|
Post by gwen on Feb 13, 2007 23:31:15 GMT -4
What I don't understand is why the Flight 93 crash site would be anything but an airline crash site. What possible reason would they have to fake a plane crash in the middle of a field? Even if there is some reason to do it, why not just crash a freakin' plane into the field? Why must every part of 9/11 have some elaborate underlying conspiracy? Why can't some things just be as they seem, especially in the case of Flight 93? Mostly cuz this form of fiction (conspiracy theory) sells books and videos and draws traffic to websites. I've heard lots of reasons why a big swath of the population goes for this stuff, my favourite (though it's not terribly polite I guess) is that some people look for easy ways to feel "smarter" or more "intelligent" which does maybe explain why they weave such elaborate tales: I think it gives believers an emotional sensation (an illusion), a kick, that they're bright and using their minds on "intellectual" stuff. Whatever.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 14, 2007 12:56:32 GMT -4
Because the whole point of conspiracy theories about 9/11 is that the simplest explanation - that a group of arab terrorists successfully hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings - is not true.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 15, 2007 4:55:59 GMT -4
The photos of hundreds of aircraft crash sites are online. Compare the photos of the purported crash site of Flt.93 to virtually any of the others. The Flt.93 site photos are the only ones I could find that show nothing whatsoever to identify the debris of an aircraft..
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 15, 2007 5:19:05 GMT -4
We're looking at different pictures, I guess, because I see plenty of aircraft debris.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 15, 2007 6:40:13 GMT -4
The photos of hundreds of aircraft crash sites are online. Compare the photos of the purported crash site of Flt.93 to virtually any of the others. The Flt.93 site photos are the only ones I could find that show nothing whatsoever to identify the debris of an aircraft.. That's because most crashes occur at low speed near airports. Check out the ones that crashed at cruise speed, especially if the aircraft hit the ground at a steep angle. In this sort of crash the aircraft is broken into small fragments and if the ground is soft a lot of the wreckage buries itself. I've certainly seen pictures where all that was visible was a crater in the ground.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 16, 2007 6:54:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2007 8:59:42 GMT -4
They compare the crash to ordnance blast and a lear jet crash. just before that. What was the speed and angle of the lear jet crash? Don't you think that would matter for a valid comparison? What would be the point of using something else for the crash? Wouldn't it be easier to use an actual plane? What kind of moron would use something else when plane is avaialble?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 16, 2007 10:26:13 GMT -4
There might be a few reasons we just can't think of right away for their not using a 757. Was there really one as available as a Lear jet? Would it have been as easy to use a 757? There are too many factors that we outsiders don't know about.
What about the giant fireballs when the 767s hit the towers? Wouldn't there have been burning jet fuel all over the place at the crash site in Pennsylvania? That crash site is not consistent with the crash of a wide-bodied jetliner. Sometimes I get the feeling that you people who argue that 9/11 wasn't an inside job don't believe what you're saying yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 16, 2007 11:27:29 GMT -4
That crash site is not consistent with the crash of a wide-bodied jetliner.
Well thats good because at just under 12 feet in cabin width, the 757 is not a wide body. It is comparable to the 737.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 16, 2007 12:04:40 GMT -4
There might be a few reasons we just can't think of right away for their not using a 757. Was there really one as available as a Lear jet? Would it have been as easy to use a 757? There are too many factors that we outsiders don't know about. In other words you don't have an answer. Flt 93 crashed into dirt which absorbs fuel and it's flammable. You don't think the site was consisitent with a jetliner crash how many crash site in which plane crashed in similar conditions have you seen? Do Google image searches for "American Eagle" crash or united 585 crash
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 16, 2007 12:32:31 GMT -4
There might be a few reasons we just can't think of right away for their not using a 757. Was there really one as available as a Lear jet? Would it have been as easy to use a 757? There are too many factors that we outsiders don't know about. With so many unknown factors, with such a huge hole in the theory, what reasons do you have to believe Flight 93 didn't crash as reported? If you can't explain why "they" wouldn't use a 757 then your theory is not worth a second of our attention. Come back when you can explain why a 757 couldn't be used. You believe your theory because you want to believe it, not because there is any evidence to support it. That is a very irrational way of thinking. Conspiracy theorists complicate things more and more by trying to explain away contradictory facts, and it is ridiculous. Why can't you see how silly your theory is?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2007 12:47:13 GMT -4
There might be a few reasons we just can't think of right away for their not using a 757. Was there really one as available as a Lear jet? Would it have been as easy to use a 757? There are too many factors that we outsiders don't know about.
But there is a 757 missing. So we come back to the question. Since a 757 went somewhere, why not just use that? It eliminates the possiblility of any witnesses getting pictures of a different plane and it leaves 757 parts at the crash site, which there definitely were. If you're going to use a Lear jet, then why not claim that a Lear Jet was also hijacked? What kind of moron would make this more complicated than it needs to be?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2007 14:12:37 GMT -4
David, do you really not see the logical inconsistencies of your beliefs?
