What happened to Flight 93's tail section?

[TC329]

Pittsburgh Tribune Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12940.html)

“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.”

[DarkMagician]

Because as we all know, a plane's tail is hooked to the rest of the plane by a plank of infinity strength, and even if it releases from the rest of the plane, it will drop all momentum.

What, want a medal for arguing from incredulity?

[Reality Believer]

And then there is this from the same article:
“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”
Bits of metal were thrown against a tree line like shrapnel, said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone of Troop A in Greensburg.
“Once it hit, everything just disintegrated,” he said. “There are just shreds of metal. The longest piece I saw was 2 feet long.”

[TC329]

OK, I'll note both of them as non-answers. Thanks for the consistency here. I love it. :D

[Reality Believer]

OK, I'll note both of them as non-answers. Thanks for the consistency here. I love it. :D
Ok, reset. Fair enough. Very slick. Good ploy. Instead of asking a "question", you asked a question.

What happened to Flight 93's tail section?
It was destroyed in the crash.

[leftysergeant]

Let's refer back from here to American Eagle Flight 4185. That aircraft is described as having gone into a spin, which I understand to mean that the long axis was closer to the horizontal than to the vertical as it descended out of control.

It left only a shgallow gouge and scattered very small debris down-range, with only the empanage still in tact. This is typical and may have been what led Tweeter to his absurd conclusion that Flt 93 should have bounced after impact. I reiterate that the long axis of 93 would have been far closer to vertical than horizontal.

Now, picture Flt 93 digging into the ground. Up until it was buried well past the wings, the rear of the fuselage was still in tact, but it was over-pressurized at least somewhat. As the aircraft slowed in its passage into the ground, there may have been enough accordianing to compromise the structure near the empanage, this and the over-pressurization causing the empanage to separate. If you look at the crater, you will notice that the vertical stabilzer is no longer in its original allignment with the wings when it makes impact with the ground. At this time, it probably still has considerable forward momentum. It hits, totally separates, along with (judging by the large piece of metal debris found in the woods) a bit of the rear fuselage. The impact probably breaks it into smaller pieces, which bounce at head for the woods. This and the engine which sheared off rather than becoming entrained with the rest of the aircraft, are what shattered some of the trees at the edge of the woods.

Does this model work for everyone? If not, why not?

[uk_dave]

It was destroyed in the crash.

Ahhh but but but a 19 yr old with 5 minutes worth of air crash investigation experience said they found it!!111!!!!!InsideJob!!

[Reality Believer]

Ahhh but but but a 19 yr old with 5 minutes worth of air crash investigation experience said they found it!!111!!!!!InsideJob!!
Yea! Holy guacamole! The tail might have, maybe, sorta survived, according to one kid, and that PROVES ......... uhhhh ..... what exactly does that prove again?

Like a previous observation: Beware the flaming bag of dog poop left on the front stoop. Stamping it out may just lead to a humerous outcome.

[gumboot]

Classic example of shocking quote mining. Here's the introduction to the article:

Two Somerset County men rushed to the scene of Tuesday’s plane crash hoping to help with the rescue effort. They found a scene of devastation.

“You couldn’t see nothing,” said Nick Tweardy, 20, of Stonycreek Township. “We couldn’t tell what we were looking at. There’s just a huge crater in the woods.”

A bit later we hear from the second man:

“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.”

But TC329 conveniently forgets the next bit:

The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said.

Brad doesn't actually tell us how big this "largest piece of wreckage" was, but a few other people offer their opinions:

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”

Bits of metal were thrown against a tree line like shrapnel, said state police spokesman Trooper Thomas Spallone of Troop A in Greensburg.

“Once it hit, everything just disintegrated,” he said. “There are just shreds of metal. The longest piece I saw was 2 feet long.”

Hours after the crash, teams of crime scene analysts from the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, plus state police, the Pennsylvania National Guard, and state agencies — Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Environmental Protection — cordoned off the area within a 4-mile radius of the crash and began the painstaking task of collecting evidence.

“We’re finding more debris in various locations,” Spallone said.

“Over 100 state troopers secured the area. Our job is not to let anybody in here until the federal accident reconstruction teams from the FBI and (Federal Aviation Administration) can get in here and examine the shreds of evidence left,” said Capt. Frank Monaco, commander of Troop A.

“All that is left is small pieces of the airplane.”

Oops!

-Gumboot

[DarkMagician]

OK, I'll note both of them as non-answers.

What else for a non-question?

[Reality Believer]

Guys, what you fail to recognize is that TC329 was goading a response. The premise was ridiculous. He played the debunker knee jerk, and we fell for it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice .... uhhhh .... we ain't getting fooled again!

[TC329]

Ahhh but but but a 19 yr old with 5 minutes worth of air crash investigation experience said they found it!!111!!!!!InsideJob!!

is there some sort of magnetic field that draws these type of people to this forum?

[TC329]

Classic example of shocking quote mining. Here's the introduction to the article:



A bit later we hear from the second man:



But TC329 conveniently forgets the next bit:



Brad doesn't actually tell us how big this "largest piece of wreckage" was, but a few other people offer their opinions:



Oops!

-Gumboot



Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated. Do you all agree with that?

[uk_dave]

Guys, what you fail to recognize is that TC329 was goading a response. The premise was ridiculous. He played the debunker knee jerk, and we fell for it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice .... uhhhh .... we ain't getting fooled again!

I disagree. I think TC seriously thinks that the quote from the 19 yr old means that there really was a tail section at shanksville and that it was spirited away before independent (read: amateur) investigators could identify it as something other than flight 93.

I don't think TC is even that stupid to deliberately post an article with the expectation that no one will read past his quote. I think he just doesn't understand what he reads because he's blinded by an overwhelming need to believe in the 'inside job' religion.

So much emotional investment in such an unsupportable hypothesis leads the person to fool themselves time and time again, and then get annoyed when everyone else fails to share the delusion.

The 'truther' use of "obvious" in so many of their claims is very telling.

[Reality Believer]

OK. TC, your comment?

[TC329]

I disagree. I think TC seriously thinks that the quote from the 19 yr old means that there really was a tail section at shanksville and that it was spirited away before independent (read: amateur) investigators could identify it as something other than flight 93.

I don't think TC is even that stupid to deliberately post an article with the expectation that no one will read past his quote. I think he just doesn't understand what he reads because he's blinded by an overwhelming need to believe in the 'inside job' religion.

So much emotional investment in such an unsupportable hypothesis leads the person to fool themselves time and time again, and then get annoyed when everyone else fails to share the delusion.

The 'truther' use of "obvious" in so many of their claims is very telling.


Are you criminally insane?

Do you just randomly theorize insans things and then theorize that they are what someone else is theorizing?

You should talk to someone.

[TC329]

OK. TC, your comment?

Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......

[uk_dave]

Are you criminally insane?

Do you just randomly theorize insans things and then theorize that they are what someone else is theorizing?

You should talk to someone.

Is that your theory? :D

[Brainache]

Are you criminally insane?

Do you just randomly theorize insans things and then theorize that they are what someone else is theorizing?

You should talk to someone.

Oh yeah, we all know UK Dave is as mad as a meat axe, but we still love him.

So why did you pose your nonsensical question TC?

ETA:
Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......

I'm not an air crash investigator, but I would hazard a guess that it got smashed to tiny bits when the plane hit the ground at over 400mph. You wouldn't expect anything else, would you?

[Reality Believer]

Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......
It was an anomalous observation. The tail was part of the aircraft, yes? It hit the ground, hard. What is your question?

[Tweeter]

Did everyone read that?Thats a funny news article!
I like the comment towards the end “I don’t know fact from fiction,” said county Commissioner Brad Cober.

“It’s almost unbelievable,” said Commissioner Jim Marker.

[Tweeter]

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”

this guy seen the wreck from 1500 yards away

[leftysergeant]

Ahhh but but but a 19 yr old with 5 minutes worth of air crash investigation experience said they found it!!111!!!!!InsideJob!!

I had not read that comment from Reiman, but it seems to confirm what I had theorized in my post just prior to this. The empanage lying in the woods would look, to a casual observer with no investigative training, like a whole small aircraft.

Sorry, TC, you got a double handful of diddly-squat.

[TC329]

I had not read that comment from Reiman, but it seems to confirm what I had theorized in my post just prior to this. The empanage lying in the woods would look, to a casual observer with no investigative training, like a whole small aircraft.

Sorry, TC, you got a double handful of diddly-squat.


Is everyone here crazy? What the hell are you rambling on about?

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

P.S. I don't know why I waste time to address this type of insanity but there wasn't anyone anywhere near the crash site that saw anything that appeared "like a whole small aircraft". You guys sure like to just make **** up around here...........

[defaultdotxbe]

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.
and you were informed that it was destroyed along with the rest of the plane when it crashed

[twinstead]

Is everyone here crazy? What the hell are you rambling on about?

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

P.S. I don't know why I waste time to address this type of insanity but there wasn't anyone anywhere near the crash site that saw anything that appeared "like a whole small aircraft". You guys sure like to just make **** up around here...........

LOL oh come on, we know your movement's tactics.

What kind of stupid question is "where's the tail"? It REEKS of ulterior motive.

[twinstead]

and you were informed that it was destroyed along with the rest of the plane when it crashed

Perhaps he wanted us to identify where in the crash site every individual tiny piece of the tail was located?

[uk_dave]

I'm sure there's a joke here somewhere about TC and 'no tail'.....

[leftysergeant]

Is everyone here crazy? What the hell are you rambling on about?

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

P.S. I don't know why I waste time to address this type of insanity but there wasn't anyone anywhere near the crash site that saw anything that appeared "like a whole small aircraft". You guys sure like to just make **** up around here...........

We told you what happened. That you do not grasp what we told you suggests a learning disability and gives us some insight into how you arrived at some of the major political and lifestyle choices you have taken.

[WildCat]

Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated.
It does? Where is this "official story"? You wouldn't just make this up, would you TC? :rolleyes:

[Brainache]

It does? Where is this "official story"? You wouldn't just make this up, would you TC? :rolleyes:

Well you see, everything posted by us shills here at JERF is the "Official Story". TC can now go and tell everyone that he was told that the Official Story is that somehow this large piece of smoking wreckage magically disintegrated after the 19 year old guy saw it and before the NTSB guys got there...

Or,:hypnodisk perhaps I've just caught UK Dave disease and TC was just asking a purely innocent question.:hypnodisk

[chillzero]

Please keep this thread civil - no more accusations of insanity, etc.

I think that if someone at the site claims they found a piece of the tail, and all other reports claim the plane disintegrated, then the question is a valid one. However, the quote about finding the tail does not address what size this piece was, how they determined it was the tail, and indeed, if it was proven to actually be the tail - or any part of the plane for that matter - and not some random piece of scrap metal already in the field. Without any of that information, there isn't really anywhere to go with the question posed.

[Alferd_Packer]

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

And based on the article that you provided, it wound up in the woods. Also, based on the article that you provided, it was broken up into little pieces.

