but we all know that planes don't vaporize...

The ever-creative debunkers claim the ground was "soft earth" due to it having been an open cast mine at one time. So, like, you have to imagine a plane going into a plate of whipped cream @ >500mph, or something...

I was just about to start a thread and saw yours-

Here is the video of the Indonesian plane crash-

VIDEO-March 8 2007 -Indonesian Plane crash

After watching the continuous smokes/debris in this video, its unbelievable how shanksville,PA could be a plane crash site.

I know the debunkers talk about soft soil and 45 angle, but there is such a huge difference of debris/smoke in both the crash sites.

If the ground at Shanksville was so soft how come people were able to walk around on it right after the plane crashed? The Mythers like to compare the Flight 93 crash to the Valuejet crash in the Everglades. Excuse me, people had to get to that crash site by boat.

This "soft earth" theory is hoax.

ValuJet Flight 592 Crash site - May, 1996

Absolutely. Remember that this plane buried itself leaving an 8' deep crater while simultaneously shattering into thousands of pieces "no bigger than a phone book" and spreading over an 8 mile radius while leaving 90% of the plane inside of the crater for them to recover.


:unsure:

Wait a sec... I've never looked into Flight 93... please tell me they recovered all the bodies from that crash? They did, right?

8%

Einsteen, this is possibly THE worst apples to oranges comparison in history and I'm a little suprised that no one thinks so. This plane did not crash in a field - it ran off a runway after landing and ended up in a field.

If there is something that can be taken away from this "crash". It's that once the aluminum hull of an airliner is on fire and is allowed to burn, it'll rapidly disintigrate, contrary to Einsteens assertion.

This Garuda 737 crash is one example. There are 2 others.

Air France 358 after plane skidded to a halt following a runway overrun.




Air France 358 after fire was extinguished.




An Air France 747 Freighter after a brake fire was unsuccessfully extinguished following landing.



AS you can see, the hulls of both aircraft all but disappeared. None of these planes "crashed" in the strict sense of the word.

If you want a fair equivalent of United 93 - United 585, Valujet 592, Emery 17, Air Midwest 5481 and Payne Stewarts Learjet are ok examples.

:blink:


But the rest showed one thing different, they left LOTS more debris than is Shanks and fire damage consistent w/ a plane crash UNLIKE Shanks did.

If they left LOTS more debris and fire damage, you should be able to show the photos of the all of this debris and fire damage(I'll give a pass on fire damage on VJ 592 and Stewarts plane) and identify be able to identify the parts(ie tail, wings, nose, fuselage, engine, landing gear, etc..)




















People parts.






Log book





Any idea where I found these photos Killtown?

Wow, you posted photos of planted evidence.

It seems like faking plane crashes are pretty easy. Create a hole, don't worry about not burning the grass around it, make wing impression afterwards for later aerial shots, burn most of the forest by the next day, and spread debris around and call is a plane crash.

Wow, how easy.

Do you Randi's think you could spot a staged plane crash scene?

United 585 debris and crater. Even though this plane was doing 250 mph less than United 93 when it impacted, it certainly didnt leave much more behind than United 93. You'd be hard pressed to find anything of Valujet 592, I dont think they identifed more than 40 of the passengers. I havent seen a single piece of identifiable wreckage. Conspiracy?


United 585

And you wonder why people make fun of you and call you disinfo, shill, etc...

Where's the Wile E. Coyote wing impression from the United 585 crash? Oh, I guess it didn't crash into "soft soil", huh? Nice big surrounding burn mark around the impact point, huh?

And the pics show debris constitent w/ plane crashes, not staging it.

So if I was a disinfo/shill, then that would mean I'm on your side, right?

No. Using common sense, logic, and reasoning would mean you're on my side.

You mean spinning, inventing physics, and ad-hominem attacks?

Inventing physics like saying the WTC planes should've bounced off?

Nope. That was you, not me.

Where did I say that???

Nevermind, that was probably some other Killtown.

Coward.

The Indonesian plane overshot on landing.

Anybody comparing this to a 40 degree impact must be retarded.

Yeah, this kind of stuff doesn't help, does it? The indonesian plane overshot the runway, United 93 was deliberately flown into the ground.

I notice there's been a plane crash in Russia today, I give it a couple of days before that's used as evidence for one side of the argument or the other.

