• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

RedIbis said:
No, it's just damn convenient that there are people such as yourself who will assume such photos exist.
Click to expand...
Red so what is?
If the photos are shown they are fake and then your movement argues that they must have photos they are keeping hidden....what does it matter if they do?
Your movement will claim that the photos are faked!
 
ktesibios said:
By an odd coincidence I recently read a book called Air Accident Investigation by David Owen. f.
Click to expand...
Obviously this book was written by David to throw off our investigooglerTM truther brigade.
He is NO DOUBT a government operative working to cover up mass murder and promote our permanent fake global war on terror.
 
Last edited:
ktesibios said:
By an odd coincidence I recently read a book called Air Accident Investigation by David Owen. This is not a text or technical book but a general-audience one and it consists largely of histories of airplane crashes and how investigators worked out the causes of each. In the first chapter Owen gives some examples of how investigators draw inferences from wreckage, damage to objects on the ground and so on- tidbits like how an accident investigator can determine if an indicator or warning light in the cockpit was on or off when the plane impacted. One passage that seemed relevant to the crash of flight 93:

The bolding is mine, to pick out items relevant to the Shanksville crash site. Please to note that Owen speaks of a "smoking hole impact" in a way that indicates that this is a phenomenon familiar to accident investigators, as are the clues provided by the smoking hole itself.
Click to expand...

'' the highest area appears on the side of he crater to show the direction the plane was heading, and often the bulk of the wreckage appears on this side too.''

When I slow the picture of a plane crashing into the ground to super-slow I see it throwing up a wall of earth in front of it as the plane drives down into the ground.But how does most of the plane wreckage get to the other side of the wall in this scenario ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
'' the highest area appears on the side of he crater to show the direction the plane was heading, and often the bulk of the wreckage appears on this side too.''

When I slow the picture of a plane crashing into the ground to super-slow I see it throwing up a wall of earth in front of it as the plane drives down into the ground.But how does most of the plane wreckage get to the other side of the wall in this scenario ?
Click to expand...

Some backscatter happens. Ever see the craters of the moon in a telescope? Notice the "rays" that you can see leading away from some of them, and the central peak? Those are made up both of lunar regolith AND parts of the impacting body, even though the majority of the impactor is under the surface, because the collision was not entirely inelastic. Likewise the "Doom Rock" that they think may have killed the Dinosaurs; Most of that is under the Yucatan peninsula, and the sea floor nearby, but there was enough backscatter that the CT boundary has a lot of Iridium from that body.
 
bill smith said:
'' the highest area appears on the side of he crater to show the direction the plane was heading, and often the bulk of the wreckage appears on this side too.''

When I slow the picture of a plane crashing into the ground to super-slow I see it throwing up a wall of earth in front of it as the plane drives down into the ground.But how does most of the plane wreckage get to the other side of the wall in this scenario ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could link us to this slowed down picture you saw so that we can comment Bill.
 
bill smith said:
'' the highest area appears on the side of he crater to show the direction the plane was heading, and often the bulk of the wreckage appears on this side too.''

When I slow the picture of a plane crashing into the ground to super-slow I see it throwing up a wall of earth in front of it as the plane drives down into the ground.But how does most of the plane wreckage get to the other side of the wall in this scenario ?
Click to expand...

who said it was on the other side of the wall?
 
bill smith said:
'' the highest area appears on the side of he crater to show the direction the plane was heading, and often the bulk of the wreckage appears on this side too.''

When I slow the picture of a plane crashing into the ground to super-slow I see it throwing up a wall of earth in front of it as the plane drives down into the ground.But how does most of the plane wreckage get to the other side of the wall in this scenario ?
Click to expand...
Parts are ejected due to the kinetic energy you could calculate and figure out if you would take a science course instead of posting moronic lazy statements about 911.

Why not ask an aircraft accident investigator why 93's impact is what would be expected at 600 mph. Can you do any research?

I cheated, I was trained by the USAF to be an aircraft accident investigator, worked aircraft crashes including impacts at steep angles, worked aircraft accidents as board president, and pilot investigator; I find your trolling and statements on Flight 93 to be moronic tripe.

In slower impacts instruments firmly mounted in the cockpit can be ejected hundreds of feet during ground impact. In high speed impacts like Flight 93 most the aircraft is crushed by the impact at 600 mph but objects are still ejected. Some objects are ejected in perfect condition, some are destroyed. Flight 93's impact is what a crash scene for 600 mph and high angle impact heading south would look like. Your failure to understand this has you making pathetic posts exposing your lack of knowledge and propensity for spreading lies and delusions about 911.

Show me what a high speed impact in truther-ville looks like; what does your delusions say a high speed impact looks like? Got some evidence to base your failed delusions on? no
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Parts are ejected due to the kinetic energy you could calculate and figure out if you would take a science course instead of posting moronic lazy statements about 911.

Why not ask an aircraft accident investigator why 93's impact is what would be expected at 600 mph. Can you do any research?