For example, that finding and planting evidence, including crispy corpse bits, was easier than finding a 757 to crash into a field. For example, that all those bits of evidence don't constitute proof, but one frame of video does. (Even when that frame has been in control of the government you accuse of planting that evidence for years, yet still allegedly shows what you claim it shows.)
Actually, I have a hard time believing that you believe what you claim to. It doesn't make any sense. We know that suicide attacks happen. Look at the Middle East, specifically Israel. Suicide attacks happen all the time. What makes this one different, that they couldn't have found suicide attackers to carry it out?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 17, 2007 0:03:47 GMT -4
That's because most crashes occur at low speed near airports. Check out the ones that crashed at cruise speed, especially if the aircraft hit the ground at a steep angle. In this sort of crash the aircraft is broken into small fragments and if the ground is soft a lot of the wreckage buries itself. I have checked out the photos of debris sites involving aircraft which had been at cruise speeds when they crashed. The link below is to a photo gallery which has 1,439 photographs, representing 363 accidents, from 1950 to present day... www.airdisaster.com/photos/ Going through the 2000-2007 section, I narrowed my search to incidents specifically involving aircraft flying at speeds similar to Flt. 93 (ie: similar to a 757-222, flying at cruise speed). Below are the first four examples I found..... Example 1Date: 12 November 2001 Airline: American Airlines Flight No.: 587 Aircraft: Airbus A300B4-605R Location: Belle Harbor, New York Fatalities: 260:260+5
Witnesses reported seeing an engine fire develop on the aircraft's no.1 engine, followed by small pieces of debris breaking away from the left wing, and shortly afterward, a complete separation of the left engine from the aircraft's wing. The aircraft then reportedly entered a steep nose-down attitude and crashed into the borough of Queens near Rockaway Beach, destroying four residential structures, and severely damaging eight others. Separation of the vertical stabilizer, which was found over two miles away from the main impact site in Jamaica Bay, is suspected as the precipitating event, leading to an in-flight breakup of the aircraft.www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa587/photo.shtmlExample 2Aircraft: TU-154M/Boeing 757-23APF - collided with DHL FLight 611 [A9C-DHL]...The aircraft collided at FL354, broke apart and crashed, with debris scattered over an area nearly 40km wide.www.airdisaster.com/photos/bts2937/photo.shtmlExample 3 Date: 08 July 2003 Airline: Sudan Airways Flight No.: 39 Aircraft: Boeing 737-2J8C(A) Location: Port Sudan, Sudan Fatalities: 116:116.com/photos/bts2937/photo.shtml
The aircraft [ST-AFK], on a scheduled passenger flight from Port Sudan to the capital city of Khartoum, crashed several minutes after takeoff www.airdisaster.com/photos/st-afk/photo.shtmlExample 4Date: 03 February 2005 Airline: Kam Air Flight No.: 904 Aircraft: Boeing 737-242(A) Location: Kabul, Afghanistan Fatalities: 104:104
Wreckage was reportedly found about 12 hours later in mountainous terrain northwest of Kabul.www.airdisaster.com/photos/ex-037/photo.shtmlCompare the above examples to.... Flight 93www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/photo.shtml The purported crash site of Flight 93 does not even come close to resembling the other crash sites I've posted. Nor any others in the entire gallery, which consists of crash site photos from over 360 aircraft ! I've certainly seen pictures where all that was visible was a crater in the ground. Other than Flight 93? Well then, if you've seen photos of other debris sites that are comparable to Flt.93, then please provide sources to support your claim. Because I have yet to find even one similar example.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 17, 2007 1:30:04 GMT -4
You don't think the site was consisitent with a jetliner crash how many crash site in which plane crashed in similar conditions have you seen? Do Google image searches for "American Eagle" crash or united 585 crashHere's a photo of the UA Flt. 585 crash site, which shows large pieces of debris... Two photos of the American Eagle Flt. 4184 crash site, which still show more debris than Flt. 93, despite the fact that a 757-200 is about twice the size, and five times heavier, than the twin-turboprop ATR-72!! And since you brought up the comparisons, let's compare the NTSB reports..... The NTSB Report on UA Flt. 585 is 214 pages... www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2001/AAR0101.pdfThe NTSB Report on American Eagle Flt. 4184 is 340 pages... www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/aar9601.pdfAnd, the NTSB Report on Flt. 93 is.....well...there isn't one, really. There's only two tiny reports that exist - a 38 page "Specialist's" report on the FDR... www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf ...and a 15 page "Specialist's" report on the ATC recording.... www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc07.pdf Flt. 93 was a 757-200, weighing about 250 tons, with two massive engines that will not disintegrate into tiny, microscopic fragments, regardless of the speed of impact, and regardless of what they hit. The purported crash site simply isn't supported by the photographic evidence.
|
|