What were you expecting? A plane-shaped hole in the ground a la Wile E. Coyote? An aluminum tube traveling at that speed is going to disintegrate when it hits a solid surface, not remain in plane-sized pieces.
That’s astonishing, but I guess your friend would know. I suppose it’s a little like that submersible from last summer. Not much left to see there either. In the Nova Scotia crash from 1998, am I correct in understanding the crash happened in the water as opposed to the land?
Oh I don’t know….a plane body…wings…seats….luggage…bodies…something. Other aluminum planes have whole big pieces intact. What makes this one so special? All there was in Shanksville was a relatively small size mound of chewed up dirt. I read that the official explanation was that the ground was soft and the plane dug into the dirt. If that were the case, wouldn’t they have kept digging until the found the wreckage?
Which is it: you haven’t been aware of “the previous 23 years of conversations” or “I’ve looked into this many times”? Nothing that has been brought up here should be in any way surprising to someone who has followed this ‘discussion’ for more than two decades.
Stranger
@Biffster isn’t the only idiot.
Correct. Here’s the link to the Wikipedia article: Swissair Flight 111 - Wikipedia
Did you not watch the video that shows what happens when an aluminum aircraft hits an immovable object at 500 mph?
It’s really not that hard to understand… unless you’re only familiar with car crashes. Airplanes are different.
And I was in the Canadian Armed Forces at the time and I happened to know a trauma counselor who had been doing stress counseling for recovery personnel. She related one story of a diver who thought that he was grabbing a suitcase handle, only to find that it was a human bone.
For fuck sakes, Stranger. I’ve read other sources, but I haven’t been privy to the fact that you and your friends here get your panties in a wad so easily at the mere mention of 9/11. I didn’t know there was 23 years of history ON THIS SITE to have to tackle. Get a fucking clue.
Yeah, that’s exactly what happened.
Other aluminum planes weren’t deliberately flown into a surface target at full speed. You’re comparing this to incidents where the plane crashed at takeoff or landing, and thus were operating at lower speed, or which exploded in midair and thus had a more dispersed force acting on them. This is apples and oranges.
Firstly, there’s no such thing as “the official explanation”. That’s a snarl term equivalent of pseudoscientists calling people 'round-earthers" or “evolutionists”. What there is is an established consensus based on thousands of hours of investigation by academic experts.
Secondly, you didn’t read that, because that’s not what happened. The plane didn’t “dig into the dirt” - it exploded when it hit the ground and produced a debris field spread over hundreds of acres, with inertia causing parts of the wing and fuselage to burrow into the earth as it shattered.
You should. The definitive debunking of the talking points you’re rehashing was written so long ago it’s old enough to vote.
I can certainly understand why the recovery people would be very careful about what they reveal. Still, with other land crashes (which these were), I’ve seen tons of photos and video which always include, uh, an actual plane.
Again, nothing that has been brought up here should be in any way surprising to someone who has followed this ‘discussion’ for more than two decades. You’ve made multiple misinterpretations of basic facts and then doubled down, rejecting corrections to these errors.
Stranger
Okay, Stranger. Then there’s clearly no point in discussing this with you any further. I wish I could be as wise as you, knowing all there is to know about everything. Have a nice evening.
Well, there is one point in discussing it with him: you might actually learn something.
But that’s pretty clearly not what you want out of this conversation.
I may be late but at this point I feel that’s pretty impossible. But had it not been so cliche at this point, it would have been mildly amusing to see
- Doesn’t look at a cite which answers questions
- Gets questioned on why they never looked at the cites since they claim to seek the truth
- Claims they just don’t have time
- Proceeds to nevertheless post relentlessly to the thread.
At #4, it’s pretty clear they’re just fucking with us.
What does this mean? This spin-off thread is currently at 150 posts, so clearly there is a discussion going on, even if you don’t like the direction it’s taken.
You have twice now accused posters here who are trying to help you of not being “open-minded”. I addressed this fallacy back here in Post #93, yet instead of responding to it, you seem to have tripled-down on it by implying once again that we’re all closed-minded on this subject.
To re-iterate what I said before, “open-minded” means that one does not stubbornly cling to a particular opinion or conclusion that’s been shown to be wrong, but is willing to change one’s opinion when presented with new information so that the view one holds is consistent with the facts. This you have evidently failed to do. So the relevant question – not intended to be snarky or insulting – is who do you really think is failing to be open-minded here?
I generally tend to the most charitable interpretation, but I’m beginning to believe this might be the case.
You never know. They might just be really, really stupid.
These are not mutually exclusive interpretations. Indeed, a not stupid contrarian would at least try to present a novel interpretation and respond to corrections to basic errors in premise.
Stranger
You know, there are actual pilots here; private pilots (like me), former fighter pilots, airline pilots, other General Aviation pilots, all of whom have an interest in, and who have studied, air crash investigations. Believe me: Pilots talk about crashes all the time. You have seen crashes that have identifiable aircraft. Not all aircraft crashes are identifiable to the casual (non-pilot) observer as aircraft! Especially when the aircraft hits a solid object at hundreds of miles per hour.
You still haven’t answered whether you watched the video of what happens to an aircraft that hits a concrete wall at hundreds of mph. If you do watch it (though I suspect you won’t, because it diesn’t fit your pre-conceived ideas), please explain where the wreckage is.