• 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.

Flt 93 crater was not unique

I think actually, as many here are probably aware, Northwest flight 710 is your best overall analogy (1960/Indiana). The wings separated in flight, and the fuselage crashed vertically at 618mph. The fuselage structure completely disappeared under its impact crater. And I don't exaggerate. Had NW 710 crashed on 9/11, the "no flight 93" types would all be saying "Look! No fuselage. No bodies (there weren't any of those either.) Therefore No Plane!"

I've been at ad.com for years. Truthers wouldn't last at that site for more than two seconds.
 
I preferr 585 because it more closely resembles the controlled flight into terrain. The wings were still in place, and buried themselves nicely at the proper angles to the fuselage.

Had I used 710, the twoofers would probably have screamed that there should be no wing prints at Shanksville.

Details matter. Problem is, the twoofers don't know which details matter and which don't.
 
The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

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.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html
 
Totally wrong, Tweeter. The determining factor is the kinetic energy with which the aircaft hit the ground. By your logic, every bullet fired on a firing range should go zingning off to chase the birds away. Tell it to someone who has never helped rebuild the berm on a rifle range.
 
The anmalogy applies, regardless what a nattering little Aussie barmpot may have told you. It's simple ballistics.

Have you ever fired a firearm of any sort? The shape or structure of the bullet does not even matter.

Cotton bullets will defeat a human skull. 55grain hollow points, designed to flatten out or shatter in flesh will defeat 1/4 inch steel plate. Lead balls will punch a hole in a cast iron skillet.

Look at the Shanksville carter. See how the dirt is pushed up on the down-range side? That's because the nose bit into the dirt at the first moment and just kept on digging.

Now, if you do not believe that a 757 made that hole, that day, come up with an alternative scenario or own that you are talking through your knickers.
 
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...


This statement is unfathomably stupid. Please tell me you're joking.

-Gumboot
 
Tweeter said:
The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading
Click to expand...

Is that personal intuition or sound physics? I once did a somewhat silly experiment, I suppose. I took a model 757 and plowed it at various angles into a flower pot. Even at 40 degrees, I was unable to tell the difference between a 40 degree imprint and a 90 degree one.



The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html
Click to expand...

As other high speed crashes show, lack of "any large debris" doesn't defy logic. For example, PSA 1771, as I'm sure again, many must be familiar with here. It was said the largest piece was six feet long. That would be about the same size, or even smaller, for the largest piece of F93.
 
Last edited:
I guess the reason I go for the 710 analogy more than 585 (or USAir 427) is I find in my encounters with no planers, the thing they find most startling is the idea 95% of the plane could be totally buried. I don't think that applied to 585.
 
I suppose it would be futile to go into the functions of mass and speed (flight 93 was much heavier and much faster than 585) as it relateds to penetration, with people of that mental capacity.
 
that was a dumb post

Tweeter said:
The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

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.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html
Click to expand...
Except for the FACT 93 did hit at 40 degrees or more and the impact hole is what you get. Having been at real aircraft accidents, owning the scene so to speak. 93 is exactly what a high speed, high angle impact looks like. Landing angles are 2.5 to 3 degree and the pilot flairs. 40 degree is steep, and the plane at 600 mph does not bounce! 93 dug in and also blasted parts. I would not be surprised if parts flew 1000 feet, ejected during the violent impact! But then I have worked accidents, you repeat sick hearsay crap! I have experience and training, oops, it beats hearsay and lies. Darn…

You are wrong, but it is not your fault you have not been trained and you listen to liars! If you got this junk from 9/11 truth you have been fooled! If you made it up from your vast experience, you are just ignorant on aircraft accidents.
 
And, just to remind anyone who might be concerned, the difference between ignorance and stupidity is ignorance can be cured.
 
If you look at the crash sites for Flights 427 and 585, they are quite similar to Flight 93. the plane fragments, for the most part, are very small.

As for the parts being "buried", well that is true to a degree. The question is, did 585 or 427 strike an area that was previously a land fill, or using MP terminology, "Terra not so Firma".

TAM:)
 
Tweeter said:
The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

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.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over. :jaw-dropp http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html
Click to expand...


Should have crashed and bounced? What?? Just how much structural integrity does the plane have?

A solid object - like an engine block, or like more solid components of the airplane, like elements of the landing gear, sure, I can accept that they either dig in, or they bounce, but the plane as a whole?

Someone, please tell me I'm misunderstanding the statement. Because I'm at a loss to understand how the plane would "crash and bounce".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom