Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 93 _ Debris Field

Posted by: FreddytheK Mar 27 2015, 07:54 PM

...interesting contrast between the debris fields of United #93 and that of Germanwings #9525...

Posted by: NP1Mike Mar 27 2015, 08:15 PM

QUOTE (FreddytheK @ Mar 27 2015, 06:54 PM) *
...interesting contrast between the debris fields of United #93 and that of Germanwings #9525...



I think most here automatically compared the two debris fields, if not consciously, then subconsciously.

But it's not a fair comparison because the Germanwings plane smashed into a hard mountain whereas Flt. 93
crashed into very soft ground. laugh.gif

Posted by: amazed! Mar 30 2015, 09:03 AM

QUOTE (FreddytheK @ Mar 27 2015, 07:54 PM) *
...interesting contrast between the debris fields of United #93 and that of Germanwings #9525...


Yessir, a huge contrast.

In the Alps, all the aircraft debris can be seen, even in the small pieces it was. Tires can be seen, baggage can be seen, and body parts too.

At Shanksville nothing could be seen, even by Wally Miller walking through the field. That, because there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

Posted by: bobcat46 Apr 8 2015, 10:33 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 28 2015, 11:03 AM) *
Yessir, a huge contrast.

In the Alps, all the aircraft debris can be seen, even in the small pieces it was. Tires can be seen, baggage can be seen, and body parts too.

At Shanksville nothing could be seen, even by Wally Miller walking through the field. That, because there was no Boeing at Shanksville.




NP1, try jamming your hand down into soft ground. It's much harder than jamming your hand into water. Yes, it was reclaimed ground, but if you dig a hole and put loose dirt back into the hole, it is still very difficult to jam your had down into the soft dirt. However, in all crashes of aircraft into water at high speeds, there are always some relatively large pieces of the aircraft left, all is not "shredded." The crash in the Alps resulted in a "shredded" aircraft with body parts around the crash site. It was shredded because it hit solid rock, not soft ground or water. In Shanksville, if one assumes that the plane did disappear into soft ground, then that would indicate a slower deceleration than hitting solid rock; a slower deceleration would not result in total shredding of everything and some rather large pieces along with body parts should be present above ground, particularly the ends of the wings and the tail assembly. Since deceleration would begin at the moment the nose of the aircraft hit the soft ground, the wing ends and tail assembly would have already experienced some deceleration prior to hitting the soft soil and would not have sufficient enertia to bury themselves into the solf ground and become shredded. Also, as in other crashes, when the front of the aircraft hits a solid object, the wing tips and tail assemblies tend to break off because they do not have the structural integrety to withstand high deceleration energy. No matter how "soft" the ground would have been, simple physics and comparison with all other crashes leads to the only conclusion possible: There was no B-757 crash at Shanksville.


Posted by: NP1Mike Apr 10 2015, 12:47 AM

QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Apr 8 2015, 09:33 AM) *
NP1, try jamming your hand down into soft ground. It's much harder than jamming your hand into water...
No matter how "soft" the ground would have been, simple physics and comparison with all other crashes leads to the only conclusion possible: There was no B-757 crash at Shanksville.



I'm with you all the way on your assessment.
My post was tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by: Alpha66 May 23 2015, 12:38 PM

Not seen any body parts at Germanwings ? Care to show some pics ?

Posted by: amazed! May 24 2015, 01:33 PM

When a fast moving and unprotected human body impacts a mountain while doing 400MPH, there ain't much left to see, not really much to take pictures of.

Posted by: Alpha66 May 25 2015, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 24 2015, 01:33 PM) *
When a fast moving and unprotected human body impacts a mountain while doing 400MPH, there ain't much left to see, not really much to take pictures of.


Well you wrote above body parts could be seen, or was this meant as sarcasm ? Because I think there would not much left, too....in a crash on rocks. So both issues are not really comparable imo.

Posted by: amazed! May 26 2015, 09:59 AM

QUOTE (Alpha66 @ May 25 2015, 08:57 AM) *
Well you wrote above body parts could be seen, or was this meant as sarcasm ? Because I think there would not much left, too....in a crash on rocks. So both issues are not really comparable imo.


No, not having been there myself, I suspect there WERE body parts, but that they were rather small. It would be interesting to know for sure.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)