This little clip indicates 93 was shot down (as I surmised long ago). This fellow explains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LWcdSyyppHI
If I remember correctly, you made up calculations allowing 300 seconds of fall time for debris at 30,000 feet.. The real drop time from that height is 43 seconds... you then whined a little, went on about how you're not that "exact" and then failed to show any actual calculations. Maybe this time you'll show us the calculations that rules out a shoot down.
I have to agree that the evidence doesn't fit a shoot down. Just like the evidence doesn't fit that most of a 757 buried, thereby the evidence doesn't fit that a 757 crashed either there. Maybe a Cessna. A lot of the first responders didn't even realize that a plane had crash until they were told one allegedly did. Responders who heard it was a large plane that crashed before they arrived thought most of the plane must of bounced in the woods since there was hardly anything at the crater.
The engine bounced away but, I think the rest of the plane buried itself 40 feet underground (according to "official" sources). I'm trying to picture the bouncing engine and the plane drilling underground too. Difficult concept for sure.
Well there's a section of forest with tall trees in the way of any of the alleged two engines to bounced their way to the pond, so the only chance one of the engines had to get into the pond would be to have LOOBED over the section of trees in a arch-shaped trajectory, a billion-to-one shot, especially from bouncing off soft dirt that supposedly allowed the rest of the plane to bury so deep. So agreed, difficult concept for sure.
Have only just come to this Forum and have not had the time or inclination to read the whole thread . However , I randomly scanned a few pages and failed to see anyone refer to the Nanothermite dust found around each of the three towers , or link that body of evidence to the huge amount of testimony indicating the towers fell as a result of controlled explosions . I have never heard anybody give any sort of reasonable explanation for that combined body of evidence . Can anybody sensibly enlighten me? I am uninterested in motives at this stage as they only follow IF there is very good , hard evidence to suggest that the official report is seriously flawed . I happen to believe for separate reasons that it is , and for me , as a profiler , there was a bad smell around this whole incident from the start . For me . But then I would question Cheney , Rumsfeld et al for even breathing , based on their track records .
What does this have to do with the topic being discussed? Why do truthers tend to simply scan a few things, and then write off topic posts in threads that they haven't read? Is this just another example of the typical M.O. of the typical truther? Rather then randomly scan a few things, why not do due diligence? Why not completely read the 9/11 commission report, and NIST investigation? Why not research a complete understanding of your position? Do you honestly think the possibility of nanothermite has never been discussed here? This post has to be either disingenuous, or you're blatantly admitting that simply not prepared to discuss the topic at all.
Normal plane crash on ground: Flight 93: Just for fun...a plane that barreled straight into the ground: Get it...got it...good...now get real people...
The first picture you posted is this crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afriqiyah_Airways_Flight_771 In what way are the circumstances of flight 771 considered to be similar to the crash of flight 93? Why would you expect them to both look the same? Why would one be considered to be normal phenomenon, and the other abnormal crash phenomenon?
Flight 771 looks like it turned into mostly small pieces. Isn't that what supposedly happened to Flight 93?
Oh lord... Dude...never before in the history of avionics has a plane knocked down a skyscraper. On 9/11 this happened twice. Never before in avionics has a plane as much as disintegrated upon impacting a wall...yet it happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon. Never before has a plane buried itself in the ground...yet it happened on 9/11. Gee...that's some wild day. Look...I know its difficult to accept that the US government could have had something to do with these events. It would mean that the government is NOT interested in "We the people" anymore. Its an ugly idea. But look at the event. Look at what happened. And how it all happened. I don't have answers...all I have is a ton of unanswered questions. Many of which that rag of a report didn't even address. Hell they didn't even address a whole f'ing building. At what point do you say to yourself..."Wait a minute...2+2 does not equal 6".
That's obvious. None of this bloviating answered any of my questions, has anything to do with my response, the topic, or even the post of yours that I quoted. No skyscrapers where knocked down by flight 93. You did not post any pictures of skyscrapers that were knocked down. You did not post any evidence about planes impacting walls. You did not post any evidence regarding typical plane impacts. You posted some pictures and you made some inferences. This is not the makings of an argument that the government had anything to do with what you're talking about. It's shoddy and lazy.
Guess what - the planes that crashed into the towers didn't knock them down, fire and gravity caused the collapse. 2+2=4.
You can tell that from looking at one picture? Wow. I would tend to disagree with you. The two crashes were quite dissimilar. They were different aircraft, traveling at different speed, with a different angle of attack, and crashed with different intent. http://english.deltabbs.com/?p=88 I don't see what it serves to try and compare the two to prove that one was fake and the other real.
Well even from the photos and video you linked, besides the obvious basically survival of the tail section, that plane looks like it disintegrated into mostly small pieces. And that brings up the question, what happened to Flight 93's tail? How was the end result so different, besides the tail section?
I couldn't say. I haven't studied that crash. I can say that I haven't been presented with any evidence at all that they were in any way similar.
ROFL, did you read what you just wrote?!? How would you know if they were similar or dissimilar if you "haven't studied that crash"?!! Let me bring you up to speed. OS believers say the reason Flight 93 doesn't look like your "typical" plane crash is because it totally disintegrated into mostly small pieces. Now as I said about the 771 crash, besides the mostly intact tail section, the photos the video you posted showed that this plane "too" disintegrated into mostly small pieces.
Another great post of common sense! LOOK people. LOOK. Use some common sense and discover the truth. It's not that difficult to ascertain. Just LOOK.
Nope it hasn't... Your math involved being off the mark about gravitational fall time by 700%, and featured ZERO mathematical calculations to derive a debri area or spread. Go on.. Run the readers past your "mathematics".