Any more questions, read the article that you provided.

[Calcas]

I disagree. I think TC seriously thinks that the quote from the 19 yr old means that there really was a tail section at shanksville and that it was spirited away before independent (read: amateur) investigators could identify it as something other than flight 93.

I don't think TC is even that stupid to deliberately post an article with the expectation that no one will read past his quote. I think he just doesn't understand what he reads because he's blinded by an overwhelming need to believe in the 'inside job' religion.

So much emotional investment in such an unsupportable hypothesis leads the person to fool themselves time and time again, and then get annoyed when everyone else fails to share the delusion.

The 'truther' use of "obvious" in so many of their claims is very telling.

Dave, this is spot on--especially the last part dealing with his emotional investment.

The CIT duo acts in exactly the same way. Or, should we call it a trio now that TC has said he's the "3rd member"? LOL.

When people fail to fall for their unbelievably lame fairy tales they get VERY defensive. His asking if you are "criminally insane" for your accurate observation is a perfect example.

[uk_dave]

His asking if you are "criminally insane" for your accurate observation is a perfect example.

Obviously being criminally insane is a prerequisite of NWO membership :D

[aggle-rithm]

Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......

There are a couple of aspects of airplane crashes that are counter-intuitive.

First, airliners are frighteningly fragile. They hold together well in the conditions they are designed for, but anything outside of those conditions can wreak havoc. One airliner burst into flames and had multiple casualties on the runway simply because some of the landing gear rolled off the runway into soft earth, sank, and caused the wing to fracture, spilling the fuel.

Second, not every part of the plane is going to suffer exactly the same damage in a crash. The only way that would be possible would be if every part hit the ground at the same time. In this case, the plane hit the ground head-first, so the majority of the energy would be absorbed by the front of the plane, and the destructive force would dissipate as the plane plowed into the ground. The part that would sustain the least damage would be -- surprise! -- the tail.

[Loss Leader]

Did it disintegrate?


What is your definition of disintegrate?

I think part of your argument here is really just a matter of equivocation or vagueness.

"The entire plane disintegrating", "parts two feet long surviving" and "the tail being found in the woods" can all possibly be valid descriptions of the exact same evidence by different people or the same person on different occassions. It is possible that while some may now see a distinction in these phrases, no distinction existed in the minds of those who saw the evidence.

So, if you want to know if we believe the tail disintegrated, please define exactly what you mean. Otherwise, if someone answers based on a different definition of disintegrate than you are using, an apparant contradiction will occur when all that has happened is that we have shown that the english language may occassionally be vague and imprecise.

[Anti-sophist]

I think part of your argument here is really just a matter of equivocation or vagueness.


Ding ding ding. You did miss one important detail, though. You said "part of" when in fact it's "the totality".

[JamesB]

The real flight 93 was stolen from United Airlines on the night of September 10th after it had completed its flight back from San Francisco. I still can't believe they didn't notice. We then had the flight controls rewired by a 16 man team from Raytheon, and we then flew the plane cross country where we crashed it into the ground in the Mojave desert. A 50 person Air Force team them hurridly picked up as many pieces as they could, including a newly faked black box, and the bodies of random people who had kidnapped off the streets, and loaded it into a C-130 for immediate transport cross country to Shanksville Pennsylvania, where a team from the state Department of Transportation had dug a hole in the middile of the night and filled it with 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel. Upon our orders they spread the pieces of the plane around and ignited the fuel, causing a huge fireball.

It was the world's most pefect plan, but we forgot the tail section. Now you have found us out. The men will be coming to put you into a FEMA camp within the hour. You may put your affairs in order, but please don't tell anyone about what you have found. Thank you.

[CptColumbo]

What is your definition of disintegrate?

I think part of your argument here is really just a matter of equivocation or vagueness.

"The entire plane disintegrating", "parts two feet long surviving" and "the tail being found in the woods" can all possibly be valid descriptions of the exact same evidence by different people or the same person on different occassions. It is possible that while some may now see a distinction in these phrases, no distinction existed in the minds of those who saw the evidence.

So, if you want to know if we believe the tail disintegrated, please define exactly what you mean. Otherwise, if someone answers based on a different definition of disintegrate than you are using, an apparant contradiction will occur when all that has happened is that we have shown that the english language may occassionally be vague and imprecise.
Thank you, I just started reading this thread and was wondering if someone would ask this question.

Do you mean "disintegrate" in the science fiction sense that it's atoms were seperated or just that it was in small pieces? What would you consider small, relative to a plane?

[njslim]

What happened to Flight 93's tail section?


It was shredded into little pieces - just like Lear jet which crashed in my neighborhood
Only part recognizable was 2 x 3 ft section of tail. This was plane which hit at about
350 mph, 60% of Flight 93 speed at impact.

[Anti-sophist]

His entire argument is based on playing shifting definitions games and forcing you to label something and then subtlety shifting the definition on you.

It's a giant equivocation fallacy.

The tail section broke into alot of pieces. Some likely "large" and some likely "small". Some ended up in the crater. Some didn't. Some ended up underground. Some didn't.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

His entire argument is based on playing shifting definitions games and forcing you to label something and then subtlety shifting the definition on you.

It's a giant equivocation fallacy.

The tail section broke into alot of pieces. Some likely "large" and some likely "small". Some ended up in the crater. Some didn't. Some ended up underground. Some didn't.
QFE

[beachnut]

Pittsburgh Tribune Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12940.html)



“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.” The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said.


Oops, your cherry picking stupidity is noted. 9/11 truth is about BS and junk like this; thanks for not learning or moving on to proper research.

The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said.

What exactly did the largest piece of wreckage look like to this accident investigator expert? Oh, he is just a witness, so we have the photo of his part in the woods? You come with spam, you leave with the same, no facts from you!

[e^n]

This picture from Gravy's site certainly contains what would appear to be a tail impact but actually judging whether it is is quite tricky.

http://xs123.xs.to/xs123/08025/flight93cratercnn-full818.jpeg

[A W Smith]

Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......

why would you ask us where the alleged intact tail section went Dumbenick? have you asked these people? You have had this list for over a year. have you contacted any of them?

Paul Sledzik,
Dennis Dirkmaat,
Rick Lohr,
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company,
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Members of the Shanksville and Stoystown departments spent over 1500 hours at the crash site. (Source: The Role of the Volunteer Fire Service in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks pp 58-60. PDF) http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf (http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf)

[aggle-rithm]

A 50 person Air Force team them hurridly picked up as many pieces as they could, including a newly faked black box,

The faked black box is unnecessary. All you have to do it turn it upside down, so it looks as if the plane has flown from the East coast to Philadelphia instead of the West coast to the Mojave desert.

[TC329]

We told you what happened. That you do not grasp what we told you suggests a learning disability and gives us some insight into how you arrived at some of the major political and lifestyle choices you have taken.


when you say major political decisions are you talking about me being a lifelong Republican and what lifestyle choices are you talking about?

Since you know absolutely nothing about me I would love to see what you invent.

[Arus808]

well, since you invent crap about 911 , why can't we invent things about you based on your posts?

[TC329]

It does? Where is this "official story"? You wouldn't just make this up, would you TC? :rolleyes:


I don't know, does it?

That's what I came here and inquired. So far I have received an answer from 1 person and insults from about 15. Sounds about on par.

No, I didn't make it up. I was asking if other members agreed with one members explanation.

Do you care to answer the question or would you rather try to find ways to cast doubt on my character for asking?

[TC329]

Well you see, everything posted by us shills here at JERF is the "Official Story". TC can now go and tell everyone that he was told that the Official Story is that somehow this large piece of smoking wreckage magically disintegrated after the 19 year old guy saw it and before the NTSB guys got there...

Or,:hypnodisk perhaps I've just caught UK Dave disease and TC was just asking a purely innocent question.:hypnodisk


If UK Dave finds a good doctor ask him for the number. :D

[TC329]

Please keep this thread civil - no more accusations of insanity, etc.

I think that if someone at the site claims they found a piece of the tail, and all other reports claim the plane disintegrated, then the question is a valid one. However, the quote about finding the tail does not address what size this piece was, how they determined it was the tail, and indeed, if it was proven to actually be the tail - or any part of the plane for that matter - and not some random piece of scrap metal already in the field. Without any of that information, there isn't really anywhere to go with the question posed.

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.

[TheRedWorm]

Paul Sledzik,
Dennis Dirkmaat,
Rick Lohr,
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company,
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Members of the Shanksville and Stoystown departments spent over 1500 hours at the crash site. (Source: The Role of the Volunteer Fire Service in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks pp 58-60. PDF) http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

TC, do you intend to contact these people and ask them about the Shanksville crash?

[beachnut]

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.
You have posted lies about 93. You have no facts or evidence just lies. You are not interested in parts found, you only want to post lies about 9/11. You posted the article and the only thing it says is The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said. (answer is bold above)
This means the guy said he thinks he saw a piece, a piece of the tail. (big clue, this is the answer, as usual you missed the answer because of why, what, how?)

Now the answer to your question amplified.

The tail was broken into pieces, and this guy thinks he may of seen a piece of the tail. End of story. But your other post consisted of lies about the impact and FDR, and witnesses. You derail you own thread with lies. Why?

Since you may not be reading, the tail according to your posted "news" story (news stories are so truthy) is in pieces and someone saw one of the pieces of tail!

If you would take a course in aircraft accident investigation, you could have a better idea of how the impact should look, and then you would stop posting lies to support your errors in how you think it should or should not look.

is The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said. This mean it may have been a part of the tail over in the woods. Part of the tail was the biggest part? And you point is now answered! In fact most people can see the news article does not say much about what happen to tail expect it is pieces, and one of the tail pieces may have been seen.

Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated. Do you all agree with that? If you mean broken into small pieces, then you have it! But the plane did not disappear, it broke up into smaller pieces. If you would take a course about aircraft accidents, you could tell us what happen. But 93 is how it should look, if you pay US taxes, thanks for sending me to class so I would not ask stupid questions about what is normal expect for killing the pilots and crashing a plane on purpose.

[Jonnyclueless]

The question in the OP was answered in the OP. It makes no sense for this to be a thread other than trolling.

[TC329]

In this case, the plane hit the ground head-first, so the majority of the energy would be absorbed by the front of the plane, and the destructive force would dissipate as the plane plowed into the ground. The part that would sustain the least damage would be -- surprise! -- the tail.

Agreed.

I'm trying to find out what happened to the tail section of the plane.

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.

The soil was soft enough to allegedly swallow over 90+% of the plane yet so hard that it causes the jet fuel to vaporize and the plane to shatter from the ground being so solid.

I would believe if I just knew the basics of this story such as speed and trajectory and positioning of the plane at impact that there would be something recognizable as having come from the tail but the tail seems to have "disintegrated" or "vaporized" or just wasn't anywhere remotely near the area.

I was curious to see what the general consensus was for the tail's fate on this side of the fence.

