Disappearing planes

I posted this in another thread, no one has taken up the challange, and I think is a valid point, so if you can provide evidence to support the OS please do reply.

No matter how much documentary evidence in support of the OS is brought forward, and no matter how many different, CONFUSING, theories oF conspiracy are postulated, it seems to me that there are two items that cannot be quoted as 'facts', and yet they give the lie to the whole episode.

Flight 93 crashes INTACT and buries itself COMPLETELY into the ground.

Flight 77 crashes into the pentagon and disappears COMPLETELY into a 16 foot hole

In both cases there is no sign of wings, major body parts, tailplanes etc.

Now, having read the reasons given for this, I would like, just once, for someone to show photographs of other air disasters thats have taken place with the same outcome.
Ive seen plenty of aircrashes over the years, including Lockerbie, I don't recall ever seeing any where the plane just 'dissapears'.

Its not a lot to ask, so please, OS proponants, show me!

Originally posted by Icerider
Flight 93 crashes INTACT and buries itself COMPLETELY into the ground.

Flight 77 crashes into the pentagon and disappears COMPLETELY into a 16 foot hole


Its not a lot to ask, so please, OS proponants, show me!

Well, while Flight 93 did hit the ground intact, it didnt bury itself completely. Pieces of that aircraft ended up all around the crash site.

And, at the Pentagon crash site of Flight 77, the length of the hole was over 90 feet wide. It also left pieces of itself in, on, and around the impact area. When you come to accept those facts, then we can get on with the discussion.

I've got one. We know they crashed, yet they disappeared.

Flight 19-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97a5be0a1007.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


No, see, flight 93, 3 debris fields, the engine in the pond?

Pentagon initial damage was certainly not 90 foot, Ive seen the pictures

Good try, but I dont have to accept anything, and it doesnt address my VERY SIMPLE request.

Originally posted by Signals
I've got one. We know they crashed, yet they disappeared.

Flight 19-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97a5be0a1007.jpg[/atsimg]

Yep, you have me there, but can you find any ON LAND?

reply to post by Icerider


I recently posted this link on the "OS Debate Facts etc" thread but it is more appropriate here.

This is some video of the crash site of a Tupolev, very similar in size to a Boeing 757, which crashed last summer killing all 168 aboard.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If it wasn't for the fact that it was in Iran would truthers not be saying : "where is the plane?", "where are the wings?" etc ?

1996: On May 11, Valujet Flight 592 nose-dived into the Florida Everglades a few minutes after taking off from Miami. The plane, carrying 110 passengers and crew, hit the ground with such a force that it disappeared completely into the swamp and remains buried there. Investigators allege that the plane was carrying illegally stored oxygen generators that apparently fanned a fire and caused the crash. - Flexnor

[edit on 30-1-2010 by kenny71]

reply to post by Icerider


Then you willlingly choose to remain ignorant of the facts. The 16 foot hole you speak of at the Pentagon, was where the fuselage penetrated the wall. It does not begin to take into account the damage on either side of it caused by the wings and the engines.

Its not a lot to ask, so please, OS proponants, show me!

It would seem logical, to me at least, that the fuselage of the plane would have the most impact . The wings being flimsy arms would only disintegrate upon something more structurally sound.

But this OS stuff is false and Corporations are responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

And seriously, when people argue about 911 and call people "idiot" type names, it is really embarrassing. Please show your Intelligence quota and have a "respectful" debate.

And yes I know that my opinion here has no merit. But Let this just be an injection into the mass consciousness, if you know what I mean.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I dare say I am ignorant of the facts, but then I think the same applies for 99.999% of the population.

Still doesnt meet my challenge though - aircrashes with vanishing aircraft!

In this thread Its kinda put up or shut up as far I am concerned.

Originally posted by Icerider
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

I dare say I am ignorant of the facts, but then I think the same applies for 99.999% of the population.

Still doesnt meet my challenge though - aircrashes with vanishing aircraft!

In this thread Its kinda put up or shut up as far I am concerned.

How about addressing the Iranian air crash then ?

reply to post by Alfie1


I have, on the other thread. i started this one because i didnt want to disrail the OPs thread, but if you want to bring your video over to this thread, be my guest, my reply will be the same.

Otherwise, please feel free to present something more persuasive.

I can see what icerider is trying to say & i agree with you the lack on much debris on the ground is very suspicious.
A few bits are laying around the impact sites but if you didn't know what happened & were shown a video of both of the crashes i think you wouldn't believe 2 planes crashed there.
it's just my opinion & i'm sure there are many reasons why there's not alot of debris.it's all very strange,there are arguments both ways

Originally posted by Icerider
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I have, on the other thread. i started this one because i didnt want to disrail the OPs thread, but if you want to bring your video over to this thread, be my guest, my reply will be the same.

Otherwise, please feel free to present something more persuasive.

I did bring the video here, a few posts above. This is obviously the most appropriate place.

So, perhaps you could identify for me from the Iranian scene the "wings, major body parts, tailplane etc" ?

reply to post by Icerider

aircrashes with vanishing aircraft

Except that all four of the airliners left pieces of themselves at their respective crash sites.

reply to post by Icerider


The basic fallacy in what you are trying to argue is to compare regular air crashes with 9/11. None of the pilots on 9/11 was trying to avoid a crash, quite the opposite. Even UA 93 was deliberately flown into the ground because the passengers were about to overwhelm the hi-jackers.

This is a high speed crash; you must have seen it. Every truther in the western hemisphere must have seen it and then scrubbed it from their memory. :-

www.youtube.com...

This is very comparable to the Pentagon; high speed into solid object. But you expect to see wings ?!

More likely, they were drones.

Here's some video proof:
www.metacafe.com...

Just a short video, worth watching.

Here, the Somerset County Coroner says that there are no bodies at the crash site, which is described as a ten foot ditch with scrap dumped in it:

www.metacafe.com...


Here's one where you should be able to see a plane, but there isn't one:

www.metacafe.com...

I am not a big fan of the OS but a plane hitting the ground at a few hundred mph is bound to be carrying a massive amount of kentic energy.

In my opinion it is resonable that most of it went into the ground it hit. On saying that I always thought the flight 93 crash site was a little sterile and the crater small but I have to say I am no expert on crashes or the pyhsics.

Just a point of clarification, the crater in the ground was already there before 9/11. This was confirmed by satellite imagery. Check out this video.


Careful there, OP. Pretty soon you'll start watching September Clues and realize there was no planes that hit the towers either.

Think about it. 100% penetration into steel reinforced towers was the most important part of their plan. If even one of the planes didn't fully penetrate, and fell to the ground, the plan would have been completely ruined, and their explosives would have been found.

Normal crash physics says that this is highly unlikely. Of course they would use missiles instead... To make the plan have a 100% success rate.

That was the key to their entire plan. No mistakes (but they made some small ones )



[edit on 30-1-2010 by seattletruth]