Flight 93

[killtown]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Who is promoting the official story?

So you are promoting the official claim, but not the official story?!

A plane crashes in a rural area with few eyewitnesses and people are expected to know exactly how it disintegrated?

Well they are the one's who gave out those details, so yeah!

Go look at any NTSB crash report. They detail how the plane crashed. It's called forensic investigating.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by killtown

How does a plane go from near 90deg, drops below the treeline, and a fraction of a second later, crashes as 40 deg? How?

Depends where you are standing in relation to the plane.

[killtown]

Originally Posted by labouysse

So how does this prove there was no plane at Shanksville?

Well it's pretty obvious that the plane that flew RIGHT-SIDE UP over Purbaugh's head was the same plane that continued for fly past the field and over Shanksville High School and those 3 students. Unless you think those 3 kids were lying.

It seems pretty well documented a fighter was in the area.

Oh, so now there was a fighter in the area! I wish you skeptics would make up your minds.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by killtown

So you are promoting the official claim, but not the official story?!


Well they are the one's who gave out those details, so yeah!

Go look at any NTSB crash report. They detail how the plane crashed. It's called forensic investigating.

And is any of this relevant to whether it was Flight 93?

[killtown]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Depends where you are standing in relation to the plane.

[killtown]

Originally Posted by labouysse

And is any of this relevant to whether it was Flight 93?

Well if it was anything but Flight 93, that's going to be a real problem, don't you agree?!

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by killtown

Oh, so now there was a fighter in the area! I wish you skeptics would make up your minds.

It is well documented. The fact is it proves nothing. Nobody actually reports seeing any missiles or damage to the plane before it hit the ground.

How else do you explain the rather large exposion heard and seen by locals? And all the debris scattered if there was no plane?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by killtown

Well it's pretty obvious that the plane that flew RIGHT-SIDE UP over Purbaugh's head was the same plane that continued for fly past the field and over Shanksville High School and those 3 students. Unless you think those 3 kids were lying.


Oh, so now there was a fighter in the area! I wish you skeptics would make up your minds.

So if the fighter was following the flight 93 quite possible for Purbagh to have seen one plane and the kids to have seen another. Hard to mistake a fighter for an airliner. And other people saw an airliner.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by killtown

Yes - that's what happens when you get different witnesses to an incident viewing from different standpoints

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by killtown

Shall I draw you a diagram? If you are standing towards a tilt of say 40 degrees you might think it was more.

[killtown]

Listen to my whole interview. It's only about an hour. I need to run for a bit anyways, so you'll have been able to finish it before I return. It explains so many inconsistencies with a plane crashing in that field.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by killtown

Listen to my whole interview. It's only about an hour. I need to run for a bit anyways, so you'll have been able to finish it before I return. It explains so many inconsistencies with a plane crashing in that field.

Like you're the only one with anything better to do in the next hour - I'm off to cook dinner and I'll catch up on this thread later.

[rosie789]

Witness: Airliner in Iran 'Fell Out of the Sky' - YouTube

Witness: Airliner in Iran 'Fell Out of the Sky' - YouTube

Here are some more images of the Iranian crash showing bizarre pieces of wreckage which survived including many of the lighter parts.

And here is another crash which happened at a steep angle

'Flight 585 suddenly rolled to the right and began to pitch downward, nose first. Attempts to initiate a go-around using a thrust increase and 15-degree flaps were unsuccessful. As the altitude decreased, acceleration increased to 4g. The 737 crashed into nearby Widefield Park, less than four miles from the runway threshold.'

The difference here was the speed and the size of the aircraft.

air disaster - united airlines flight 585 - YouTube

air disaster - united airlines flight 585 - YouTube

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by rosie789

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUBg860CV-s

Here are some more images of the Iranian crash showing bizarre pieces of wreckage which survived including many of the lighter parts.