Seems to me either no one knows or they would rather discuss everything but which makes me wonder why they even interact in the thread actually.....

So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?

[TC329]

why would you ask us where the alleged intact tail section went Dumbenick?

How do I report these attacks to an admin?

[uk_dave]

Agreed.

I'm trying to find out what happened to the tail section of the plane.

Why?


FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.

Who says? You? Not good enough


The soil was soft enough to allegedly swallow over 90+% of the plane yet so hard that it causes the jet fuel to vaporize and the plane to shatter from the ground being so solid.


Water is as hard as concrete if you hit it hard enough. Don't believe me? Do some research.


I would believe if I just knew the basics of this story such as speed and trajectory and positioning of the plane at impact that there would be something recognizable as having come from the tail but the tail seems to have "disintegrated" or "vaporized" or just wasn't anywhere remotely near the area.


So you find it difficult to believe. Big deal. Others don't have a problem with it.

Have you spoken with air crash investigators? Are they prepared to go on record to support your beliefs?


I was curious to see what the general consensus was for the tail's fate on this side of the fence.


Yeah, right. :D


Seems to me either no one knows or they would rather discuss everything but which makes me wonder why they even interact in the thread actually.....

We do it on purpose when someone comes here with a nonsensical question based upon an article which provides them with the answer in the first place.


So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?

Plane crashed. Force of impact made plane fall apart. No reason to expect a recogniseable tail section to be sticking out of the ground. Well not unless it was faked to fool internet amateur researchers.

[TC329]

TC, do you intend to contact these people and ask them about the Shanksville crash?

Let's see the list. Next time I go to Shanksville I will contact :

Paul Sledzik,
Dennis Dirkmaat,
Rick Lohr,

Now as for this :

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company,
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.

I'm curious would you tell someone who focused their research on the WTC to just randomly call NYPD & FDNY and start asking about 9/11?

Maybe if someone actually talked to someone at one of these places *cough Mark cough* instead of just creating this list and saying research isn't valid until this is accomplished as if they are some 9/11 research God then they could have actually named people as those locations.

Members of the Shanksville and Stoystown departments spent over 1500 hours at the crash site. (Source: The Role of the Volunteer Fire Service in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks pp 58-60. PDF) http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf (http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf)

Do I just contact "members"?

[beachnut]

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”

this guy seen the wreck from 1500 yards away
Is there something you are trying to say? Since this is what a high speed aircraft impact looks like it make you look foolish if you think otherwise. Foolish and lacking any knowledge on aircraft accidents - is that what you are trying to say with this post?

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't know, does it?

That's what I came here and inquired. So far I have received an answer from 1 person and insults from about 15. Sounds about on par.

No, I didn't make it up. I was asking if other members agreed with one members explanation.

Do you care to answer the question or would you rather try to find ways to cast doubt on my character for asking?

"Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated. Do you all agree with that?"

There you are, not asking, but claiming about the "official story" (whatever that is). So, no you are not just asking a question. You are making claims. He asked for your source on that. Please provide it.

The doubt on your character is from your deceptive tactics, not because you are asking questions. If you were honestly asking a question, then no one would discuss your character. But based on such tactics and your dishonest tactics in other posts, it's quite warranted.

[WildCat]

No, I didn't make it up. I was asking if other members agreed with one members explanation.

Do you care to answer the question or would you rather try to find ways to cast doubt on my character for asking?
Actually, I'd like for you to post a link to the "official story" that says the tail "disintegrated".

And yes, failure to do so reflects on your character because otherwise people may well think you just made that part up. And be sure to define what exactly you mean by "disintegrated".

[Calcas]

So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?

Your question has been answered many times in this thread. And, the way you word it (tail sections ABSENCE) is absurd.

It's like asking what the official explanation is for the absence of the front galley coffee pot.

Let me guess. They were both DESTROYED?

[Jonnyclueless]

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.


This is easily explained by the fact that you are simply making up these claims. Them being wrong further explains the resulting impact. Now if you would like to provide some scientific data to prove your claim, other than a badly down drawing that shows and arrow that goes from a 40 degree angle to a 90 degree angle, then we are al ears/eyes.

[DGM]

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.
TC:
How large of a tail section are we talking about and what makes you think it's missing?

[beachnut]

I'm trying to find out what happened to the tail section of the plane. The news article told you someone thinks they saw a piece! So what is your real reason. Seeing part of the tail, a piece, is what someone may see. In fact, parts could be ejected for hundreds of feet, even a thousand.

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact. This is not fact, you made this up. The impact is consistent with a high speed impact, it looks close to 4 degrees, but you are not trained, others are.

The soil was soft enough to allegedly swallow over 90+% of the plane yet so hard that it causes the jet fuel to vaporize and the plane to shatter from the ground being so solid. Soil is soft? Oh, like water? Your ideas you are trying to make here are wrong. Taking a course from USC, if they still offer it, will cure you of making stupid statements like this one.

I would believe if I just knew the basics of this story such as speed and trajectory and positioning of the plane at impact that there would be something recognizable as having come from the tail but the tail seems to have "disintegrated" or "vaporized" or just wasn't anywhere remotely near the area. The plane broke up into pieces of different sizes. You are wrong again. Vaporized? Come on stop making up stupid ideas. If you mean broke up and looked like it disappeared would be better, but the plane was in pieces, did not disappear. Sorry.

I was curious to see what the general consensus was for the tail's fate on this side of the fence. The person said they think they saw a part of the tail. So? It will not support your ideas of no plane! Busted.

Seems to me either no one knows or they would rather discuss everything but which makes me wonder why they even interact in the thread actually..... When you post lies like the 90 degree junk and post many lies in other threads what do you expect. The person said they thought they saw a part of the tail. So?

So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence? The tail was not absent, it was broken into pieces as you just posted. The person said they saw what they think was a part of the tail. The plane broke up on 9/11, bingo, we find someone who may of seen a part of the tail.

You posted the answer and you quibble when you are told the answer, only because I think you want to spread lies and misinformation on 9/11 like this non thread question, answered in the material you posted! What is wrong with you admitting the guy may of see part of a tail? If you are trying to prove 93 did not hit in PA, you have failed.

[TC329]

Actually, I'd like for you to post a link to the "official story" that says the tail "disintegrated".

And yes, failure to do so reflects on your character because otherwise people may well think you just made that part up. And be sure to define what exactly you mean by "disintegrated".


That post was a response to post #9 in this thread. Please stop Hannitizing.

[16.5]

TC329:

“So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?”

Seriously, thanks for asking, I sense a deep curiosity on your part. I myself have just dipped my toe into this arena. I found a fascinating video on Killtown’s site called:

“UA93 : The Hijackers 9/11 Truth - by Terrorcell”

TC, ever see it? I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

/Terrorcell, Killtown.... man those names....you know these guys are HARD CORE!

[uk_dave]

Terrorcell, Killtown.... man those names....you know these guys are HARD CORE!

To the MAX! :D

[DGM]

TC329:

“So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?”

Seriously, thanks for asking, I sense a deep curiosity on your part. I myself have just dipped my toe into this arena. I found a fascinating video on Killtown’s site called:

“UA93 : The Hijackers 9/11 Truth - by Terrorcell”

TC, ever see it? I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

/Terrorcell, Killtown.... man those names....you know these guys are HARD CORE!
You do know that TC329 and Terrorcell is the same person?

[16.5]

You do know that TC329 and Terrorcell is the same person?

Oh that can't be true! Tc329 is so sincere, so searching in his seeking of the Truth! I cannot imagine he would have posted this thread despite having fully and totally made up his mind about UA93.

TC329 is just asking questions. He would not post a BS thread with no intent of listening to the responses just to waste our time!

And there is no way that TC329 would have a hard core name like Terrorcell!

[DGM]

Oh that can't be true! Tc329 is so sincere, so searching in his seeking of the Truth! I cannot imagine he would have posted this thread despite having fully and totally made up his mind about UA93.

TC329 is just asking questions. He would not post a BS thread with no intent of listening to the responses just to waste our time!

And there is no way that TC329 would have a hard core name like Terrorcell!
:D

[WildCat]

That post was a response to post #9 in this thread. Please stop Hannitizing.
No it wasn't, since you quoted me.

Now, are you going to post the "official story" where it says the tail "disintegrated"?

Of course you won't, because like all others in the "truth" movement all you have are lies, innuendo, and bullhorns.

[A W Smith]

Let's see the list. Next time I go to Shanksville I will contact :

Paul Sledzik,
Dennis Dirkmaat,
Rick Lohr,

Now as for this :



I'm curious would you tell someone who focused their research on the WTC to just randomly call NYPD & FDNY and start asking about 9/11?
strawman bolded
Maybe if someone actually talked to someone at one of these places *cough Mark cough* instead of just creating this list and saying research isn't valid until this is accomplished as if they are some 9/11 research God then they could have actually named people as those locations.

[/url]

Do I just contact "members"?

shanksville volunteer fire company members list (http://www.shanksvillefirecompany.org/)

2007 Executive Officers

President - Chris Walker (cwalker@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Vice President - Jason Snyder (jsnyder@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Secretary - Adam Shaffer (ashaffer@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Treasurer - Dan Black (dblack@shanksvillefirecompany.org)



Line Officers


Chief - Terry Shaffer (tshaffer@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Deputy Chief - Brad Shober (bshober@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Assistant Chief - Steve Yoder
Captain - Chris Walker (cwalker@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
1st Lieutenant - Frank Barta (fbarta@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
2nd Lieutenant - Sean Daniels
Chief Engineer - Dan Black (dblack@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Vehicle Foreman - Roger Brant (rbrant@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Assistant Foreman - Adam Palya (apalya@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Assistant Foreman - Jim Bent
SCUBA Director - Brad Zearfoss (bzearfoss@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
EMS Director - Frank Barta (fbarta@shanksvillefirecompany.org)
Assistant EMS Director - Sean Daniels



Active Firefighters


John Abramowich
Nathan Addleman
Ashley Addleman
Frank Barta
James Bent
Dan Black
Melissa Brant
Roger Brant
Annie Daniels
Sean Daniels
Dan Dively
Mike Duppstadt
Steve Flick
Brendon Noll
Adam Palya
Terry Shaffer
Brad Shober
Heather Snyder
Jason Snyder
Joe Swank
Chris Walker
Steve Yoder
Eric Young
Susan Young
Brad Zearfoss
Shawn Zeigler

Jr. Firefighters

Dan Bent
Ben Shaffer
James Varner


Life Members

Joe Black
Merle Flick
John Fox
Rick King
Bobby Lambert
Don Landis
Terry Shaffer
Bob Stull
Chris Walker
Steve Yoder

Associate Members
Adam Shaffer

Honorary Members
Gene Stilp


Contributing Members
Don Clark
Chuck Wagner

Terry Wilson

[A W Smith]

Stoystown volunteer fire co, officers list (http://www.stoystownfire.com/officers.htm)

DAVID JOHNSON, CHIEF
DON DEANER , 1st ASST CHIEF
CHRISTIAN BOYD , 2nd ASST CHIEF
BRIAN JOHNSON, CAPTAIN
SCOTT KENNELL, LIEUTENANT
, SAFETY/TRAINING OFFICER
BRANDON DELANO, FOREMAN, ASST FOREMAN

BRANDON DELANO, PRESIDENT
SCOTT KENNELL, VICE PRESIDENT
DEANNA JOHNSON, RECORDING SECRETARY
ELISSA BOYD, TREASURER
MARLENE PUTMAN, FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Non emergency contact numbers for departments in that region
http://www.co.somerset.pa.us/911/911%20Web/fire_departments.htm

[Jonnyclueless]

That post was a response to post #9 in this thread. Please stop Hannitizing.

