Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

reply to post by Pilgrum

---

Hi Pilgrum,

Thanks for the Info. I'll see what I can find regarding that flight as well.

-TY-

reply to post by Pilgrum

---

www.exponent.com...

One Photo there.

Thanks, -TY-

Edit to add video: This video shows the crash scene, there are some larger debris. But words like: disintegrate, and "does not resemble an aircraft" are used.

www.metacafe.com...

[edit on 1-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Please show debris from flight 93 that is at least recognizable.

Now lets look at some other crashes.

1. Payne Stewarts much smaller Learjst hit the ground at very high speed.

It left almost as large as crater as a much larger 757 would have.

It left recognizable debris even though it was a much smaller plane.

2. Flight 800 hit the water at a very high speed but enough debris was found to do a reconstruction for the criminal investigation.

Why have we not seen a reconstruction for Flight 93 if there was debris found?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

---

Ultima,

Your consistant echoing does nothing to your argument. This discussion is about flight 1771 and flight 93 similarities, more specificlly what types of debris fields are created by high speed crashes. Can you find anything wrong with what I posted regarding the smilarities?

Thank you.
-TY-

Wrong again this is not about flight 1771 and flight 93, please read the thread title.

Please be adult enough to answer the questions raised by the comparisons i have made.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

---

I see the short bus let you out early today. The topic of conversation is regarding the comparison of flight 1771 to flight 93 and the similarities of the high speed crashes. I should know, I started the thread.

Thank you for paying attention.

How many times must they be shown?



What is your point?



Can you please post the kinetic energy involved in both crashes?



There wasa reconstruction because they didn't know the casue of the crash. Really Ultima, how many times do you want to go over this???

double post sorry

[edit on 3-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Does the thread title state that,,, YES or NO ?

Why are you so afraid of comparing other planes? Are you afraid your medis stories will be proven wrong again?



I am still waiting for 1 piece of debris with a report matching it to Flight 93.




Point is why is the Flight 93 crater so small for a 757?



Well try it yourself, the Learjet hit at a higher speed, so why is their recognizable pieces left?



There was a reconstruction done also because it was a crime scene. How many times do you have to be told?

So please answer the question, why have we not seen a reconstructions of FLight 93 for the crime scene investigation.




[edit on 3-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

We will stick to comparing plane crashes. ok? Since this is what the thread is about. (see page 1 and read the OP) The information on the OP states flight 1771.

Now Ultima, can you please point out where I am in error regarding flight 93's comparisons to flight 1771?

Can you also point out ONE professional aircraft crash professional with experience in examining plane crashes that states that the crater and debris field are NOT consistant with a plane crash.

Let's get through flight 1771, then we will move on over to Payne Stewart.

I never stated it was not a plane crash. Just stating the facts that,

1. There are no recognizable parts. Or debris with reports matching them to Flight 93.

2. The crater is small compared to what a 757 should have left as compared to Payne's Learjet and other crashes.

3. The very far spread debris field does not go along with a jet crashing straight into the ground.

4. No reports of a reconstruction done with all the debris reportedly found.

There are recognizable parts. A section of window frames. Parts with the companies colors.



Please tell me what size crater should have been there. "Compared to what a 757 should have left" is what you are saying...now tell me how big it should have been.



Says you and truthers. NTSB said it was normal for that to happen.

again, look at the weight of the debirs, the speed up the wind, the flume. ETC



There was no need of this. The crime scene was handled by the FBI , it was determined that there were no bombs on the plane. Intentional, crash.

Do you recognize it was comming from a 757?



The size that had a 757 crash into the ground, not the size of a Learjet.



So your saying the wind blew the engine core 2,000 feet away?





Do you have the FBI crime scene reports that stated no bombs on the plane?

There should have been a reconstruction as poart of a criminal investigation, just like Flight 800.

I am not qualified to. I can tell you what company it came from. But, there were many people in Shanksville for weeks after that are more than able to recognize the debris.



Ok... what SIZE crater would that be Ultima... Dimensions please.



Hey smart guy, I didn't say that and you know it. You should remember from the debate we had how far the engine was found and how it ended up there. The debris that was far away from the point of impact was very light. Remember... I asked you this question several times during the debate and you failed to answer me?



There was a press conference with the lead investigator of the FBI stating as such. Sorry I do not have access to the reports. But hey.. secret agent man... don't you?




Yeah, waste more time and money putting together a plane because......???

double

[edit on 3-9-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

So you could not recognize debris, thanks for proving my point.



At least the wingspan of a 757.



You stated the debris was blown by the wind, so that has to mean the engine core too.



So you cannot claim no bomb if you cannot post the evidence.



Because its a ciminal investigation. We need a criminal investigation into the plane crashes.


911research.wtc7.net...



911commission.gov...



[edit on 3-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

The state of the impacted ground will have a significant bearing on the size and shape of the crater, penetration depth of high mass components. Has anyone compared the ground characteristics at these crash sites?

A relatively soft backfilled site will behave very differently to a more compacted rocky, previously undisturbed area.

Yes you would think the crater at Shanksville would be bigger because of it being soft backfilled soil.

At leaset a lot bigger then a crater left by a Learjet.




[edit on 4-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]