Curious comparison.

[Gottsy 46]

This may not belong on this category if so please move it.

I noticed the huge pile of wreckage from the Ethiopian crash, then looked at the videos of the Flight 93 crash where there was very little wreckage.

Any ideas??

[jacko 8,814]

12 hours ago, Gottsy said:

This may not belong on this category if so please move it.

I noticed the huge pile of wreckage from the Ethiopian crash, then looked at the videos of the Flight 93 crash where there was very little wreckage.

Any ideas??

There was  a similar amount of wreckage but more widespread, which might depend on the angles they hit the Earth. 

[js007 795]

15 hours ago, Gottsy said:

This may not belong on this category if so please move it.

I noticed the huge pile of wreckage from the Ethiopian crash, then looked at the videos of the Flight 93 crash where there was very little wreckage.

Any ideas??

Of course, some people think that there was no flight 93 crash.  What happened to the wreckage?  

[Bushcraft 2,579]

That's the flight that was supposed to have crashed in a field, right? I saw an interview with the local sheriff, in which he said that he was alerted, drove  to the scene and was the first to arrive with a deputy. To his amazement, all he saw there was a smoking hole in the ground, no debris whatsoever. Nothing! After returning to his office he drove back to the 'crash' scene later and it had been taped off by FBI and other personnel he didn't know. He was refused entry. Yet another miracle that happened that day. 

[Rawhide2 1,343]

I had to google flight 93 as it wasn't coming to my mind initially. Very strange. Same with that other flight that crashed into the Pentagon was it ??  Very little debris etc ??

[Bushcraft 2,579]

Yes, a jumbo jet with huge wings, engines and a 40 ft high tailplane disappeared into a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon wall, leaving the lawn outside untouched and no debris, security camera images withheld. A succession of miracles happened on 9/11, there have been plenty of posts on this board about the whole disgusting affair.  

[js007 795]

27 minutes ago, Rawhide2 said:

I had to google flight 93 as it wasn't coming to my mind initially. Very strange. Same with that other flight that crashed into the Pentagon was it ??  Very little debris etc ??

The “flight” that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn’t even leave any wing marks on the building.  There was just a hole.  

[wacmedia 277]

1 hour ago, js007 said:

The “flight” that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn’t even leave any wing marks on the building.  There was just a hole.  

Hi,

That looked like a missile, old boy.

[Butch 3,456]

5 hours ago, Bushcraft said:

Yes, a jumbo jet with huge wings, engines and a 40 ft high tailplane disappeared into a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon wall, leaving the lawn outside untouched and no debris, security camera images withheld. A succession of miracles happened on 9/11, there have been plenty of posts on this board about the whole disgusting affair.  

Yep, i'm at pains to see how two other planes of equivalent size managed to bring down two skyscrapers and leave a debris field several miles wide, yet one hitting a low level ground object didn't, and also did very little localised damage. I also refuse to believe that the most important strategic building in the USA second to the Whitehouse doesn't have a functioning CCTV system, neither have any radar images been released. It stinks, even to this day.

[Rawhide2 1,343]

Seems that quite a few think that 9/11 wasn't as we all imagined. Personally I simply cant believe that the whole affair was deliberately orchestrated to allow the USA to legitamatly pursue Osama Bin Laden. That is simply far fetched when if that was the objective it could have been done on the black previously.

I saw that 2nd jet live hit the 2nd tower. We were watching live. It happened. Still plenty believe that there were clear reasons why something was badly amiss that day and flight 93 and the Pentagon attack I agree is very suspect

[Grandpollo 366]

On 4/5/2019 at 6:40 PM, Gottsy said:

This may not belong on this category if so please move it.

I noticed the huge pile of wreckage from the Ethiopian crash, then looked at the videos of the Flight 93 crash where there was very little wreckage.

Any ideas??

Flight 93 was going at almost supersonic speed when it hit nose first into solid ground. Pieces would be particles at that speed. Even if you follow the nutjobs and Alex Jones types that it was "a missile", it would still crash and maybe even the same way. 

The USA had the right to go after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before 9/11 and only the sad and closeted conspiracy hounds would think the USA did 9/11 to that degree (one small building would have sufficed or no building at all, e.g. just Flight 93)  and that somehow enough explosives to take down two buildings were planted by demolition experts with nobody knowing. What rubbish perpetuated by the joke of what the internet has become in some respects. 

The Pentagon was seriously damaged even though it is build like a fort. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/mar/31/pentagon-after-911-attack-american-airlines-flight-77-in-pictures

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

Within these two articles are links to the other preposterous nonsense.

[Bob Belzy 150]

Reading the Ethiopian crash report indicates that it hit the ground at over 500 kts (575 mph or close 1000 km/h) in something like a 45 degree descent angle. The two engines had to be dug out from more than 30 ft below the ground.

[jacko 8,814]

15 hours ago, Rawhide2 said:

I had to google flight 93 as it wasn't coming to my mind initially. Very strange. Same with that other flight that crashed into the Pentagon was it ??  Very little debris etc ??

Apart from a ruddy great jet engine sitting there smoldering!

[VPI78 11,509]

5 hours ago, Grandpollo said:

Flight 93 was going at almost supersonic speed when it hit nose first into solid ground. Pieces would be particles at that speed. Even if you follow the nutjobs and Alex Jones types that it was "a missile", it would still crash and maybe even the same way. 