So now a quote from a police officer is the official story? Gosh, I can't figure out why your character would come into question. It's a mystery!

[coalesce]

The real flight 93 was stolen from United Airlines on the night of September 10th after it had completed its flight back from San Francisco. I still can't believe they didn't notice. We then had the flight controls rewired by a 16 man team from Raytheon, and we then flew the plane cross country where we crashed it into the ground in the Mojave desert. A 50 person Air Force team them hurridly picked up as many pieces as they could, including a newly faked black box, and the bodies of random people who had kidnapped off the streets, and loaded it into a C-130 for immediate transport cross country to Shanksville Pennsylvania, where a team from the state Department of Transportation had dug a hole in the middile of the night and filled it with 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel. Upon our orders they spread the pieces of the plane around and ignited the fuel, causing a huge fireball.

It was the world's most pefect plan, but we forgot the tail section. Now you have found us out. The men will be coming to put you into a FEMA camp within the hour. You may put your affairs in order, but please don't tell anyone about what you have found. Thank you.

And they would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Michael

[chillzero]

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.

Did you read my last 2 sentences???

How do I report these attacks to an admin?

Click the triangle with the red ! at the bottom left, and the mod team will review it.

[16.5]

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.

Now folks, I think you are being a little hard on old TC329. He made VERY clear that he is sincere.

Now, we have not heard from him since I posted Terrorcell's video.

I think we should all assume that he is analyzing it.

As soon as he is done, I am sure he will rejoin the conversation, and will rebut any claim that he did not post this thread in good faith, that he has not completely shut his mind to any opposing ideas, and that he is indeed SINCERE!

I am sure he will also concur that TERRORCELL is a bitchin name! TERRORCELL! Just say it out loud: TERRORCELL! From Hasbro, The "GI Joe v. The Terrorcell at Killtown" playset. AWESOME!

[johnny karate]

Personally, I prefer the investigative analysis of Deathrocket and Rage Fist.

Now those guys are the real deal.

[A W Smith]

Is there a Terror Cell in Kill Town? I cant find that on google maps. Whats the zip code? I need to report that to homeland security

[Hokulele]

I will admit, the first time I saw the handle "Terrorcell", my first thought was of a single-celled organism, like an amoeba. I don't know why I thought that really, but since then I always giggle whenever I see Terroramoeba discussed on this board.

[CurtC]

I'm wondering, TC, why you're so interested in the tail section specifically, and not, for example, the piece of fuselage between seat rows 12 and 19, or the front cargo door, or the front galley coffee pot. They all hit the ground at 500 mph, so why are you asking questions about the tail and not any other arbitrary part of the plane?

I'm being polite, and I'd appreciate a sincere answer.

[DGM]

I will admit, the first time I saw the handle "Terrorcell", my first thought was of a single-celled organism, like an amoeba. I don't know why I thought that really, but since then I always giggle whenever I see Terroramoeba discussed on this board.
Thanks, now I'm going to giggle every time I see his name. (or should I say giggle more?):)

[CHF]

What happened to Flight 93's tail section?

I've seen this silly game play out more than once.

You can have black boxes, engines, seats, wheels, landing gear, body parts and witnesses who saw a plane go down....but if a twoofer can't find the tail section then no plane crashed.

Beyond stupid.

[uk_dave]

I'm wondering, TC, why you're so interested in the tail section specifically, and not, for example, the piece of fuselage between seat rows 12 and 19, or the front cargo door, or the front galley coffee pot. They all hit the ground at 500 mph, so why are you asking questions about the tail and not any other arbitrary part of the plane?

I'm being polite, and I'd appreciate a sincere answer.

I suspect that TC believes the tail would be the last thing to hit the ground (had flight 93 crashed whole there) and therefore it should have hit at a slower speed and therefore should be sticking out of the ground and clearly identifiable.

Of course, since the plane was upside down, the tail itself was not the last thing to hit the ground. That little bit on the underside with the flashing light was.

But TC believes flight 93 was shot out of the sky and that no tail could have been found at shanksville.

Sooooo perhaps he thinks they originally planted one and then spirited it away when it was realised that a crash at 500mph into the ground wouldn't have left such a large chunk of debris.... so he really should speak to the kid who is quoted in the article in the OP

[Mangoose]

Wow, CurtC, you beat me to the punch. I was gonna ask "Wheredy go?!" with respect to the first-class fuselage section where Ziad Jarrah was sitting, the food cart allegedly used as a battering ram, and the coffee pot in the back used to boil water.

[leftysergeant]

We have all posted here rational explanations for what happened to the aircraft, ointed out that the berm on the down-range edge of the crater was pushed up as the soil would have to be given the angle at which the plane hit. This all supports the fact that an aircraft made the hole.

No-planers have to come up with an explanation for how the hole was made ON THAT DAY to have any claim at rationality. So, have at it, TC. How was the crater created? Everybody here with any experience with aviation, who has not been caught in any other lie, says that an aircraft made it. If youo know that an aircraft did not make it, you must, then, know of some other mechanism.

Or you could be just talking through the seat of your pants.

[Tweeter]

This picture from Gravy's site certainly contains what would appear to be a tail impact but actually judging whether it is is quite tricky.

http://xs123.xs.to/xs123/08025/flight93cratercnn-full818.jpeg

That pic looks like the plane went in at 90 degrees, doesnt it?

[defaultdotxbe]

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.
studied many plane crashes, have we?

So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?when things smash into things at high speed, aforementioned things get broken, im not sure how to put it much simpler than that

for some reason i now think of weatherman ollie williams from family guy


Tom (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Tucker): "In local news, we have more on the approach of Hurricane Rupaul as it makes his or her way up the coast. Let's go live to Ollie Williams with the BlaccuWeather report. Ollie?"
Ollie:"IT'S RAININ' SIDEWAYS."
Tom (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Tucker):"Sounds rough Ollie, Do you have an umbrella?"
Ollie:"Had one!"
Tom (http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Tucker):"Where is it?"
Ollie:"Inside out two miles away!"

[leftysergeant]

That pic looks like the plane went in at 90 degrees, doesnt it?

THis is what I mean about your inability to analkysis data. The dirt is piled up far higher on the right edge of the crater in that photo. That means that the plane was moving somewhat to the right when it was buried. That is not possible in a 90-dgree impact, but is totally conssistant with 40 degrees.

Note that the tail mark is not at the proper angle to the wing marks. This indicates that it was already breaking or broken loose because the momentum would not carry it on into the hole. Since it had some velocity on the horizontal as well as vertical axis, it would have to contune on down-range to land, as has been described, in the woods, in at least a somewhat identifiable form.

Basic crash scene forensics here.

[Dog Town]

That pic looks like the plane went in at 90 degrees, doesnt it?

How...so?


ETA: Sorry lefty, did 't read furhter.

[TC329]

TC329:



“UA93 : The Hijackers 9/11 Truth - by Terrorcell”



If you would like to start a seperate thread about the hijackers and engage me. This thread is not about hijackers. It is about the tail section of Flight 93.

[Good Lt]

If you would like to start a seperate thread about the hijackers and engage me. This thread is not about hijackers. It is about the tail section of Flight 93.And what exactly have you proved in this thread about the tail section?

[beachnut]

If you would like to start a seperate thread about the hijackers and engage me. This thread is not about hijackers. It is about the tail section of Flight 93.
It has been answered by your own post. He said there may of been a piece of tail in the woods. May of, piece of! Key words, your thread is dead; long live the truth, you will never find it, you are not looking for it.

[WildCat]

And what exactly have you proved in this thread about the tail section?
According to the OP, pieces of it ended up in the woods.

What this means relative to terrorcell's 9/11 fantasy I have no idea, and of course he's making no claims.

Just another no-planer no-claimer.

[Anti-sophist]

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.


Did you just pull that straight from your rectum? Or do you have an actual rational reason to believe this backed up by some evidence and/or analysis?

If it's the latter, I'd like to see it.

[16.5]

If you would like to start a seperate thread about the hijackers and engage me. This thread is not about hijackers. It is about the tail section of Flight 93.

Actually, it is about how sincere you are.

[Calcas]

Perhaps TC explains it in his 39 minute vid with Susan McElwain.

I really couldn't tell you. The first 20 seconds scared me away and that's about all you have to watch to see who, and what, we're dealing with...:eek:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759&q=susan+mcelwain&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Jonnyclueless]

Did you just pull that straight from your rectum? Or do you have an actual rational reason to believe this backed up by some evidence and/or analysis?

If it's the latter, I'd like to see it.

Clunkity clunk!

[beachnut]

Perhaps TC explains it in his 39 minute vid with Susan McElwain.

I really couldn't tell you. The first 20 seconds scared me away and that's about all you have to watch to see who, and what, we're dealing with...:eek:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759&q=susan+mcelwain&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Dom is anyone this dumb? How can you believe she saw anything that went under the power lines and then over the trees? I bet she ate the tail! That makes as much sense as a plane flying over her car, under the lines, then over the trees. Right! Then you idiots talk about flight 93! Good job. No wonder the tail is gone it hit the power lines! Like a bad dream.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Did it disintegrate?

What happened to it?

This is all that I am asking. Someone go consult Mark and get back to me or something......

Yep... let's ask Mark, the king of 911 debunkers... what is Mark's answer????

I'm dying to know...

[beachnut]

Yep... let's ask Mark, the king of 911 debunkers... what is Mark's answer????

I'm dying to know...
TC posted the answer in the OP, but missed it.

[A W Smith]

Yep... let's ask Mark, the king of 911 debunkers... what is Mark's answer????

I'm dying to know...

if you are interested in what Mark has to say why not message him? he posts as gravy here. But im faily certain you already know that. dont be such a shy troofer girly girl sarcastic teen

[cisco]

I never knew the plane was upside down. Does anyone know how/why that happened?

[A W Smith]

Perhaps TC explains it in his 39 minute vid with Susan McElwain.

I really couldn't tell you. The first 20 seconds scared me away and that's about all you have to watch to see who, and what, we're dealing with...:eek:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759&q=susan+mcelwain&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
20 seconds into that i could see the jawbone of an ass moving

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Heh. Heheh. I can't help but imagine the evil NWO planting a fake tail section at the crash site to help people believe that a plane actually crashed, but then covering up said fake tail section for apparently no reason whatsoever. :)

I never knew the plane was upside down. Does anyone know how/why that happened?