And here is another crash which happened at a steep angle

'Flight 585 suddenly rolled to the right and began to pitch downward, nose first. Attempts to initiate a go-around using a thrust increase and 15-degree flaps were unsuccessful. As the altitude decreased, acceleration increased to 4g. The 737 crashed into nearby Widefield Park, less than four miles from the runway threshold.'

The difference here was the speed and the size of the aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwWndk7iVK4

Flight 93 did hit shanksville, the evidence is overwhelming you just have to accept that, the likes of Killtown et al will not though.

9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found - YouTube

9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found - YouTube

Please watch if you have not already.

[zephirop]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Flight 93 did hit shanksville, the evidence is overwhelming you just have to accept that, the likes of Killtown et al will not though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivd...eature=related

Please watch if you have not already.

So what part of the official story don't you believe? And if you believe it all, as you obviously do, what are you doing on the David Icke site trying to prove it, why not just get on with your life, safe in the knowledge that your government is good and kind?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by zephirop

So what part of the official story don't you believe? And if you believe it all, as you obviously do, what are you doing on the David Icke site trying to prove it, why not just get on with your life, safe in the knowledge that your government is good and kind?

Good and kind may be your opinion of your government, Not mine, lets concentrate on the thread topic eh.

[zephirop]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Good and kind may be your opinion of your government, Not mine, lets concentrate on the thread topic eh.

No, you said a while ago that you believed some theories about 911, and since then I've seen you prop up the official story about a thousand times and not a peep about any possible chink in your orthodoxy.

Just wondering if you were covering your arse then and trying to seem at least a mite plausible regarding where you are.

Or what?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by zephirop

No, you said a while ago that you believed some theories about 911, and since then I've seen you prop up the official story about a thousand times and not a peep about any possible chink in your orthodoxy.

Just wondering if you were covering your arse then and trying to seem at least a mite plausible regarding where you are.

Or what?

Well, to remedy your confusion, The physics of what happened on 9/11 make sense to me, however I believe that he Gvnt knew more about 9/11 than they lead us to believe, The F.B.I for example was not passed intel on plans of 9/11 etc, Incompetence perhaps, But I think there is a bigger picture with people at the top wanting this to take place.

All I am saying is that the WTC 1,2 and 7 buildings collapsed as described for the most part, (ie there has been contradicting hypothesis) but in time I think the NIST report for one has come up with a decent hypothesis based on the evidence, I really don't want to stray off topic, with flight 93 again, It did happen as described the evidence as shown in the video I cited, shows this and legibly too. Some people just cannot accept the evidence and come up with theories that have no structure to them.

[rosie789]

Back to the subject

I was thinking that the plane did not submerge itself completely in the ground. As it was an ex mine there would be an amount of top soil and hard rock beneath. The plane would have slowed against the soil but would have crumpled against the rock untill it appeared to be half submerged. The fuel tank in an aeroplane is here:


So the plane would have exploded round about the wing area causing the shortened wing scars. The rudder may have created a downdraft blowing away some of the soil roughly beneath it (?)

There would have been a large explosion destroying the parts already embedded in the ground and pushing them further under. The top part would have been mostly obliterated too but perhaps some of the lighter objects such as paper and clothes would have survived like in the Iranian crash.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Back to the subject.

I was thinking that the plane did not submerge itself completely in the ground. As it was an ex mine there would be an amount of top soil and hard rock beneath. The plane would have slowed against the soil but would have crumpled against the rock untill it appeared to be half submerged. The fuel tank in an aeroplane is here:


So the plane would have exploded round about the wing area causing the shortened wing scars. The rudder may have created a downdraft blowing away some of the soil roughly beneath it (?)

There would have been a large explosion destroying the parts already embedded in the ground and pushing them further under. The top part would have been mostly obliterated too but perhaps some of the lighter objects such as paper and clothes would have survived like in the Iranian crash.

The more mass an object has, the more damage it can do, the smaller the object the less damage it will do, also the forces exerted upon it are less, hence the reason smaller lighter objects survived seemingly unscathed.