• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plane crash differences

I do wonder if the CT'ers have a problem with accepting the fragility of life.

Some of their loudest 'questions' revolve around how buildings can't collapse unless CD is used, or the planes can't fragment in the way shown or that people don't disintegrate in the way described.

I do believe it is a factor in the psychological make-up of the 9/11 CT'er that they really have great difficulty coming to terms with just how easily damaged we are.

I blame hollywood!! (partly seriously) After all we grow up on a diet of 'Die Hard' and 'Rambo' and all those other films which show the hero able to take huge amounts of punishment and yet keep on ticking.

Reality is a shock to some people.
 
njslim said:
Not a lot left from high speed impact -
something moonbats neither aware of or willing to admit. Plane hit at speed
estimated from radar at about 350 mph in steep nose dive - didn't not
leave crater, just bits of metal confetti and some body parts.
Click to expand...
a few years back someone jumped out in front of a commuter train at a station near my house, even though the train was only goign 50-60mph there wasnt much left of the guy, one of his arms ended up on the platform next to my friends mother
 
Not the WTC

realitybites said:
I'm sorry, I haven't followed the story that closely. Did the Nigerian plane fly into a building?
Click to expand...

No, the Nigerian plane crashed from a relatively low altitude almost immediately from a storm. The passengers, except for 6, died by fire. How come we can see the debris? How come we can't see it at the Pentagon or in Shanksville?

kc440 :confused:
 
kc440_ said:
No, the Nigerian plane crashed from a relatively low altitude almost immediately from a storm. The passengers, except for 6, died by fire. How come we can see the debris? How come we can't see it at the Pentagon or in Shanksville?

kc440 :confused:
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read any of the replies in this thread before posting the above?
 
Airplane crashes

realitybites said:
KC, while you brought this up, perhaps you can explain to me why and how the CTers got it stuck in their heads that ALL plane crashes should look alike?
Click to expand...

Because they normally do, RB. They leave behind the parts of an airplane. Where was that at the Pentagon?

kc440
 
kc440_ said:
No, the Nigerian plane crashed from a relatively low altitude almost immediately from a storm. The passengers, except for 6, died by fire. How come we can see the debris? How come we can't see it at the Pentagon or in Shanksville?

kc440 :confused:
Click to expand...
you explained it yourself. A plane crashed from a low altitude due to storm. It wasn't driven at 500mph into a reinforced building on purpose.

And recognizable debris was found in the Pentagon so your theory is flawed.
 
kc440_ said:
Because they normally do, RB. They leave behind the parts of an airplane. Where was that at the Pentagon?

kc440
Click to expand...
So a plane that hits a concrete building travelling 500+ mph is going to leave the same kind of debris as one that crashes into the ground shortly after take-off travelling much slower? Are you daft?

Drive a car into a brick wall at 85mph.

Then drive another one into a ten-foot ditch at 35mph.

You would expect a similar scene???
 
Look at the last photo of engine.

Donal said:
1) I'm willing to bet the Nigerian pilot was trying to pull up out of the fall, not going full throttle into a wall. Thats why the Nigerian plane didn't break up as much. Of course, AA77 left parts that could be indentified also.

2) When was the picture refered to taken? Can you link it?

3) Who was the man?
Click to expand...

Here's a link. Look especially at the engine. The "engine" at the Pentagon didn't seem so destoyed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1968616.stm

kc440
 
The Pentagon "plane"

defaultdotxbe said:
if it crashed shortly after takeoff that would imply it was nowhere near full speed, meaning less damage to the nigerian plane

assuming it crashed on the ground its motion would be parallel to the ground, not perpendicular as f77's motion was to the pentagon wall, this would result in less damage to the nigerian plane
Click to expand...

The film the Pentagon released, showed something coming in at ground level. Most likely, a missile.

kc440
 
kc440_ said:
Look at the plane parts. In the second picture from top, you see a little kiddie car part. And near the building, another piece of the "plane" with a red C on it.

kc440
Click to expand...
i suppose the missile had a big red C on it, right?
 
kc440_ said:
Look at the plane parts. In the second picture from top, you see a little kiddie car part. And near the building, another piece of the "plane" with a red C on it.

kc440
Click to expand...

And? I'd expect to see a red C on an AmeriCan airlines airplane.
 
Debris

firecoins said:
you explained it yourself. A plane crashed from a low altitude due to storm. It wasn't driven at 500mph into a reinforced building on purpose.

And recognizable debris was found in the Pentagon so your theory is flawed.
Click to expand...

I never saw recognizable debris from the Pentagon "plane." Can you show me a picture? A link? And who determined that the "plane" going into the Pentagon did so at 500 mph?

kc440
 
This is almost a joke

Anti-sophist said:
And? I'd expect to see a red C on an AmeriCan airlines airplane.
Click to expand...

The C and the "plane" part it's on I doubt is AA. And do you think that piece of tin was from the exterior of a large plane? It was a missile.

kc440
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i suppose the missile had a big red C on it, right?
Click to expand...
::: channels Cookie Monster :::


99074546c81a23400.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom