Plane crashes in Guyana, Doesn't Disappear upon impact. 9/11 still a total lie

compared to



You see, usually when there is a plane crash there is some type of remnant of the plane that crashed. So if anyone has a picture of a plane that actually crashed at Shanksville I'd like to see it otherwise I'll just continue to believe the government's story is full of it.

The plane in your OP skidded off the runway on landing and everyone lived..

Are you seriously trying to compare the two?

Think man think.

How much more proof do people need?

reply to post by filosophia


Was it flown nose first into the ground or were the pilots trying to land APPLES WITH APPLES!!!

You guys never compare like with like because you haven't got a CLUE!!!!

reply to post by filosophia


Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon.
I'll let you decide which is which.

Weak sauce dude, check out this website. It basically catalogues all of the plane crashes around the world.

But yeah, the Shanksville plane crash site is a joke. There were like 4 pieces of debris larger than a phonebook. There was also a secondary debris site 6-8 miles away that was closed off by the FBI, and a witness saw a jet flying away from the crash site. I think it was shot down by our military, and there were members of the military basically admit that it was shot to prevent life on the ground.

We received a report from the FAA that Flight 93 had turned off it's transponder, had turned, and now was heading towards Washington DC. The decision was made to try to go in and intercept Flight 93...It was about 10:03 that the fighters reported that Flight 93 had crashed.

--Brigadier General W Montague Winfield

The words that I remember as clear as day was 'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground'...United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington DC

--Colonol Bob Marr

reply to post by filosophia


Please compare and contrast the exact conditions of the crashes to enlighten us how they were the same and why the end results would match?

As I recall the one on 9/11 came in completely out of control in a rapid decent. This one appears to be a case where it was still fairly well under control. Comparing the two would be dishonest beyond reason if I'm right.

I'll anxiously await your posting of the details of both crashes and the similarities that prove them similar enough for you to make this mental leap. Thanks in advance for accommodating me if you do.

Originally posted by lernmore
The plane in your OP skidded off the runway on landing and everyone lived..

Are you seriously trying to compare the two?

Think man think.

He has a point.

reply to post by filosophia


Are you kidding me...this really makes 911 debunkers look like ding dongs...this plane looks like it didn't make the takeoff even without reading the story behind it...as they say in Mexico El Lamo my good man...

hmmm

9/11 was an inside job-no doubt, but this is just bonkers. There are no similarities here, sorry dude

but keep up the fight, one day the truth may actually come out and all the OS fools will look like the mugs they are

dd

Looks like some terrorist cut it in half with his Boxcutter

You are talking to the converted (well those that understand maths and physics) and need to drop stuff like this on groups that are not as educated as us here on ATS.

Often i twitter and just slip it in but good post and keep it up

Weak sauce dude, check out this website. It basically catalogues all of the plane crashes around the world.

That blew em away didn't it now.

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by filosophia

 

Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon.
I'll let you decide which is which.

mr cgi your as bad as yankee451

OK, this is silly and does not help the 9/11 truth movement one bit. by comparing this to the 9/11 aircraft

Reason, this is NOT a crash. it is a runway overrun. i.e. it landed, and DID NOT STOP in time before it ran off the runway, sometimes they don't get damaged, sometimes they do as in this case.

Main differences.

this aircraft went off thew runway maybe doing 50 mph

the 9/11 supposedly went into the ground at 500 mph.

Now I am do not subscribe to the official story, but putting out rubbish like this as comparison is not right at all, and honestly i am honlding myself back, as a professional in the aviation industry, from flaming you from here to Timbuktu

for a sane conversation on this incident go to PPRUNE

Although the two "accidents" were not exactly the same, they are slightly comparable and I see where you are going with the thread. My favorite piece of evidence of the crash on 9/11 in Pennsylvania is that of the eyewitnesses, multiple eyewitnesses, who saw jets low-flying around the area. Some of that testimony was included in one of the documentaries on 9/11 that I saw shown on LinkTV some months ago...Staggering evidence to say the least, although I didn't go into detail in this thread, as it isn't the main topic.

So to stay true to the original post, I must say that overall I do not think the two are comparable enough to be definitive, although some things could possibly be learned from studying and researching the similarities and differences.

reply to post by pshea38

Thats because one is real footage and the other is cgi cartoon. I'll let you decide which is which.

LOL! There's a CGI cartoon of Flight 93? I would like to see that, because I saw no plane AT ALL in the footage of the crash site in Shanksville.

reply to post by 12voltz

Looks like some terrorist cut it in half with his Boxcutter

LMAO! Those box cutters seem to be getting more menacing by the year!

reply to post by zionistsareterrorists

How much more proof do people need?

You consider this proof?

Deny ignorance, my friend!

reply to post by filosophia


Ok, I actually like this comparison. Think about it, this plane broke in two when all it was doing was maybe 50 or 60 miles an hour and over ran the runway. Now increase the speed ten fold or better and have the plane impact about 45 degrees from vertical into solid ground. Imagine the destruction. That is Flight 93.

reply to post by hooper

Ok, I actually like this comparison. Think about it, this plane broke in two when all it was doing was maybe 50 or 60 miles an hour and over ran the runway. Now increase the speed ten fold or better and have the plane impact about 45 degrees from vertical into solid ground. Imagine the destruction. That is Flight 93.

.....Enter the "Debunker Extraordinaire"...........