Not really, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was an attempt by the hijackers to stop the revolting passengers.

[uk_dave]

Not really, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was an attempt by the hijackers to stop the revolting passengers.

[bad joke] The passengers were not revolting. They were heroes! [/bad joke]

:D

[gumboot]

I posted this is the UA93 crater thread, but it's useful in this discussion too:

Air New Zealand Flight TE 109 (A DC-10) hit Mt Erebus at about a 14 degree angle, at about 500 km/h. No tail sections in sight. (http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/pc-erebus-crashsite.jpg)

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

I never knew the plane was upside down. Does anyone know how/why that happened?
The spiral would be a natural way to keep the plane going down. If you level the wings, most planes will want to climb back up to offset the great speed if have not broken the darn thing. JFK junior was most likely in a spiral dive and did not notice it! These terrorist pilots may have banked far enough to enter a tight (although very large at those speeds) spiral dive, they impacted when the plane was kind of upside-down.

Does any of the this make sense? Looking from the ground you would see different things depending on which side you were on and where you were.

FDR dumped to a video – go to 5:42Kq2T6xXRpMg
The plane is coming down at 20,000 feet per minute several seconds before it impacts! Normal landings are at 500 fpm, and the pilot then flairs to make it very smooth, or a bang here and there! 333 feet per second down, but remember the plane is also going 500 mph in a set directions, some vector kind of 40 or more degrees downward near impact time. It will hit the ground at over 800 feet per second. And then in the final few seconds the plane is doing 500 feet a second down, 30,000 feet per minute down. The indicated speed is 500 KIAS, 568 mph just before impact.

Think of the plane at impact going 500 feet per second down, and 600 plus feet forward a second, and the vector speed is 800 feet per second. What should the impact look like! Like 93's.

The terrorist were crashing because the passengers were coming. Terrorist are not brave, they kind of chicken stupid.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

if you are interested in what Mark has to say why not message him? he posts as gravy here. But im faily certain you already know that. dont be such a shy troofer girly girl sarcastic teen
Me, shy... ;)

OOOOOOHhhhhhh, he posts as Gravy here.... oh my god... i'm sooooo excited. The Mark Roberts... :jaw-dropp I LOVE MARK ROBERTS!!!! WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARK ROBERTS?!?!?!?

[beachnut]

That pic looks like the plane went in at 90 degrees, doesnt it?
No

[uk_dave]

Me, shy... ;)

OOOOOOHhhhhhh, he posts as Gravy here.... oh my god... i'm sooooo excited. The Mark Roberts... :jaw-dropp I LOVE MARK ROBERTS!!!! WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARK ROBERTS?!?!?!?

You're trying too hard.

[A W Smith]

Me, shy... ;)

OOOOOOHhhhhhh, he posts as Gravy here.... oh my god... i'm sooooo excited. The Mark Roberts... :jaw-dropp I LOVE MARK ROBERTS!!!! WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARK ROBERTS?!?!?!?


still obsessing we see
Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3164400#post3164400)
Is Mark Roberts the Dylan Avery of this forum? I have never seen so many people kiss ass like this before, except at LCF.

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3164639#post3164639)
It doesn't bother me. However, I do find it quite curious. Mark Roberts is infamous among my circles, so to see the adoration here surprises me. Some of the comments were funny, but all of it reminded me of the way the Loose Change fan club idolizes boy wonder. It may be different, but it is certainly similar.

As I said no offense intended. I really thought it was a joke...

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3164738#post3164738)
I was curious if Roberts ran this forum, I guess that he is just the David Koresh or Ron Hubbard around here. He certainly sounds like "an all around good guy."

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3165563#post3165563)
Thank you Mark.

I do have many, many questions for you. The most important one involves your signature:
Phil Jayhan is the champion of the pod theory... what else could you expect? :)

You didn't like the cult leader status comparison? I thought it was funny. At least I didn't compare you to Phil Jayhan.

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3174554#post3174554)
I compared Mark Roberts to a "cult leader" not the great James Randi and I was kidding. Relax.

I whole heartely agree with your interpretation of boy wonder. Try and be objective though, the comparison is absolutely similar. You guys worship "Gravy" like LCF worships Golden Boy, PERIOD. No offense directed at Roberts. I have actually begun going through his work and some of it appears to be good. It has even made me question some of my beliefs, however some of it is driven by emotion and lacks evidence plain and simple. I am not here to argue, I am here to possibly learn something and to mock Dylan Avery.

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3204367#post3204367)
You know I love your videos... I think they are hilarious. Especially that part where you say Mark Roberts is all around good guy.

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3204417#post3204417)
Stop whining? I am merely responding to a thread on a forum. Am I not free to do so? Is this a skeptics only forum?

Speaking of whining Mark, you seem to be doing a very good job of that yourself. I have said that your research is driven by emotion. You want it to be true, so in your eyes it is. That is not evidence based.

But hey, you are an "all around good guy" so what do I know...

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3217139#post3217139)
I find you rather rude and disrespectful Mark Roberts. What happened to being "an all around good guy"? If I offended you by asking if the "Mark Roberts Appreciation Thread" was a joke, then I apologize.

As far as starting a new thread, go for it Mark. I have no intention of wasting my time debunking your debunking though. I am an activist, not a researcher. What is important is that you enjoy your efforts and feel that you are making a positive contribution to society. What difference does it make if I like your work or think that it is driven by emotion? If you insist, however, I would be happy to review any research you send me and provide a thoughtful and objective critique. Do keep in my that I work full time and have a life.

If you are going to start the thread though, how about you title it " The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread?"

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3224238#post3224238)
I'm on the edge of my seat Mark... how is it that you have so much inside information to members of the truth movement?

Originally Posted by XenaWarriorPrincess http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3224216#post3224216)
I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

Mark Roberts.... what do you mean "one of these people"?

I am a person too....
No... I don't get it. Can you explain this to me Coffee. Why would he put me on ignore? Is Mark Roberts unable to debunk no plane theory or tv fakery???


Notice what every one of your posts lacks? facts., evidence, theory, points, are you Killtowns mother Webfairy? You are "not a researcher but an activist"??? This means you just follow your boyfriends blindly into troofdom? want to be with what you percieve as the in crowd do you? Just blowing a lot of hot air for the movement boys ? When will it be time for you to grow up?

[leftysergeant]

Let me try to explain it for you, Xena.

We just like the way Gravy so casually digs up stuff that we would spend months searching for.

You might notice that he's brighter than the average twoofer.

After digging through a pile of twoofer dreck, it is refreshing to see some logically-arranged evidence to clear the air.

There is also an element of schadenfreude. Nice to see a charlatan or a petty demagogue slapped down resoundingly.

But he is not a cult figure like Dylan or AJ.

Does that make it any clearer?

[gumboot]

I don't understand why CTers think we worship Mark. Mark is very knowledgeable of 9/11, and has a wide plethora of information. But to think we blindly accept what he says is ludicrous. I know I've personally questioned or disagreed with him on various aspects on a number of occasions. And I certainly wouldn't hesitate to correct him if he stated something that was incorrect.

It's just that he very very rarely gets anything wrong. That's hardly our fault. Do they expect us to just disagree with him for the sake of it? :faint:

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

I disagree. We all speak with one voice on this forum.

One of us....one of us.....

[Brainache]

Yeah, one of you... one of you...





oops

[FramerDave]

Is everyone here crazy? What the hell are you rambling on about?

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

P.S. I don't know why I waste time to address this type of insanity but there wasn't anyone anywhere near the crash site that saw anything that appeared "like a whole small aircraft". You guys sure like to just make **** up around here...........

It crashed into the ground at about 400mph and was smashed into small pieces along with the rest of the plane.

Is that so hard for you to understand? Do you have a question?

[1337m4n]

TC329, I would like to hear what YOU think happened to the tail section.

Even if you want to claim you have no idea, just give it an educated guess.

[uk_dave]

just give it an educated guess.

That made I larf :D

[Jonnyclueless]

This is just a diversion tactic by shills. The real question should be "What happened to seat cushion 44D?"

[Hokulele]

This is just a diversion tactic by shills. The real question should be "What happened to seat cushion 44D?"


Sorry, something gave out on the passenger side seat of our truck, and I needed something to fill in until we could have the whole bench seat ripped and out replaced and ... and ... and ...

I'll have it back by Thursday.

[chris lz]

I posted this is the UA93 crater thread, but it's useful in this discussion too:


Originally Posted by gumboot
Air New Zealand Flight TE 109 (A DC-10) hit Mt Erebus at about a 14 degree angle, at about 500 km/h. No tail sections in sight.


-Gumboot


Careful on that one. TE 901's tail and rear engine nacelle survived almost completely intact.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/anz901/2.shtml

[DGM]

This is just a diversion tactic by shills. The real question should be "What happened to seat cushion 44D?"
Not to mention the position of the tray tables. Everyone that has flown knows a plane can not land on earth (thus no crash) with the tables down. Why is there no "official' position on the status of the tray tables?

[CHF]

TC329, I would like to hear what YOU think happened to the tail section.

Even if you want to claim you have no idea, just give it an educated guess.

Perhaps the perps faked a plane crash and planted bits of bodies and aircraft wreckage....but somehow forgot to plant the tail section, which has now thankfully been exposed by TC. :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

Careful on that one. TE 901's tail and rear engine nacelle survived almost completely intact.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/anz901/2.shtml


That's kind of my point - you can't see it at all in any of the aerial photographs - you can make out the fuselage section towards the front but can't work out what it is - it's just a black lump.

Conspiracy Theorists point to aerial and long distance photos of UA93 and declare "Where's the aircraft???? Where's the tail???" yet take a very shallow impact, which does leave behind a large fuselage section and an intact vertical stabiliser, and you still can't see it in those sorts of photographs.

-Gumboot

[chris lz]

That's kind of my point - you can't see it at all in any of the aerial photographs - you can make out the fuselage section towards the front but can't work out what it is - it's just a black lump.

Conspiracy Theorists point to aerial and long distance photos of UA93 and declare "Where's the aircraft???? Where's the tail???" yet take a very shallow impact, which does leave behind a large fuselage section and an intact vertical stabiliser, and you still can't see it in those sorts of photographs.

-Gumboot

Didn't realize that was your point. But, since Flight 93 looks very different than 901, whether from near or afar, truthers are still going to say "no plane." Or am I still missing your point?

[gumboot]

Didn't realize that was your point. But, since Flight 93 looks very different than 901, whether from near or afar, truthers are still going to say "no plane." Or am I still missing your point?


Well it's more that they expect - even in long distance photographs - to see identifiable pieces of aircraft. There's two flaws in this reasoning:

1) An aircraft crash may not leave behind identifiable pieces of aircraft
2) If an aircraft crash does leave behind identifiable pieces of aircraft they may not be visible in long distance photographs

TE109 does not address the first part, but it does address the second part, and it's valuable because it was an extreme example of a shallow impact angle. Conspiracy Theorists argue that because the impact angle of UA93 was "oblique" it shouldn't just disintegrate into unidentifiable pieces.

