Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story?

Well I guess anything is possible, it just seems to go against common sense and what else we saw that day.

I do realize that a large amount of the aircraft was fragmented and dispersed around the crater. Much like in the pentagon crash. At the same time though we didn't see any part of f77 break off and go flying into the firetruck or the control tower completely destroying it/them. They were both going about the same speed and f77 was going at more of an angle..you could almost expect part of the aircraft to brake off and fly into those two(firetruck and/or CT) causing some sort of serious damage. Yet the entire plane entered into the hardened structure.

But the 757 in Shanksville basically nose dived almost straight down into soft earth but somehow the front section of the aircraft broke off flying into the woods breaking large trees completely in half, breaking them at the stump and laying them flat on the ground. Also at the same time, not leaving anything behind that appears big enough to do this kind of damage.

I also notice you were quick to post the aerial photo of the damage while leaving out the aerial pre damage photo. It doesn't surprise me b/c it would clearly show how extensive the damage was. There is a very large section of the trees missing.

Besides Debunkers, I already knew what the OS explanation was for what created the tree damage. I was looking for a alternate explanation.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by PersonalChoice]

Difference is in how the aircraft impacted - at Shanksville United 93 was
(according to eye witnesses backed up by Flight Data recorder) flying
upside down at about 40 deg down angle. One of wings struck ground first
Impact forces sheared off forward section which was traveling at 580 Mph
propelling it into woods.

At Pentagon American 77 was flying right side up with wings level as it
hit building.

High angle impact result in high degree of fragmentation

Originally posted by Hellas
It's family guy

www.youtube.com...

Awesome, good find!

As Peter Griffin says: "hahahahahahahaha"

Originally posted by hooper
No he doesn't, he thinks the exploding fuel caused the damage TO the woods.

That's ... what ... I ... meant.

All of whom, with the exception of you, are familiar with the concept of an airplane exploding when it crashes.

How does an airplane explode when the plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn"? Those aren't my words, those are the words of Jim Svonavec, the owner of that soft patch of earth UA93 supposedly crashed into.

You, on the other hand think, for whatever reason, that people are telling you that the cockpit broke off and exploded in the woods.

No, I don't believe a plane's cockpit can explode (the point of this thread!). Pay attention.

Originally posted by thedman
It was one of 10 constructions bins aka dumpsters used to hold the aircraft debris

"We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United." –Wallace Miller

No, it was 10 recycling bins.

reply to post by thedman

So one tooth from the alleged 44 passengers was embedded high up in a tree, but not a single drop of blood at the scene anywhere. Got it.

I didn't say the claim was 95% was buried. The official claim was 95% was recovered, about 80% was buried.

I can't believe you guys actually believe a 757 can crash at the speed of a bullet, 2/3-80% buried, but the part that doesn't bury is the front section of the plane. Unbelievable.

Do you have a photo of that engine fan found in the pond? It was the heaviest reported part found. Very photo worthy.

Btw, I noticed you skipped over a lot my questions for you. Why is that?


[edit on 13-2-2010 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Nope sorry you are wrong. He means these:

reply to post by GenRadek

Who means those big trash dumpsters?

reply to post by ATH911

How does an airplane explode when the plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn"? Those aren't my words, those are the words of Jim Svonavec, the owner of that soft patch of earth UA93 supposedly crashed into.

You really don't know the difference between burn and explode?? And you think you are some kind of super-snoop?

Nice quote mining - you didn't mention the person you quote was in South Carolina on 9/11, also didn't mention the animal carcas he found that was, as he descrbed it, "petrified from the blast"

reply to post by hooper


Can you please explain how the part of the plane forward of the fuel breaks of and EXPLODES and then BURNS TO NOTHING?

Originally posted by hooper
You really don't know the difference between burn and explode?? ... also didn't mention the animal carcas he found that was, as he descrbed it, "petrified from the blast"

So was it a burn or a blast? You seem to be contradicting yourself . . . again.

reply to post by ATH911

So one tooth from the alleged 44 passengers was embedded high up in a tree, but not a single drop of blood at the scene anywhere. Got it.

Ever been to crash scene? What you find is lot of macerated tissue aka "human hamburger" as its been described. Wont find any blood
though because the dismemberment is so swift and violent

Seen it up close and personal doing body recovery after plane crash - lots
of bits of tissue, part of torso, hand (sans fingers) and some amputated fingers - yet no blood . Curious how my experience matching closely with
Shanksville....

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by hooper

 

Can you please explain how the part of the plane forward of the fuel breaks of and EXPLODES and then BURNS TO NOTHING?

Could you please explain why you are asking such a silly question?

reply to post by ATH911

So was it a burn or a blast?

Wow. Have you never seen a fuel based explosion? It is a fierly blast. Fireball.

Tell you what - go on Google Video and search for "plane" and "explosion".

I don't know how else to explain this fairly simple concept that seems to be confusing the hell out of you.

Originally posted by thedman
Curious how my experience matching closely with
Shanksville....

Just too bad we do not have the proper evidence to verify what happened.

reply to post by REMISNE


What do you mean "we"? The evidence was presented in a US court of law and a conviction was succesful. Case closed, litterally and figuratively.

Originally posted by hooper
What do you mean "we"? The evidence was presented in a US court of law and a conviction was succesful. Case closed, litterally and figuratively.

But we are not talking about the trial are we? And again the evidence could not be used to charge OBL.

I am still waiting for you to show the 95% of Flight 93 that was recovered that you claim.

reply to post by REMISNE


The plane's remains are in storage, held by United Airlines. Call them. I do not have the authority to give you access, they do. Do not complain anymore, you know where it is at, you know who to contact to have access. If you do not take any affirmative action to answer your own question then you obviously don't want an answer, which is, in its own way, an answer.

Originally posted by hooper
The plane's remains are in storage, held by United Airlines.

I am still waiting for you to show the 95% of Flight 93 that was recovered that you claim.

reply to post by REMISNE

I am still waiting for you to show the 95% of Flight 93 that was recovered that you claim.

Which proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that you don't want an answer, you just want an excuse.

Told you where it is, and who you have to contact to see it. I don't have it. It's like asking for "proof" that the Mona Lisa exist. You want to see it, YOU have to go to Paris. If you refuse to see it, then you obviously really don't want to.