The USA had the right to go after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before 9/11 and only the sad and closeted conspiracy hounds would think the USA did 9/11 to that degree (one small building would have sufficed or no building at all, e.g. just Flight 93)  and that somehow enough explosives to take down two buildings were planted by demolition experts with nobody knowing. What rubbish perpetuated by the joke of what the internet has become in some respects. 

The Pentagon was seriously damaged even though it is build like a fort. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/mar/31/pentagon-after-911-attack-american-airlines-flight-77-in-pictures

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

Within these two articles are links to the other preposterous nonsense.

Yep; a couple of months ago an Amazon chartered 767 nose-dived into a Bay just south of Houston. There were so many parts scattered, the debris field looked less like an airplane and more like random scrap. It took them weeks just to find the black box and longer to find remains of the 3-man crew.

[yorta2 693]

43 minutes ago, VPI78 said:

Yep; a couple of months ago an Amazon chartered 767 nose-dived into a Bay just south of Houston. There were so many parts scattered, the debris field looked less like an airplane and more like random scrap. It took them weeks just to find the black box and longer to find remains of the 3-man crew.

Maybe it was filled with spare parts being freighted by Amazon....?

[VPI78 11,509]

11 minutes ago, yorta2 said:

Maybe it was filled with spare parts being freighted by Amazon....?

There sure was a lot of cardboard floating the first few days.

[Bushcraft 2,579]

Some people are in complete denial though the evidence of an inside job is overwhelming. I'm not going to go over the arguments again, as they've been covered by threads on this board. I remember being ludicrously challenged by Joekicker to prove that the Pentagon had security cameras at the time, at which point I gave up responding. And why was CCTV footage from the gas station opposite confiscated and never returned. Oh yes, national security reasons of course, BARF.  

[Grandpollo 366]

3 hours ago, Bushcraft said:

Some people are in complete denial though the evidence of an inside job is overwhelming (not). I'm not going to go over the arguments again, as they've been covered by threads on this board (means nothing as for facts) . I remember being ludicrously challenged by Joekicker to prove that the Pentagon had security cameras at the time, at which point I gave up responding. And why was CCTV footage from the gas station opposite confiscated and never returned. Oh yes, national security reasons of course, BARF.  

30 years ago people who voiced these types of oddball theories would have wound up in in the looney bin.

[Bushcraft 2,579]

Oddball to look at what happened and use common sense to deduce that the official explanations could not possibly be true, as they were physically impossible according to a large number of physicists, engineers, architects, accident investigators, demolitions experts etc.? Are you really happy to accept that a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon and simply disappeared? Or that one crashed in a field and simply disappeared? Or that Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint when just slightly on fire and unhit by anything? Or that the 2 towers collapsed just because they were hit by planes? Or that hundreds of cars parked a fair distance from the towers inexplicably had their engine blocks and door handles melted, then burned out? If you are, fine, but it doesn't sit well with me and many others who would like to see an independent investigation.      

[Rawhide2 1,343]

Bushcraft lol what possible reason would there be to kill 6000 of your own citizens (or whatever number is was) just to legitimise going after OBL

It was a terrorist atrocity simple as. We still have fruits claiming we never even landed on the moon in the first place.  You're telling us that captains off those Jets willingly committed suicide by deliberately flying into both twin towers in view of millions worldwide. Perhaps it was an optical illusion . Complete insanity

Its a massive insult to all the citizens of the USA who died that day along with firefighters to claim an "inside job"

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rawhide2

[jacko 8,814]

10 hours ago, Bushcraft said:

Are you really happy to accept that a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon and simply disappeared

I suspect so as it was not a Jumbo jet but a 757. There was a ruddy great turbine engine sitting there on pics I saw. 

 

[js007 795]

36 minutes ago, jacko said:

I suspect so as it was not a Jumbo jet but a 757. There was a ruddy great turbine engine sitting there on pics I saw. 

 

I'm not sure if it's true, but at one point I read that the engine sitting there was not even the same type of engine used on that particular aircraft.  

 

[VPI78 11,509]

555, if it was on the internet it must have been true ... my Buddha, no wonder so many still think the Moon landings were faked and 9/11 was an inside job.

[jacko 8,814]

1 hour ago, js007 said:

I'm not sure if it's true, but at one point I read that the engine sitting there was not even the same type of engine used on that particular aircraft.  

 

There have been a lot of rumours and false information bandied about. I read one report saying it was impossible to fly an aircraft into the side of the building due to woods, despite the fact that the Pentagon is surrounded by an ruddy great open car park. 

The conspiracy and cover up I see is that these buildings were built using a method that failed to 'hold up' to the aircraft strikes when I believe they should have. One tower that fell without being hit is also suspicious. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by jacko

[nkped 1,208]

On 4/6/2019 at 9:01 PM, Butch said:

Yep, i'm at pains to see how two other planes of equivalent size managed to bring down two skyscrapers and leave a debris field several miles wide, yet one hitting a low level ground object didn't, and also did very little localised damage. I also refuse to believe that the most important strategic building in the USA second to the Whitehouse doesn't have a functioning CCTV system, neither have any radar images been released. It stinks, even to this day.

I've been in the pentagon.  I saw the twin towers.  There was more than a bit of difference in the structures.