I suppose the reason why I take interest in point 2) is because it relates not to the mechanics of aircraft crashes (which I know nothing about) but to the technology used to gather the evidence (which I do know a lot about). The same failure to consider the attributes of the photograph or video, and how they might influence your argument, comes up with lots of different 9/11 CTs, most notably at Shankesville and the Pentagon.

They don't ask questions like:
1) Where was this image taken from?
2) What kind of lens was used?
3) What level of resolution?
4) What can be expected to be able to be resolved at that distance?
5) Could I be getting confused or misled by an optical phenomenon such as foreshortening?

-Gumboot

[chris lz]

They don't ask questions like:
1) Where was this image taken from?
2) What kind of lens was used?
3) What level of resolution?
4) What can be expected to be able to be resolved at that distance?
5) Could I be getting confused or misled by an optical phenomenon such as foreshortening?

-Gumboot


I do see your point. I'm only noting that most of the "no flight 93" web sites are accompanied by reasonably close-up photos, such that resolution, optical phenomena, distance, lense and angle aren't at issue. What about the flight 93 issues raised by CTists becomes more decipherable just by looking at the close up shots of the crater we've all seen?

Cheers,
Chris

[gumboot]

I do see your point. I'm only noting that most of the "no flight 93" web sites are accompanied by reasonably close-up photos, such that resolution, optical phenomena, distance, lense and angle aren't at issue. What about the flight 93 issues raised by CTists becomes more decipherable just by looking at the close up shots of the crater we've all seen?


Actually very few of the UA93 photos are taken from close to the crater, and this is precisely the point I'm trying to raise. Many CTers make the mistake of assuming a close-framed image has been taken close to the subject.

However this is only true if the image in question has a short focal length (wide angle lens). Almost all of the images in question have a long focal length (telephoto lens), and are in fact taken from quite some distance away from the subject. It is precisely these sorts of photos that produce the optical illusions I'm talking about, and they're directly responsible for CT claims such as the Pentagon lawn being "untouched" and a lack of debris surrounding the UA93 crater.

-Gumboot

[TC329]

Dom is anyone this dumb? How can you believe she saw anything that went under the power lines and then over the trees?

Apparently you are :

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14659066/detail.html

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1021

[CHF]

TC329,

why did all the Pentagon witnesses report seeing a plane?

[gumboot]

Apparently you are :

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14659066/detail.html

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1021


I got as far as "Alex Jones'" and closed the link. Do you have any information of interest which isn't from the mouth of a crazy person?

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Apparently you are :

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/14659066/detail.html

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1021
your video was dumb, no facts, you only got the wing span of an A-10 correct!

OH, you post junk to support your video of woo?

Your ideas are so disrespectful considering 93 did crash in PA, and you are now not even saying anything. Now you are posting little airplanes that did not fly over PA on 9/11 were 93 crashed. Too bad, 93 looks correct for the type of impact, you should go to a accident investigation course and learn how to understand 9/11 better. You have failed to present facts or evidence. You seem to enjoy making a video with no real point. It was bad.

Void of facts - no conclusion - what was the purpose?

You left out the story line. What happen in PA?

[gumboot]

your video was dumb, no facts, you only got the wing span of an A-10 correct!

OH, you post junk to support your video of woo?

Your ideas are so disrespectful considering 93 did crash in PA, and you are now not even saying anything. Now you are posting little airplanes that did not fly over PA on 9/11 were 93 crashed. Too bad, 93 looks correct for the type of impact, you should go to a accident investigation course and learn how to understand 9/11 better. You have failed to present facts or evidence. You seem to enjoy making a video with no real point. It was bad.

Void of facts - no conclusion - what was the purpose?

You left out the story line. What happen in PA?

And no facts either! :p

-Gumboot

[TC329]

TC329,

why did all the Pentagon witnesses report seeing a plane?

Because there was one?

[TC329]

your video was dumb, no facts, you only got the wing span of an A-10 correct!

I'm sorry you think Mrs. McElwain is dumb and what happened to her and what she saw and when she saw it is dumb. I would imagine FAUX News is your main source for educational material.

OH, you post junk to support your video of woo?

You claim something is impossible and I prove you're an ignorant fool and this is your rebuttal......lol

Your ideas are so disrespectful considering 93 did crash in PA, and you are now not even saying anything. Now you are posting little airplanes that did not fly over PA on 9/11 were 93 crashed. Too bad, 93 looks correct for the type of impact, you should go to a accident investigation course and learn how to understand 9/11 better. You have failed to present facts or evidence. You seem to enjoy making a video with no real point. It was bad.

Void of facts - no conclusion - what was the purpose?

You left out the story line. What happen in PA?

Susan McElwain told you what happened on Bridge St in Stoystown, PA on the morning of 9/11.

Sorry you have to attack this woman to protect the lie you've embraced but if that helps your ignorant self sleep at night..............

[beachnut]

Because there was one?
A plane kills fellow service members, and you make up lies! Thanks.

[Magenta]

I do see your point. I'm only noting that most of the "no flight 93" web sites are accompanied by reasonably close-up photos, such that resolution, optical phenomena, distance, lense and angle aren't at issue. What about the flight 93 issues raised by CTists becomes more decipherable just by looking at the close up shots of the crater we've all seen?

Cheers,
ChrisActually very few of the UA93 photos are taken from close to the crater, and this is precisely the point I'm trying to raise. Many CTers make the mistake of assuming a close-framed image has been taken close to the subject.

However this is only true if the image in question has a short focal length (wide angle lens). Almost all of the images in question have a long focal length (telephoto lens), and are in fact taken from quite some distance away from the subject. It is precisely these sorts of photos that produce the optical illusions I'm talking about, and they're directly responsible for CT claims such as the Pentagon lawn being "untouched" and a lack of debris surrounding the UA93 crater.

-Gumboot


A minor point overall, but I don't think the photos of Flight 901 are a good comparison as it's obvious in the photo you linked to that something crashed there. To provide some scale, the blob below and to the right of the fuselage is the tail section chris lz linked to.

Speaking of optical illusions, the caption on the photo of the tail section says the plane crashed in a "blizzard". :boggled:

And to address the question in the thread title: I don't believe there is anything quite as stupid as a no-planer.

[beachnut]

I'm sorry you think Mrs. McElwain is dumb and what happened to her and what she saw and when she saw it is dumb. I would imagine FAUX News is your main source for educational material.
[/color]
You claim something is impossible and I prove you're an ignorant fool and this is your rebuttal......lol


Susan McElwain told you what happened on Bridge St in Stoystown, PA on the morning of 9/11.
Sorry you have to attack this woman to protect the lie you've embraced but if that helps your ignorant self sleep at night..............
[COLOR=black]No, your film is DUMB, you need to pay attention.
Sorry, I was on active duty on 9/11 and flew the next day. Sorry if you have problems with the military and making up stories about 9/11, it is the lowest form of disrespect to make up lies about 9/11 and try to spread misinformation. (if you support CIT, you disrespect the military, with the Pentacon crap)

The planes on 9/11 she saw were one of two planes if she saw them about the time 93 went down. There was small jet asked to see if they saw 93, they did, it was crashed, they reported the smoke! And there was 93! These are the facts of the case and she had to see the small jet or 93 and she has messed it up. Or she is totally nuts and saw nothing. The facts are verified, your video is dumb.

I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, and would take her statement. But it seems having the plane buzz her car, go under a wire and do the impact with tons of fuel exploding, is a fantasy even you can not push too far from your dumb video. The video is dumb. Not her, your video is dumb. Do you understand?

I will repeat, the video was the worse "say nothing" piece of junk I have seen lately, you did not even make a point. Dumb video, great witness. Too bad you are not trained to figure out 9/11 and are such a disrespectful American dishing out tripe about people who died in the field;

People who figured out 9/11 in minutes, and you messed it up for 6 years. Yes, the heroes on 93 did in minutes what you have messed up for 6 years! How dumb of video can you do next!? 9/11 true dumb video.

[CptColumbo]

Actually very few of the UA93 photos are taken from close to the crater, and this is precisely the point I'm trying to raise. Many CTers make the mistake of assuming a close-framed image has been taken close to the subject.

However this is only true if the image in question has a short focal length (wide angle lens). Almost all of the images in question have a long focal length (telephoto lens), and are in fact taken from quite some distance away from the subject. It is precisely these sorts of photos that produce the optical illusions I'm talking about, and they're directly responsible for CT claims such as the Pentagon lawn being "untouched" and a lack of debris surrounding the UA93 crater.

-GumbootIt also depends on whether the "photo" is an actual photograph or an image from a video/digital camera, as the signal to noise ratio of a video camera is lower than a film camera and will show less detail.

[Norseman]

The planes on 9/11 she saw were one of two planes if she saw them about the time 93 went down. There was small jet asked to see if they saw 93, they did, it was crashed, they reported the smoke! And there was 93! These are the facts of the case and she had to see the small jet or 93 and she has messed it up. Or she is totally nuts and saw nothing. The facts are verified, your video is dumb.


In addition to this there is also of course a fourth and an entirely natural explanation to what McElwain saw. The possibility that a large white bird happened to pass above here car at the time Flight 93 crashed. Then she messed this up with the crash of Flight 93. The bird fits what she describes very well. This explanation was given to TC329 back in November last year elaborated with some pictures, videos and technical data on the prime bird candidate, a white Red-tail Hawk:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3159495#post3159495
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3186579#post3186579

Thought it could be worth repeating this explanation. But I doubt that TC329 will get it.

Why have it never occurred to the truthers that Flight 93 does not make any sense whatsoever within the various fact less inside job scenarios they try to create. Why should anyone go to all the trouble of faking an air crash in an empty field in a place no one have heard about, when they could have had the aircraft crashing in to a forth building for greater effect? But then logic has never been the truthers strongest side.

[TC329]

And to address the question in the thread title: I don't believe there is anything quite as stupid as a no-planer.


And this is why I don't ever come to this forum.

I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?

jesus christ this is ridiculous.

from those who legitimately tried to answer the question (albeit with as much verbal abuse as they could incorporate) i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. thank you i suppose......

[BenBurch]

You're welcome, I suppose.........

[TC329]

[COLOR=black]No, your film is DUMB, you need to pay attention.
Sorry, I was on active duty on 9/11 and flew the next day.

My "film" is an interview, perhaps what is dumb here is someone who cannot tell the difference between a film and an interview.

Well since you were on active duty on 9/11 I guess you would have a better idea of what happened on Bridge St near the intersection of Busckstown Rd in Stoystown, PA shortly after 10:00 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 better than an actual resident that was there.

The nationalist mentality of some of the members here is appalling to say the least.

[bynmdsue]

i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit.

How much less?

[16.5]

TC sez:

"I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?"

