Plane shredded to pieces

a reply to: MALBOSIA

No, found, in a car, on the highway underneath one of the light poles in front of the Pentagon.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

No, found, in a car, on the highway underneath one of the light poles in front of the Pentagon.

One would think that a photo of this debris inside the car would be popular especially considering the object found ended up in American history museum. One might have considered snapping a photo of the find as part of an investigation. But we both know that a report was written without much of an investigation.

a reply to: DerekJR321

It just confuses me how on two separate occasions (Pentagon and Shanksville), a huge jetliner managed to completely disappear.

Most of the crashes are from lower speed scraping along the ground crashes.
Not full speed head on impacts with solid objects.

Youtube myth busters where they rocket sled a car into a solid object.

There is just not much left you could call a car.

Or

a reply to: MALBOSIA



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny... I have no problems finding pictures of it.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny... I have no problems finding pictures of it.

A picture of a piece of a plane... in a box?...

That there is a perfect example of the OS. A bunch of blah blah that boils down to a picture that could be from anywhere. Real solid. Why did you bother?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny... I have no problems finding pictures of it.

A picture of a piece of a plane... in a box?...

That there is a perfect example of the OS. A bunch of blah blah that boils down to a picture that could be from anywhere. Real solid. Why did you bother?

The story is that she found it in the back of the car after getting home according to the museum website.
Can't really argue for It one way or another to be honest, would have been nice if it had been photographed in situ at the scene. I assume it has been verified somehow as part of the plane.
I wouldn't have expected photos of it from the story as it wasn't the time of the smartphone and the woman presumably in shock would have just taken it out the car and made her memorial box later.
Story is believable in my opinion and you all know my stance in this stuff, but to be fair to the 9/11 guys I wouldn't accept it in its current form as conclusive evidence.
Knowing that "pieces of Columbia" were on eBay after it disintegrated (it was a piece of burnt garden Hose the sick fs), if I were in the other camp I'd be suspicious of something with so little information.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny... I have no problems finding pictures of it.

A picture of a piece of a plane... in a box?...

That there is a perfect example of the OS. A bunch of blah blah that boils down to a picture that could be from anywhere. Real solid. Why did you bother?

The story is that she found it in the back of the car after getting home according to the museum website.
Can't really argue for It one way or another to be honest, would have been nice if it had been photographed in situ at the scene. I assume it has been verified somehow as part of the plane.
I wouldn't have expected photos of it from the story as it wasn't the time of the smartphone and the woman presumably in shock would have just taken it out the car and made her memorial box later.
Story is believable in my opinion and you all know my stance in this stuff, but to be fair to the 9/11 guys I wouldn't accept it in its current form as conclusive evidence.
Knowing that "pieces of Columbia" were on eBay after it disintegrated (it was a piece of burnt garden Hose the sick fs), if I were in the other camp I'd be suspicious of something with so little information.

That is a pretty balanced assessment. I am a little more biased I admit. I have made up my mind and and it is things like these that, sure, COULD be all true and IS stated as fact, officially, would not satisfy the requirements something would need, to be considered evidence in a court of law. As is the case with the entire OS.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Except, it has stood as evidence in a court of law. Of course, it is convenient for you to forget that.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Except, it has stood as evidence in a court of law. Of course, it is convenient for you to forget that.

Oh!

Will you elaborate?

He means the Zacarias Moussaou trial.
The evidence was accepted by both sides.

a reply to: samkent

Most of the crashes are from lower speed scraping along the ground crashes. Not full speed head on impacts with solid objects. Youtube myth busters where they rocket sled a car into a solid object. There is just not much left you could call a car. Or

The video of the f-4 kind of proves that a plane could atomize, but then it also proves that there would be absolutely nothing left. In that video it doesn't really show the full aftermath but you are using it to lead people to believe there would only be shattered tiny pieces left. So if you think that is what happened then explain what was left of the plane to punch any holes in the walls or do any damage to the core columns. Please explain the couple of larger pieces that were painted with AA colours and that random engine. None of that appears to have survived in the f-4 video you presented unless you have a longer clip showing the full aftermath?

a reply to: TheBolt

They didn't show the aftermath, but one of the books I used to have had the full report on the test. There was nothing you could point to and say, "This was an F-4", but there were pieces left. There were fairly large pieces of engine left, as well as other structural members.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: TheBolt They didn't show the aftermath, but one of the books I used to have had the full report on the test. There was nothing you could point to and say, "This was an F-4", but there were pieces left. There were fairly large pieces of engine left, as well as other structural members.

This sincerely isn't a shot at you, but we are forced to choose here between your statement and the quote from the video that says "the entire plane atomized on impact. It just disappeared into dust. Only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction."
The government is asking us all to believe both sides of this as well.

a reply to: TheBolt

From the report on the test:

Pieces were dispersed over a large area;

www.physicsforums.com...

If it was turned to dust it wouldn't have scattered over a large area.

Sandia performed the test, but not as some assume, to prove that nuclear walls could withstand an impact.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At impact a portion of each wing and tail was sheared off. The remainder of the aircraft was completely destroyed during the impact. Pieces were dispersed over a large area; Reference www.physicsforums.com...

I don't know how to do the proper quote thing but this is the full quote from the report. Doesn't sound to me like there were any large pieces at all.


Also:

The penetration depth caused by the engines was 60 mm and that caused by the fuselage was 20 mm.” Reference www.physicsforums.com...

That is a ridiculously small dent.

a reply to: TheBolt

No, which is why I said you couldn't recognize anything as being from an F-4. The engines were compressed down to a foot or so, what was left of them. There were a few other components you could tell what they were, but like Flight 77, you couldn't look at any component and immediately say what it was from. With time and research you could, but not immediately.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So I guess I'm still wondering then what would be left to cause any significant penetration into the building and take out core columns and cause all the damage found on scene.

a reply to: TheBolt

It wasn't shredded instantly by the outer wall. The pieces further back stayed intact into the building. The front of the aircraft would have been destroyed hitting the wall, but the mid and aft fuselage would have had a hole to go through. There was enough left intact to cause a lot of damage. As it hit the core columns they would have been destroyed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I still am not convinced based on this thread. Every time I go through the official argument I'm left with the same questions. I appreciate what you've said and I have considered it. The f-4 only makes me believe it less.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: badgerprints
I would like to know if the searchers in the Alps found any engines that didn't belong on the crashed plane.

Just wondering.

What are you babbling about now? What engines that did not belong? You seem very confused.

There were plane parts found on 911 that did not belong on the planes that crashed.
Just wondered if they happened to find the same on the german crash that is apparently proof of something regarding 911 planes.

Not confused. Just adding a bit of the logic that apparently steers this threads original premise.