Let's say I'm right, and no tail section was found in the hole at Shanksville.
They said a plane crashed there, right? So you'd expect to see something like the remnants of a plane crash when you got there.
Fine. Now, look at as many different plane crashes as you can find, especially ones that involved high speed. Discover how many of them include a tail section that survives an impact.
If you come away with any other value than 100%, please inform me, because I've really tried to find one instance and I can't.
Slow speed impact.
'
Slow speed impact the tail section did not hit anything because as pilots we tend to try and crash at slow speeds, and usually the times we mess up carrying passengers we are at slow speeds when we mess up, like landing and taking off. If you understood physics, you would not be spewing nonsense like this and other posts which make you appear science free, knowledge free, and not ready to understand 911.
Which means, You spew nonsense.
An engine from flight 93.
Wow, another plane which hit and look, not much is left that looks like a plane.
High speed impact, where is the jet? It is in pieces.
No tail; due to high speed impact!
Go ahead show me a high speed impact where a tail section survives. Go ahead, make my decade.
E=1/2mv
2, figure it out. The tail section remains in a slow crash, nothing big survives intact during a high speed crash. The energy of a high speed crash is nearly 10 times that of a slow speed crash. Why can't you do physics and make rational claims?
Since practically every picture of a plane crash I've ever seen resembles this image, I agree.
Sometimes the plane is more broken up, but the tail section survives.
The reason the tail section survives more often than the nose of the plane is because the impact of the nose onto the ground actually slows the plane quickly. By the time the tail has a chance to reach the ground, the plane has already stopped, so the tail section survives.
No tail section of a plane at Shanksville? That is a reason to ask questions about that flight, even leading all the way up to the original claim of a hijacking.
The only reason the tail survives is due to the slow speed of the crashes, and the fact the fire destroyed the central part of the planes, the Al melts in the jet fuel fire.
The reason tails survive is due to slow speed impacts and the energy involved. Got physics? I showed you an imapct with no tail, oops, it was just like 93, a high speed impact.
Do you have any images of the plane they reconstructed from the pieces they found at Shanksville?
You only put a plane back together to determine the reason the plane crashed. 93 crashed because the terrorists flew the plane into the ground. Due to a FOIA release I have the FDR information which shows the terrorists pilot inputs to the crash.
Accidents are when the NTSB puts planes back together to determine cause, crimes are done by the FBI and the plane had no problems on 911 so there is zero need to reconstruct the planes. This is a simple point, why can't you get the simple points correct. Why do you disrespect NYC victims by making up lies?
Do you have an image of the tail section of Flight 93?
The tail was smashed in the impact. Part of the tail are all over the crash site.
I'm not a person who says those flights actually flew on 9/11. Other people are saying this happened, and I can't account for the words of other people.
My work is forensic work, and I automatically discount hearsay evidence.
Since we didn't have other types of evidence that the flights existed, the evidence that they didn't exist is all we have.
We didn't find enough plane parts at any of the attack locations on 9/11 to put together a plane. 4 plane "crashes" but 0 planes? Very strange. Which is why I study forensic evidence instead of hearsay. Who can tell why people say the things they do? I'm not a psychologist.
You don't put planes back together which crashed due to crime when you know the pilots, the terrorist pilots flew the planes on purpose into the ground, and buildings. Sorry, this is simple stuff and your lack of skills in physics is showing. The tails of these planes would have the same chance of survival as the wings, they are all strong, but in a high speed impact there is little change the wings or tail sections will survive.
The wings normally survive impacts like tail sections in-slow speed crashes, but the wings carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel and they melt in the fires; there is no fuel in the tail section, it usually does not burn up in fire, so you see tails, and not much more in crashes with fires. Your lack of knowledge in this subject area is not a surprise since you have the insane steel turns to dust claim.
Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 flew on 911, and making up nonsense about them you are disrespectful of those who died on 911. Very poor work.