You fraud, don't bring whines here. "Just asking questions," what nonsense. Here is what a credible serious person would have put in their OP: "i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit." No you lie and claim you care about the answer to some loaded question. What a farce. And here is answer: have you calculated the "physics" acting on the tail section? Of course not. Do you believe that the forces are insufficient to destroy the tail? Of course not.

We all know you think it was a UAV. Why do you come in here a play the "JAQ" game? What a fraud. I can't wait for you pal's next movie:

TerrorCell IV: The Attack of the 40 Pound UAV at Killtown.

Sad.

[DavidJames]

i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit.You could really gain credibility by supporting the above with facts. Provide the calculations to support your claim about the physics aspect of your claim.

[chris lz]

Speaking of optical illusions, the caption on the photo of the tail section says the plane crashed in a "blizzard". :boggled:



Good point. 901 crashed in clear air. The folks at ad.com ought to know better. But that's another issue.

[TC329]

TC sez:

"I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?"

You fraud, don't bring whines here. "Just asking questions," what nonsense. Here is what a credible serious person would have put in their OP: "i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit." No you lie and claim you care about the answer to some loaded question. What a farce. And here is answer: have you calculated the "physics" acting on the tail section? Of course not. Do you believe that the forces are insufficient to destroy the tail? Of course not.

We all know you think it was a UAV. Why do you come in here a play the "JAQ" game? What a fraud. I can't wait for you pal's next movie:

TerrorCell IV: The Attack of the 40 Pound UAV at Killtown.

Sad.


You lie. You're the fraud.

Nowhere did I say a small UAV crashed in Shanksville. It didn't. I've spoken with multiple people who saw it afterwards you just haven't seen the interviews with them yet.

[CHF]

nevermind

[1337m4n]

And this is why I don't ever come to this forum.

I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?

jesus christ this is ridiculous.

from those who legitimately tried to answer the question (albeit with as much verbal abuse as they could incorporate) i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. thank you i suppose......

When you start a thread that contains no substance--just a link and a quote--you should expect equally well-thought-out answers.

[DavidJames]

And this is why I don't ever come to this forum. Actually CT boy, I think it plays out like this.

You post on CT sites and get CT fanboy reactions and your ego grows. You come here and post your crap. Instead of fanboy reaction, you get slapped down and embarrassed and worse yet, your ego gets bruised.

You return to the CT sites and the cycle starts over again.

[chillzero]

Calm down, and stop the personalisation of this thread please. Address the points and arguments, do not attack the arguer.

[stilicho]

Actually very few of the UA93 photos are taken from close to the crater, and this is precisely the point I'm trying to raise. Many CTers make the mistake of assuming a close-framed image has been taken close to the subject.

However this is only true if the image in question has a short focal length (wide angle lens). Almost all of the images in question have a long focal length (telephoto lens), and are in fact taken from quite some distance away from the subject. It is precisely these sorts of photos that produce the optical illusions I'm talking about, and they're directly responsible for CT claims such as the Pentagon lawn being "untouched" and a lack of debris surrounding the UA93 crater.

-Gumboot
You bring up an important point about "photographic evidence" and "video evidence". Perspective, compression, shutter speeds, distance, focus, and all kinds of problems emerge when simply depending on what you see posted in newspapers and on the internet.

I was able, on a different forum, to employ technology to "prove" that there was a "pod" attached to the tail of UA175.

I keep going back to the interview with the Loose Change kids on Democracy Now! where one of the Popular Mechanics gentlemen said "talk to the experts". I know that's lost on the "truth" movement because it entails admitting there are professional investigators that know a lot more than they do. The "Penta-Lawn" fraud is still going strong as well as sites showing the removal of aircraft parts from the Pentagon as "CIA officials planting evidence".

[Jonnyclueless]

You lie. You're the fraud.

Nowhere did I say a small UAV crashed in Shanksville. It didn't. I've spoken with multiple people who saw it afterwards you just haven't seen the interviews with them yet.

"Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated. Do you all agree with that?"

Still waiting for a source on this "official story" bit that you conveniently keep ignoring.

And for the past year you keep using this argument about interviews that you haven't put out yet. A common Woo technique. The OP was addressed several pages ago.

[16.5]

You lie. You're the fraud.

Nowhere did I say a small UAV crashed in Shanksville. It didn't. I've spoken with multiple people who saw it afterwards you just haven't seen the interviews with them yet.

OK. The UAV did not crash.

So why you looking for the tail of a "plane" that did not crash?

Hey. I'm just asking questions.

And we are all awaiting your calculations as to the physics involved. You made a pretty clear representation about the physics involved in the crash, and I assume that you can back it up.

We are waiting, Terrorcell.

[CHF]

Obvious question:

Why exactly would the tail of Flight 93 survive crashing to the ground?

[16.5]

Obvious question:

Why exactly would the tail of Flight 93 survive crashing to the ground?


Old Terrorcell had it had something to do with physics.

We await his analysis with bated breath. I am sure he's done the math already, so it should just be a few more minutes.

[beachnut]

My "film" is an interview, perhaps what is dumb here is someone who cannot tell the difference between a film and an interview.
Well since you were on active duty on 9/11 I guess you would have a better idea of what happened on Bridge St near the intersection of Busckstown Rd in Stoystown, PA shortly after 10:00 AM on the morning of 9/11/2001 better than an actual resident that was there.
The nationalist mentality of some of the members here is appalling to say the least.
[/color]
You are right, the dumb interview has nothing to do with the tail. The interview is just dumb, and has a really stupid story.
The facts are the tail and the plane are in PA.
The very article you posted told you a guy thinks he say a part of a tail, it was little piece. So you now know one person, like your super interview, saw what could be a tail part!

Listen again; the person you posted saw a part, he thinks the part could be part of the tail! Like your interview the woman saw a plane go over her car, under the wires! This guy saw a piece, he calls a piece of the tail.

Your thread was answered in the beginning, you are not paying attention to reality, or your own posts. Your own post.

The interview is dumb, and you make no conclusions, you are trying to spread misinformation and there is not a thing that video means to the tail as you never said it did. Her van plane is stupid, and you have fallen for witness perception problems! She also says things why didn't THEY hit the houses? You found someone as paranoid as you and the great CIT!. You guys are unable to figure out the tail as you post the answer yourself. Cherry pick your quotes and evidence, it make you look real professional. You have exposed your cherry picking methods with this tread by not using all the article, you try to make a point but only expose your inability to understand what you post, and ignore what others say.

Planes do not buzz cars and fly under wires. Oops, or was it a UAV? She has no clue what she say, and you are correct, the tail is in parts as you posted from the article; you solved your own question and missed it.

Fact 93 crashed into PA where the crater is, parts are all over, some of the parts are the tail. FACT!

When you disprove all the facts, and there are thousands of them, you can have your insane no plane idea. You have zero facts and evidence, you have a nutty interview with no conclusion and no rational use, and you have the piece of tail you posted yourself, explaining the guy may of seen part of the tail.

But at 568 mph impact, I doubt you have much of any shape left to the plane! Gee, when I came up to the U-2 still smoking right after impact, the U-2s tail was smashed up and he had only stalled from 1000 feet. The U-2 was only going 100 mph and it fell 1000 feet. No real shape, the wings exploded on impact as fuel was blown up due to the engine running at a high speed the heat of the engine auto ignites all the fuel the wings are ripped apart and in piece due to impact and fire! This was slow speed. Instruments jumped out of the cockpit, like they were squeezed out and flew hundreds of feet away from the impact crater where the cockpit had buried itself deep in the ground.

In accident investigation class we would inspect old accident. We saw examples of high speed impacts where the entire plane and pilot were smashed up into a few feet of twisted metal pieces and body. All 50 feet of plane in a few feet, smashed up. 568 mph is high speed, the entire plane smashed up. Only the engine cores can be close together. Part fly out of the impact as if ejected from compression. There is nothing at the PA impact site that looks funny, it looks like it should! Only people lacking knowledge make up stories and lies about 93 without using facts and evidence. Like you!

So your tail you are looking for is most likely one of those pieces your witness from the newspaper said he thought he saw. ANSWER!!!
And this is why I don't ever come to this forum.

I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?

jesus christ this is ridiculous.

from those who legitimately tried to answer the question (albeit with as much verbal abuse as they could incorporate) i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. thank you i suppose......This is what happens when you spread lies once, you become the boy who cried wolf! You are reaping what you have sowed.

No, the physics of the impact are the energy of 2200 pounds of TNT! That is physics, the very thing you lack, the physics of the impact is like a 2000 pound bomb.

A normal aircraft accident impact is equal in energy to 187 pounds of TNT, the impact of 93 was equal in energy to 2096 pounds of TNT. You get what you see in PA! Case closed for rational people who can check the numbers, but you are in 9/11 truth, you make up lies and false statement like this post! So I did the numbers so kids can check them and see you are full of lies and misinformation. E = ½ MVV …. That was energy, the VV is velocity squared, the killer! It could be a song, vv is the killer in…

Look at accident with bigger pieces. Pieces is the KEY. Now think of those same pieces in a crash 11 times bigger!!! Yep you get smaller parts!

187 pounds of TNT normal crash, 2096 pounds of TNT flight 93 terrorist killing people like you and me! You have chosen not to learn physics or understand, and make up lies to give peace and comfort to UBL who sees real dumb Americans make up fantasy BS junk.

Go ask a physics teacher to do the energy for a plane aimed at the ground doing 568 mph! But any kid can calculate the energy if they really try and want to. But you can't? What is wrong with you, never had physics, too lazy to see a physics teacher but have tons of time to make a dumb insane idea, non conclusion interview video/film?

The tail was destroyed in an impact! The tail does not stop when the front of the plane buries itself in the ground, it continues moving with momentum and destroys itself at impact! This was not 187 pounds of TNT it was 2096 pounds of TNT.

Go get help on the physics, stop making up lies, quit CIT, their own witnessed debunk them. When you try to make a point with ONE witness, you have to tell everyone why you ignored 1,000 witnesses and all the physical evidence.

The tail was in pieces; you can calculate this by looking at other accident using the energy. The energy in this accident was 10 times greater than most accidents, like the ones 9/11 truth use to show how an accident should looks, but 9/11 truth is making up lies, it is a lie! Therefore, the tail was in pieces as your cherry picked witness said. Good job showing us what happen to the tail in this HIGH energy impact, you had the answer and now you and I know what happen to the tail.

The plane will not stop going until it is in the ground, tail and all, this is not slow speed, this is faster than this speed! TVz5vhNvskkPart will fly out as ejected in chaos! 2096 pound of TNT energy vs. a slow speed, parts falling off 187 pounds of TNT energy.

[leftysergeant]

We have one witness, a Mr. Reimer, who saw what looked like at least part of the empanage in the woods down-range of the crater. That would have been easily identifiable as to aircraft type. Someone would have noticed an oddity were it from anything other than an airliner.

