Flt 93 crater was not unique

chris lz said:
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.
Click to expand...


You should videotape the experiment and put it up on YouTube. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I don't think that qualifies as a "silly" experiment. Rather, I would call it creative and even useful.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
You should videotape the experiment and put it up on YouTube. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I don't think that qualifies as a "silly" experiment. Rather, I would call it creative and even useful.
Click to expand...


Well, it might have been silly, if he was making airplane noises while doing it...

;)

"VeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!"
Click to expand...
 
Max Photon said:
What we need here is an expert...

Max Photon, the ValuJet crash, Flight 93, and terra not-so-firma.
Click to expand...
You are the most disrespectful human being I know. Please make fun of dead people more so I can keep faith in the fact you are pathetic with your post of ignorance and pure junk.

The impact of 93 is how it should look for an aircraft crash when it hits and kills real people; something your fantasy mind with sick ideas can not grasp!

You post pathetically moronic tripe about 93. I consider it a degrading attack on me and those who died. Why you may ask? The list is long, but facts and evidence come to mind.



Gravy said:
I've got information on all these crashes on this page.
Click to expand...
Excellent material, facts and knowledge on 9/11 for 93. Thank you
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tweeter;3318145...

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 [url
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/02/northwest-710-crash-versus-official.html[/url]
slyjoe said:
Look at the moon. What was the angle of all the meteors that hit that surface? Were they all 90 degrees?

Your intuition isn't very good when it comes to physics.
Click to expand...

Really??
Considering a meteor entering our atmosphere, is traveling at 10 to 40 kilometers per second, or roughly 50 times the speed of Concorde makes your questions pointless.
 
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...
Wrong. Proven wrong on 9/11 and by what most high speed accidents look like.
 
Tweeter said:
Really??
Considering a meteor entering our atmosphere, is traveling at 10 to 40 kilometers per second, or roughly 50 times the speed of Concorde makes your questions pointless.
Click to expand...

This seems a rather pointless answer to a valid question. Most meteros that hit the ground on planet earth dig holes, regardless the angle at which they enter the atmosphere, because they lose energy in the atmosphere. This changes the angle of impact somewhat, toward the vertical.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, nor is its gravity so great as to greatly alter the angle at which a meteor impacts. But they all seem to dig holes. what's with that?
 
This reminds me of the argument truthers try to use with Flight 77. They say "Where is the large debris!?" as if lack of large sections is proof that a 757 did no hit the Pentagon. When they are shown pictures of the El-Al 747F that slammed into an apartment building in Holland they go silent. That's because there is no large sections of debris. Using their logic that must mean it was not a 747 that hit the building.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Absurd. Hitting that soft landfill dirt, it would have about as much chance of bouncing as a lawn dart.
 
Tweeter said:
Originally Posted by Tweeter;3318145...

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


Please back this claim up. Speculation is not valid. Just because you want that to be true does not make it so.
 
leftysergeant said:
It seems that Flt 93 was not the only aircraft ever to dig such a crater as that in the field at Shanksville.

United Airlines Flight 585 did pretty much the same thing, at a much lower speed, in Colorada Springs in 1991.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml
Click to expand...
Same thing? Maybe it's the same thing if you subtract all the black soot on the ground from the fire damage and the cockpit debris with the windows.
 
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...
You are neglecting a vital bit of data — the speed of the aircraft. A velocity of 500+ miles per hour results in a rather different crash site than a velocity of 150 miles per hour.
 
Last edited:
Tweeter said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.
 
We did, and it was in much firmer ground.

A Peggy also left a good impression of its wings as it passed through the side of the USS Hinsdale. There's a discussion of that in another thread on this page.
 
leftysergeant said:
We did, and it was in much firmer ground.

A Peggy also left a good impression of its wings as it passed through the side of the USS Hinsdale. There's a discussion of that in another thread on this page.
Click to expand...
Can you post the links to both?
 
tomm said:
I would say you are half correct. I think it would have dug a bigger crater pushing out in the direction it was traveling and then most of the plane as it started crumpling and breaking would have bounced out of the crater and scattered everywhere. The crater we see at the strip mine looks to have been created by something, well something I've never seen before!

I would still like someone to show me a plane crash where the wings made impressions in the ground of itself like we see at Shanksville.
Click to expand...

Go to here:

yapdates.blogspot.com/2007/10/plane-crash-in-richmond.html

granted - it is a small cessna, but you can clearly see the wing marks on the wall.

so - if a small cessna, hitting a steel/concrete building can do that, imagine what a large jet, smashing into dirt can do.

*btw - cut and paste the link - i'm new here and can't post links..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom