Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

[leftysergeant]

Found this in a response to one of my posts on the Ed Schultz message board. I think it stamps "cancelled" on the arguments that at least part of Flt93 should have been left sticking out of the ground.

http://beta.guba.com/watch/2000935945?newsgroup_id=1234664&set+-1&o=237

Now, my math skills totally suck, so I am going to need some help calculating how deep a 757 would penetrate a substrate of similar resistance (and I think relatively dry glacial till and wet clay come pretty close in that regard) and how tall a stack of wreckage it would make.

The Spitfire buried at Wierre-Effroy was about 30 feet long and formed a 5-foot tall stack.

 

[Quad4_72]

I think in a wreck going full speed, its not a matter of how deep a 757 would go. Its a matter of how deep would a piece of a 757 go. In crash like that, you are looking at complete obliteration of the aircraft. Twoofers think that a somewhat intact aircraft should have been laying out in the field somewhere. This is just simply not the case.

 

[leftysergeant]

Those twoofers who admit that it might tunnel into the ground think that it should be accordianed into a pancake with a bit of it, at least, sticking out or sitting on the surface like Flt 585.

I think it should be compressed in diameter and torn into small pieces and compoletely buried, except, perhaps, for little bits of stuff, especially from the empanage, since we see a discrete tail mark indicating that it had broken free. I should think that that would also shatter and bounce into the woods.

On a side note, I saw one fire fightewr's account of seeing something that, to him, looked like a small plane in the woods. Part of the tail? I wonder whether there might be some follow-up somewhere on that.

 

[RedIbis]

So you think Flight 93 buried itself into the ground, except for some smaller pieces, yet the closest thing we have to a picture showing any of this buried plane being excavated, is part of an engine rotor curiously poised by the backhoe bucket.

We also know for a fact that this piece is not being excavated where it was buried because it's so close to the rim. Same day photos of the ditch show no such pieces that close to the rim.

This image, as with nearly any photo of plane debris is part of the series that was released a few years after the fact.

 

[T.A.M.]

So you think Flight 93 buried itself into the ground, except for some smaller pieces, yet the closest thing we have to a picture showing any of this buried plane being excavated, is part of an engine rotor curiously poised by the backhoe bucket.

We also know for a fact that this piece is not being excavated where it was buried because it's so close to the rim. Same day photos of the ditch show no such pieces that close to the rim.

This image, as with nearly any photo of plane debris is part of the series that was released a few years after the fact.

It's a bitch to be part of the general public NOT PRIVVY to all of the investigative information, photos, and videos, isn't it.

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

We also know for a fact that this piece is not being excavated where it was buried because it's so close to the rim. Same day photos of the ditch show no such pieces that close to the rim.

That's because they had not excavated it yet. I mean DUH-UH!

 

[BigAl]

So you think Flight 93 buried itself into the ground, except for some smaller pieces, yet the closest thing we have to a picture showing any of this buried plane being excavated, is part of an engine rotor curiously poised by the backhoe bucket.

Troll much?

Some Flight 93 Evidence Updated 5/27/09
http://911links.webs.com/Flight93.htm

Edited by prewitt81: 

Edited for Rule 4

Just the link will do, BigAl.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[T.A.M.]

BigAl:

I think you need to post a text file version of that somewhere on line, and then just post a link to it when you feel the need...lol...it is quite a list!

TAM

 

[TJM]

Oh I don't know.. I'd like to hear what's so curious about that engine part.

 

[BenBurch]

So, Red Ibis, have you called UAL yet and asked them what became of the wreckage of their aircraft, and how much of it there was? I provided you the appropriate contact information over 48 hours ago.

If not, why haven't you?

AFRAID of the TRUTH?

 

[Bobert]

I think in a wreck going full speed, its not a matter of how deep a 757 would go. Its a matter of how deep would a piece of a 757 go. In crash like that, you are looking at complete obliteration of the aircraft. Twoofers think that a somewhat intact aircraft should have been laying out in the field somewhere. This is just simply not the case.

Well in defense of truthers it does semm is if they have put all those years of watching the road runner to good use!

 

[Ranb]

We also know for a fact that this piece is not being excavated where it was buried because it's so close to the rim. Same day photos of the ditch show no such pieces that close to the rim.

We? So it is impossible that the piece you are referring to was not moved around a bit between the time it was uncovered to when it was removed from the pit? Your evidence to suport your claim is what?

Ranb

 

[Quad4_72]

Well in defense of truthers it does semm is if they have put all those years of watching the road runner to good use!

Lol. Indeed. They probably think that the nose should just be stuck in the ground and the rest of the plane sticking out of it unscathed.

 

[Shalamar]

So, Red Ibis, have you called UAL yet and asked them what became of the wreckage of their aircraft, and how much of it there was? I provided you the appropriate contact information over 48 hours ago.

If not, why haven't you?

AFRAID of the TRUTH?

The only 'truth' that they want, is evidence that supports their claims of the inside jobby job. Any other evidence is to be discarded, ignored, or jumped on by yelling 'IT WAS PLANTED!'.

They're like creationists. Only look for things that support your conclusion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

No, Lefty, this is untrue. What can happen is that someone can fly the plane fast enough to where it (*WHACK*)... OWWWWWWWW! What'cha hit me for???

Read your post? Why? It's more fun to do things this way!

 

[Bobert]

Lol. Indeed. They probably think that the nose should just be stuck in the ground and the rest of the plane sticking out of it unscathed.

Yup. See children this is the result of years of paranoia and not treating your psychological disorders.

 

[twinstead]

How many times do we have to present the HUGE amount of evidence that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Red? BigAl especially has given you his list over and over and over again.


Do you wake up each day like in the movie Groundhog Day?

 

[Bobert]

OK OK so we are OVERLOOKING the truther argument that trumps EVERYTHING we can say regarding this:
"well of course they have the technology to do X,Y,Z....THEY ARE THE MOST POWERFUL SUPER DUPER MILITARY IN THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!"

 

[bill smith]

Those twoofers who admit that it might tunnel into the ground think that it should be accordianed into a pancake with a bit of it, at least, sticking out or sitting on the surface like Flt 585.

I think it should be compressed in diameter and torn into small pieces and compoletely buried, except, perhaps, for little bits of stuff, especially from the empanage, since we see a discrete tail mark indicating that it had broken free. I should think that that would also shatter and bounce into the woods.

On a side note, I saw one fire fightewr's account of seeing something that, to him, looked like a small plane in the woods. Part of the tail? I wonder whether there might be some follow-up somewhere on that.

The wings must have made huge marks on the rim of the hole Sarge ? Isn't that so ? After all the wings were 125' wide and the hole was only 20' or so wide at the widest point. The plane was doing more than 500mph when it augered into the ground and there is no claim that the wings came off prior to impact. So if I look for some pictures I will see the wing-marks Right ?

 

[twinstead]

The wings must have made huge marks on the rim of the hole Sarge ? Isn't that so ? After all the wings were 125' wide and the hole was only 20' or so wide at the widest point. The plane was doing more than 500mph when it augered into the ground and there is no claim that the wings came off prior to impact. So if I look for some pictures I wil see the wing-marks Right ?

No, you look at the HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE that the plane smashed into the ground, and the large number of similar crashes with similar results from around the world, and quit making arguments from incredulity about something you apparently know nothing about.