New Video Surfaces Of Flight 93 Aftermath

[RedIbis]

Do truthers think that planes are solid metal? Don't they know that a plane is mostly internal space? I guess it's tough enough to walk those 15 steps up out of mum's basement, let alone get themselves to an airport and onto a plane.

How about the engines?

 

[RedIbis]

...with enough force to bury it in the soft soil. What did not get buried kept on going down-range, into the woods. Most of it that stopped short of the woods was light enough that it could not overcome the drag of the air. It wouldn't have stuck up much higher than all that grass and weeds.

If only you could enjoy what is so wonderfully stupid about this. I swear, the lengths you so-called debunkers have to go to make sense of an empty ditch and a missing 100 tons of airliner.

 

[Sabretooth]

How about the engines?

They aren't solid metal either...

Next.

 

[RedIbis]

They aren't solid metal either...

Next.

So they're mostly "internal space"?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

How about the engines?

What about them? One was found in the hole and the other in a small pond some distance away IIRC. Jammo thought they were hubcaps

And only the core of a turbofan engine could be described as anything like "solid" and the only really solid parts are the shafts.....maybe 6" in diameter.

 

[EventHorizon]

If only you could enjoy what is so wonderfully stupid about this. I swear, the lengths you so-called debunkers have to go to make sense of an empty ditch and a missing 100 tons of airliner.

How many times are you going to post this lie? It's like you're not even trying anymore.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If only you could enjoy what is so wonderfully stupid about this. I swear, the lengths you so-called debunkers have to go to make sense of an empty ditch and a missing 100 tons of airliner.

Its what happens every time an airliner crashes at high speed and at a high angle. Please show us a similar crash that looked significantly different.........we'll wait............chirp......... chirp

It strange twoofers think a crash site should look different just for them. And the irony is that if it did look like they expect it too they would say that it still didn't look right and link to the crash sites we do and claim thats what it should have looked like

 

[leftysergeant]

If only you could enjoy what is so wonderfully stupid about this. I swear, the lengths you so-called debunkers have to go to make sense of an empty ditch and a missing 100 tons of airliner.

It wasn't an empty ditch. It was an impact crater in soft soil similar to glacial till which fell back in over itself. It was freshly made that day, and there was no sign of any machinery nor crew that could have dug it. Do learn something about ditches and impact craters.

 

[djlunacee]

Do truthers think that planes are solid metal? Don't they know that a plane is mostly internal space? I guess it's tough enough to walk those 15 steps up out of mum's basement, let alone get themselves to an airport and onto a plane.

Truthers believe whatever they need to believe to keep the fantasy alive, I love how they argue that a plane is nothing more than a tin can and could have never penetrated the twin towers the way they did, because the towers were steel! Then when it comes to flight 93 they believe the tin can was the strongest thing ever made and should have survived the 500+ mph impact into the ground....

 

[leftysergeant]

So they're mostly "internal space"?

Yes, actually, they are. And bear in mind that the vanes of those rotors snap off rather readily when compacted while the engine is running at full speed.

 

[RedIbis]

It wasn't an empty ditch. It was an impact crater in soft soil similar to glacial till which fell back in over itself. It was freshly made that day, and there was no sign of any machinery nor crew that could have dug it. Do learn something about ditches and impact craters.

Well, Mr. Science, how did it fall "back in over itself" and leave a ten foot deep ditch? Remembering of course that nearly 100 tons slammed into it.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, actually, they are. And bear in mind that the vanes of those rotors snap off rather readily when compacted while the engine is running at full speed.

Were these engines some of the light stuff that you said wouldn't be visible above the weeds and grass?

Keep explaining, if this forum weren't so partisan you'd be single handedly filling this month's Stundie nominations.

 

[NoahFence]

Were these engines some of the light stuff that you said wouldn't be visible above the weeds and grass?

Keep explaining, if this forum weren't so partisan you'd be single handedly filling this month's Stundie nominations.

If I'm not mistaken, the vanes are made of titanium? Pretty light stuff.

 

[Sabretooth]

So they're mostly "internal space"?

You're refering to enigines from FL93, correct?

That took all of 8 seconds of Google searching.


ETA:
BTW, a typical jet engine has a lot of empty space inside the cowling:

The compressor fan blades are pretty weak in a relative sense. They will break from simply striking a bird or ice. So it's no surprise that a ground strike at 500+ knots would destroy them and pretty much the whole damn engine.

Next.

 

[uke2se]

Keep explaining, if this forum weren't so partisan you'd be single handedly filling this month's Stundie nominations.

No he wouldn't. The Stundies are awards for the most stupid and absent of logic remark of the month. I'm sorry you didn't understand that. Perhaps that's why you don't understand 911?

 

[RedIbis]

You're refering to enigines from FL93, correct?

[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93engine.jpg[/qimg]

That took all of 8 seconds of Google searching.


ETA:
BTW, a typical jet engine has a lot of empty space inside the cowling:

[qimg]http://www.fullissue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jetengine.jpg[/qimg]

The compressor fan blades are pretty weak in a relative sense. They will break from simply striking a bird or ice. So it's no surprise that a ground strike at 500+ knots would destroy them and pretty much the whole damn engine.

Next.

Destroy them or make them evaporate? Bury them in the soft soil or they're light enough to float around for a few hundred acres? I wish you'd guys would get your stories straight.

 

[NoahFence]

Destroy them or make them evaporate? Bury them in the soft soil or they're light enough to float around for a few hundred acres? I wish you'd guys would get your stories straight.

A truther just said that.

LOL!

Irony at its finest.

 

[uke2se]

Destroy them or make them evaporate? Bury them in the soft soil or they're light enough to float around for a few hundred acres? I wish you'd guys would get your stories straight.

I think it's more a question of reading comprehension on your part.

 

[twinstead]

Destroy them or make them evaporate? Bury them in the soft soil or they're light enough to float around for a few hundred acres? I wish you'd guys would get your stories straight.

Seriously? There is only ONE story.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, Mr. Science, how did it fall "back in over itself" and leave a ten foot deep ditch? Remembering of course that nearly 100 tons slammed into it.

Because some of the soil was pushed far enough back that it would not all slump into the hole. After a while, gravity stops pulling it back in. Has to do with the angles of the sides of the ditch.