I cheated, I was trained by the USAF to be an aircraft accident investigator, worked aircraft crashes including impacts at steep angles, worked aircraft accidents as board president, and pilot investigator; I find your trolling and statements on Flight 93 to be moronic tripe.

In slower impacts instruments firmly mounted in the cockpit can be ejected hundreds of feet during ground impact. In high speed impacts like Flight 93 most the aircraft is crushed by the impact at 600 mph but objects are still ejected. Some objects are ejected in perfect condition, some are destroyed. Flight 93's impact is what a crash scene for 600 mph and high angle impact heading south would look like. Your failure to understand this has you making pathetic posts exposing your lack of knowledge and propensity for spreading lies and delusions about 911.

Show me what a high speed impact in truther-ville looks like; what does your delusions say a high speed impact looks like? Got some evidence to base your failed delusions on? no
Click to expand...

AS an aircraft accident investigator you should be able to tell us if there would have been wing marks either side of the central hole.And you should also be able to tell us what it means if there WERE no such marks in video taken shortly after the crash. Do you want to commit ?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Parts are ejected due to the kinetic energy you could calculate and figure out if you would take a science course instead of posting moronic lazy statements about 911.

Why not ask an aircraft accident investigator why 93's impact is what would be expected at 600 mph. Can you do any research?

I cheated, I was trained by the USAF to be an aircraft accident investigator, worked aircraft crashes including impacts at steep angles, worked aircraft accidents as board president, and pilot investigator; I find your trolling and statements on Flight 93 to be moronic tripe.

In slower impacts instruments firmly mounted in the cockpit can be ejected hundreds of feet during ground impact. In high speed impacts like Flight 93 most the aircraft is crushed by the impact at 600 mph but objects are still ejected. Some objects are ejected in perfect condition, some are destroyed. Flight 93's impact is what a crash scene for 600 mph and high angle impact heading south would look like. Your failure to understand this has you making pathetic posts exposing your lack of knowledge and propensity for spreading lies and delusions about 911.

Show me what a high speed impact in truther-ville looks like; what does your delusions say a high speed impact looks like? Got some evidence to base your failed delusions on? no
Click to expand...

Here in black Bill!
 
bill smith said:
AS an aircraft accident investigator you should be able to tell us if there would have been wing marks either side of the central hole.And you should also be able to tell us what it means if there WERE no such marks in video taken shortly after the crash. Do you want to commit ?
Click to expand...

Give it up beachnut, an incredulous argument from a truther trumps all experience. I thought you knew that.
 
bill smith said:
AS an aircraft accident investigator you should be able to tell us if there would have been wing marks either side of the central hole.And you should also be able to tell us what it means if there WERE no such marks in video taken shortly after the crash. Do you want to commit ?
Click to expand...

The wing marks are there just like they are in other aircraft accidents I have worked on. Sorry your lack of knowledge and gullibility make you easy to believe lies and delusions. But you have chosen to believe the morons and moronic lies from 911 truthers.

Show me the video with no marks. Why do you lie?

HyJinX said:
There's also this one...
Shanksville+on+TV.bmp
Click to expand...
Right after.
 
beachnut said:
The wing marks are there just like they are in other aircraft accidents I have worked on. Sorry your lack of knowledge and gullibility make you easy to believe lies and delusions. But you have chosen to believe the morons and moronic lies from 911 truthers.

Show me the video with no marks. Why do you lie?


Right after.
Click to expand...

First tell us as an experienced aircraft accident investigator what it means if live video taken shortly after the crash clearly shows NO wing marks from the impact of flight 93.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
First tell us as an experienced aircraft accident investigator what it means if live video taken shortly after the crash clearly shows NO wing marks from the impact of flight 93.
Click to expand...

Show us this live video Bill.

Thats two videos you have referred too Bill. Yet to see either Bill!
 
bill smith said:
First tell us as an experienced aircraft accident investigator what it means if live video taken shortly after the crash clearly shows NO wing marks from the impact of flight 93.
Click to expand...

That the wings of the aircraft had no markings in the first place?

He also didn't see reindeer.

Not seeing something isn't evidence of anything when considered in the context of all the evidence we do have for Flight 93 crashing into that field.
 
bill smith said:
I'm sure nobody is waiting for your answer Beachnut.
Click to expand...

Im waiting for you Bill. Your predictable Bill. Tease us with BS then produce BS. Your aguement always fails Bill. I wonder why Bill.

Two videos Bill. Where are they Bill?
 
bill smith said:
Have the courage of your convictions and answer the question first.
Click to expand...

lol. You dont have any 'live' videos showing no wings scars do you Bill. BS peddler.

Nothing new here folks. Just Bill BS again. Bill will fail again in approximately 10 more posts. His train of arguement follows the same predictable line. He thinks he has something, poses a few incoherent posts, asks stupid questions, states he has evidence, shows his supposed evidence - and fails. Predictable Bill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom