IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debris Field, ...interesting contrast...

FreddytheK
post Mar 27 2015, 06:54 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-December 12
Member No.: 7,141



...interesting contrast between the debris fields of United #93 and that of Germanwings #9525...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Mar 27 2015, 07:15 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 30 2015, 08:03 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Apr 8 2015, 09:33 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 121
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Apr 9 2015, 11:47 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha66
post May 23 2015, 11:38 AM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 104
Joined: 7-April 15
From: Preussen / Westfalen
Member No.: 8,105



Not seen any body parts at Germanwings ? Care to show some pics ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 24 2015, 12:33 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha66
post May 25 2015, 07:57 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 104
Joined: 7-April 15
From: Preussen / Westfalen
Member No.: 8,105



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 26 2015, 08:59 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 14 2016, 12:07 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 556
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Falseflagville, PA
Member No.: 7,913



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


You are exactly right, Amazed. Wally walked around but he was backing up the story of 93 being vaporized. So did the news stations. He WAS part of the exercise that day.

That is why the news crews reported not seeing anything. Backing up the official story. That whole area was was required to go along with the official story. Nothing crashed at Shanksville. How I would love to get the original Ridge helicopter photo. I just know that was shot before 9/11. No woods burning in the picture. The debris some think was there was planted.

Btw, Val McClatchey is full crap.

This post has been edited by Truthissweet: Feb 14 2016, 02:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 14 2016, 05:08 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Truth

We agree there was no airliner at Shanksville.

We do not agree that those news people were out to support some kind of official story. Yours is a nonsensical view.

The news people could not see a wrecked airliner because there was no wrecked airliner. The truth is NOT the official story.

Bollyn interviewed Wally and received a very candid explanation about his 2 different stories. Wally was intimidated by the FBI in a friendly way, and consented to change his story, however awkward it might be considering the absence of an airplane there. The mayor of the town was and very candid that there was no airliner there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 14 2016, 08:13 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 14 2016, 05:08 PM) *
Truth

We agree there was no airliner at Shanksville.

We do not agree that those news people were out to support some kind of official story. Yours is a nonsensical view.

The news people could not see a wrecked airliner because there was no wrecked airliner. The truth is NOT the official story.


amazed has it right Truth. You are making all of this unnecessarily complicated.

There was no plane at Shanksville.
The news media were not in on a sinister plot. They reported what they saw, period.

The vaporization story came later, after the media reported their stories.
It was used to explain the absence of plane debris.

BTW, was a second jet engine 'discovered' at Shanksville?

Because if it wasn't, how do the perps explain:

1. All the aircraft + people, minus a jet engine were vaporized? How could nature be so efficient in choosing what to vaporize and what not to?

2. If one jet engine survived (wasn't vaporized) why didn't the other (was vaporized)?
Was one engine built differently than the other one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Feb 19 2016, 08:59 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 556
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Falseflagville, PA
Member No.: 7,913



NP and Amazed,

First, nothing crashed. Any 'debris' field was set-up in advance. It was an EXERCISE. This is not making things complicated. This is what is done in mass casualty exercises. From Sandy Hook to San Bernardino.

Understand Sandy Hook and Boston and you will get a clearer picture of Shanksville.

This is my last post on this forum. I wish you two well in your 9/11 research. Same with everyone else on the forum.

Rob Balsamo, thanks for providing an outlet for people to express their thoughts on events the last 14 years. I may not agree with everything presented here but I respect other's opinions different than mine.

I am making a documentary on the area where I live. It is will be a worthwhile effort to show how this area has people covering up 9/11. Between a book and doc, my time is limited.

Cheers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2017 - 04:50 PM