This has already been said several times, but I would just like to agree that there is inevitably going to be a vast difference between a crash where:

a) Both pilots are fighting with all their skill to keep the plane level in the air while reducing speed and trying desperately to make an emergency landing which will save as many lives as possible.

and

b) A single pilot, with a violent scuffle taking place in the background, deliberately plunging in a nose-dive toward the ground at full speed.

Ok, this is not the best comparison of course, I admit. But there are so many crashed from the past (Lockerbie etc) in which you at least find a more or less intact part. Even the Bijlmer crash in the flatblock is a good example. btw I went once in such a damned Garuda plane, I even have some pics of it. Brrrrr

If you've never seen an pics of the wreckage from Valujet 592 here you go.



They even recovered enough of the plane to rebuild part of it for their investigation.

Funny out of four crashes on 9-11 not enough of any one plane was recovered to rebuild anything.

They were able to find a fair bit of the plane despite the fact that it was on fire before it crashed.

Remember that two of those planes crashed into skyscrapers at high speed; the buildings later collapsed, burying the plane debris in roughly a billion pounds of rubble (I say "roughly" because I have no idea how much either of the Twin Towers weighed, but I imagine it was quite an amount). So I can understand them not being able to rebuild a plane from there.

As for the Pentagon crash, that's a similar situation. A plane moving at 500+ mph slamming into and through several layers of steel-reinforced concrete; I'm surprised they found pieces as big as they did.

With Flight 93... well, it looks like there's still quite a bit of debris in those pictures.

Not one single part from 4 crash sites has been positively identified has coming from the plane the gov claims it came from. Not one single part.

4 planes = 8 engines.

All major components in an airplane have part and serial numbers. They also have maintenance records that keeps track of these components. Where's the big stuff? Where are the engines or at the least the compressors from these engines?

Sure the planes at the WTC would be hard to find, funny they found the antenna from the top of WTC 1 and guess what? It looks just like the antenna from the top of WTC1. Yet at least 3 of 4 engines are gone. Okay shit happens.

However, at the Pentagon the entire plane supposedly went into the building. Where are the engines? Foam trucks from Reagan were on the scene in minutes. Significant portions of this plane should have been recovered. Maybe that's why they let the building continue to burn for the next 24 hours? You would think they knew there weren't any injured victims in there to rescue the way everyone stood around and let the fires burn. Yet two whole engines leave behind a couple of parts and again no positive ID to match them to Flight 77.

Again, Shanksville we are supposed to believe that the entire plane crashed into the ground and disappeared. The plane was not burning when it went down and there wasn't much of a fire afterward. Where are the engines? Oh you mean the one that supposedly landed about a mile ahead of the crash site? I'd love to see a picture of that one?

Thanks for the pic, but you kinda made my point. The plane was reduced to scrap metal. When people like Killtown start talking about the Shanksville or even the Pentagon crash site, they are sure to point out the lack of nearly intact engines, tail section, wings, etc.

Well, those dont survive high speed crashes like VJ592, or even low speed vertical crashes like UA585. All crashes are different, and historically, violent crashes dont leave very many sizable pieces of debris. The extreme case would be the F-4 into a wall test. Not saying that this is what happened at Shanksville or the Pentagon, but the test represents what can happen to a plane in a violent, abrupt stop. It can get reduced to confetti...

As far as rebuilding the planes, thats done when the cause of the crash is under investigation. The NTSB knew why the 9/11 planes crashed. No need to piece them together in a warehouse...

FWIW, the NTSB said they recovered 95% of UA 93.

Show me ONE other experiment that confirms this experiment.

Here's another pic of the debris that was recovered. Looks like some fairly large pieces were recovered after all and there's enough pieces recovered that there is no doubt that this was a plane.



In regards to NTSB, don't they try to rebuild most commerical passenger jets if they can even if they know why the plane crashed? This is done not only to determine the cause of the crash but also to look at how different components performed during the crash. Sure helps a lot down the road to have this data if you have any interest in building safer planes. But why would the NTSB want to do that? Especially for Flight 93 where they should have been able to recover most of the plane and 5.5 years later, we still don't know what really happened to that flight.


BTW: The main reason why the NTSB did not attempt to rebuild any of the 9-11 flights was not because they didn't want to but because they did not recover enough of any one plane to even try.

Wrong.

Please do your own homework before you spread more disinformation. Thanks

source?

From someone I know that worked at Boeing.