why your personal incredulty at it leaves much to be desired, since you have zero experience in crash scene investigation, and have done nothing but post such nonsense. If there is something that you have, other than your own personal issues with this, I'm open to looking at them. However, since all you have is "it doesn't look right TO ME" it means nothing to me. Hence, my unwillingness to take what you say seriously.

I know you have issues with what you call the OCT. However, these issues are nothing more than what I just stated, and your lack of experience, education, and overall lack of tact and use of insult where it is uncalled for makes it impossible to believe you have anything substantial to offer to this debate. Sorry, you're just another wanna-be who never will be.

Goodbye.

 

[roundhead]

Only an idiot fails to understand that the site was a STONE quarry. Not soft soil. There was a layer of topsoil and then ROCK.

Make up your foolish mind.


If rock was truly under the topsoil, it stands to reason the ground didnt swallow up the plane then, now doesnt it.It wouldnt have gone very far running into rock, and the OCT of saying the ground swallowed up the plane is a mighty leaky bucket, isnt it.

The thing is, the OCT contains so many outlandish lies, its a real job defending all of them. I can see why so many debunker "crows" infest the fence lines of this site. They are all much needed, perhaps many more should be here, its a mighty big juggling act.