The aircraft as a whole would have slowed enough after burying the wings that the empanage would probably have broken off and bounced away in that direction, even as the rest of the plane continued into the ground. They tend to do thaWhatever McElwain saw that day did not make the crater. It was too small. And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no fighter aircraft capable of shooting down an airliner that would be silent at that altitude.

As for the aircraft's passing under power lines, this could have been an optical illusion due to perspective.

Seen from below, the corporate jet identified as having been in the area might look utterly different from any available photos.

Unless someone has some very intricately-woven theory as to the purpose of an unarmed chase plane at the scene, it really does not have much significance.

[achtung circus]

My "film" is an interview, perhaps what is dumb here is someone who cannot tell the difference between a film and an interview.

[/COLOR]

Sorry, but your "film" is not an interview- it's a prop. As a criminal investigator with a specialization in convincing people to tell me things I find this flick laughable. Your language is slanted in favour of obtaining your desired outcome.

You need to learn how to lead people to the point where they make the next steps in their recollections themselves, rather than leading them through the entire process. As evidence of anything, the vid scores in the negative range.

[TC329]

"Just to confirm the official story is that the tail section disintegrated. Do you all agree with that?"

Still waiting for a source on this "official story" bit that you conveniently keep ignoring.

Already answered. Dig back through and stop wasting my time.

[uk_dave]

Already answered. Dig back through and stop wasting my time.

I'm sorry, but your time aint worth anything.

You have chosen to believe the 'inside job' fantasy based upon the flimsiest of evidence.

You come to a forum where people go out of their way to point out the flaws in your belief.

You ignore them

You continue to post.

Those same people start to ridicule you.

You get upset

See a pattern emerging?

[Jennie C.]

I don't understand why CTers think we worship Mark. Mark is very knowledgeable of 9/11, and has a wide plethora of information. But to think we blindly accept what he says is ludicrous. I know I've personally questioned or disagreed with him on various aspects on a number of occasions. And I certainly wouldn't hesitate to correct him if he stated something that was incorrect.

It's just that he very very rarely gets anything wrong. That's hardly our fault. Do they expect us to just disagree with him for the sake of it? :faint:

-Gumboot

Not to mention, I think he likes little kids and I've never heard that he beats up puppies. :)

[uk_dave]

A wide plethora is something that can be fixed by cosmetic surgery.


Apparently

[beachnut]

Already answered. Dig back through and stop wasting my time.
Like your interview of the with van plane? Or the tread you started with the answer in the first post by your own evidence? Or what? The hot tub is not a waste of time, spewing coke all over my waterproof keyboard is funny as I watch the video/film/interview of a woman who saw a UFO fly over her van by feet, under a wire and did nothing on 9/11. Then the pieces of tail found in the woods, I have to change the water now!

[1337m4n]

TC, your OP has been answered, numerous times: The tail was smashed to bits upon impact. You have two options:

1) Accept this answer
2) Explain via scientific analysis why this answer is unacceptable.

I don't know why you continue to post in this thread if you're not going to do either of those things.

[uk_dave]

Like your interview of the with van plane? Or the tread you started with the answer in the first post by your own evidence? Or what? The hot tub is not a waste of time, spewing coke all over my waterproof keyboard is funny as I watch the video/film/interview of a woman who saw a UFO fly over her van by feet, under a wire and did nothing on 9/11. Then the pieces of tail found in the woods, I have to change the water now!

It wasn't a UFO.... it was a plane... silent.... no wider than her car.... under power lines but over trees... and.... (sobs) the poor wittle plane crashed.

Ahhhhh but if it wasn't for those nice boyze from god noze where who can talk her through her recollections, perhaps mrs shanksville would understand why the thought of that wittle plane crashing was so upsetting to her.

[Jonnyclueless]

Already answered. Dig back through and stop wasting my time.


OOOH! That's right, how could I forget. The "official story" is a quote by a police officer. And I just don't know why people don't take your seriously....

[HL7442]

Tail section pulverized twoofers...........things like that tend to happen when the airframe slams into the ground at over 450 mph.

[DavidJames]

i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. thank you i suppose......You could really gain credibility by supporting the above with facts. Provide the calculations to support your claim about the physics aspect of your claim.

Still waiting on you to answer this.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ask him about that 90 degree hole too!

[Elizabeth I]

I disagree. We all speak with one voice on this forum.

One of us....one of us.....

Yeah, one of you... one of you...





oops

Resistance...is...futile...you...will...be...assim ilated...

[16.5]

Huh, I thought I was going to come back and see a thread chock full of equations, and Physics.

Guess not.

TC: tell you pal Terrorcell to come up with some hard science some time.

[Magenta]

I ask a legitimate question about what happened to Flight 93's tail section and in return I am ridiculed, my name is insulted by anonymous trolls, my appearance is insulted by hidden attackers, I'm asked why people saw a plane in DC, about hijackers, about the man you all fear and can't exist without Killtown, and others start talking about no planers......who the **** brought up no planes in a thread about a tail section of one of the planes?

It was a legitimate question in 2001, or for someone who never heard of UA93. But 6 years after 9/11 and with over 500 posts on this forum, you're still playing games with "where is the plane part". And apparently wondering why you're not taken seriously. What will it be next? Where are the engines? Where are the wings?

You must have missed the post below as you haven't answered it yet:

i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. You could really gain credibility by supporting the above with facts. Provide the calculations to support your claim about the physics aspect of your claim.


Are you going to back up the claim that was the basis for the question in the thread title?

ETA: And if you don't like being lumped in with no-planers, you should have the courage of your convictions and state what you think happened to UA93.

[aggle-rithm]

Agreed.

I'm trying to find out what happened to the tail section of the plane.

FDR states the plane struck the ground at a 40degree angle yet the crater and excavation of it are more consistent with a 90degree angle impact.

The soil was soft enough to allegedly swallow over 90+% of the plane yet so hard that it causes the jet fuel to vaporize and the plane to shatter from the ground being so solid.

I would believe if I just knew the basics of this story such as speed and trajectory and positioning of the plane at impact that there would be something recognizable as having come from the tail but the tail seems to have "disintegrated" or "vaporized" or just wasn't anywhere remotely near the area.

I was curious to see what the general consensus was for the tail's fate on this side of the fence.

Seems to me either no one knows or they would rather discuss everything but which makes me wonder why they even interact in the thread actually.....

So do you have any ideas or hear anything about what the official explanation is for the tail section's absence?

This may have been addressed already, but since you were responding to my post I will reply.

I think what you're saying is that someone the day after the crash says he thought he saw part of the tail section. You're wondering why other witnesses later on didn't see it.

My guess would be that he saw something he ASSUMED was part of the tail section, but it was not.

I could come up with a hundred other guesses, all of which would be a more likely explanation than a great, cumbersome conspiracy for which there is no good evidence.

The thing about citing news sources from THE DAY AFTER an incident is that, although memories might be more fresh, the amount of information gathered by journalists may still be sketchy. News stories tend to get more accurate over time, not less accurate, because everything is carefully documented and new information is checked against old in an effort to get at the truth. That's why it's not particularly useful to point at sources from September 12 and suggest that it is somehow more accurate than later reports.

[CurtC]

...i have gathered that the belief is that the tail also shattered/disintegrated in the same manner the cockpit did even though physics would indicate that it would have hit with less force than the cockpit. thank you i suppose......

So that's what this thread is all about? Just imagine how, instead of posting what you did back as the first post of this thread, that you had posted your idea that you think the tail should have survived because it hit with less force than the cockpit.

We could have simply explained that, while the tail section would have certainly been decelerating during the brief period after the nose hit, it still would have been going almost as fast. Let's say that the airframe could transmit four g's worth of force to the tail. The plane was going about 750 feet per second, so it would have had about 1/6 of a second to decelerate before the tail impacted. At a deceleration of four g's, the tail section would have hit at about 730 feet per second instead of 750 like the cockpit. 730 feet per second is still plenty to smash it to little bits.

See how much dismay that would have saved? You could have had your answer back on page 1, without all the insults.

[Belz...]

Already answered. Dig back through and stop wasting my time.

Hot air is plentiful on Earth, TC. You can't "waste" it.

[Minadin]

Please keep this thread civil - no more accusations of insanity, etc.

I think that if someone at the site claims they found a piece of the tail, and all other reports claim the plane disintegrated, then the question is a valid one. However, the quote about finding the tail does not address what size this piece was, how they determined it was the tail, and indeed, if it was proven to actually be the tail - or any part of the plane for that matter - and not some random piece of scrap metal already in the field. Without any of that information, there isn't really anywhere to go with the question posed.

Thank you.

I am sincerely interested in hearing theories about what happened to the tail section.

I think that your response to Chillzero's civility reminder in this thread is particularly telling. She's asking all of us not to accuse other posters of being crazy. And, you thank her, presumably because you see yourself as the victim in this instance. Which wouldn't be all that odd in most threads here since the "debunker" to conspiracy theorist ratio is rather high and sometimes people do seem to pile on. However, in this instance, let's take a look at which posts in the beginning of the thread might have elicited Chillzero's response. I've compiled a list of all of the posts prior to hers which included any accusations of lunacy:

is there some sort of magnetic field that draws these type of people to this forum?

Are you criminally insane?

Do you just randomly theorize insans things and then theorize that they are what someone else is theorizing?

You should talk to someone.

Is everyone here crazy? What the hell are you rambling on about?

I came here and asked what happened to the tail section.

P.S. I don't know why I waste time to address this type of insanity but there wasn't anyone anywhere near the crash site that saw anything that appeared "like a whole small aircraft". You guys sure like to just make **** up around here...........

As you can see, they're all authored by you. No one else was accusing anyone of being insane.

As far as the tail section of the plane is concerned, I believe that it has already been more than adequately explained by others in this thread. It was smashed to pieces during a high velocity impact with the ground. I'm not sure why you would expect it to survive any more intact than the rest of the plane did.

[Calcas]

As far as the tail section of the plane is concerned, I believe that it has already been more than adequately explained by others in this thread. It was smashed to pieces during a high velocity impact with the ground. I'm not sure why you would expect it to survive any more intact than the rest of the plane did.

I did ask him why they never recovered the front galley coffee pot as well and he didn't reply. Next we should focus on those little bags of pretzels.

In CT land that should be obvious proof of a conspiracy as well.

[HL7442]

Watch out, one unbroken pretzel will prove Bush and the JOOZ were responsible for 9/11 and clear islamic terrorists of responsibility.

[Brainache]

...

As you can see, they're all authored by you. No one else was accusing anyone of being insane.

...

To be fair, I did refer to UK Dave as "mad as a meat axe", but that was a joke.

[TC329]

This should keep you guys busy for a while. (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2008/04/fairy-tail.html)

:D

[Pardalis]

:D

40 people died in that crash.

:mad:

[DGM]

If Killtowns names on it it's BS. That didn't take that long.

Why don't you start thinking for yourself and stop believing every piece of BS your cult throws at you?

[Minadin]

Killtown is one of the most vile and despicable people on the entire internet, besides being one of the most stupid. And that says a lot, because I'm including the nearly-indecipherable-drivel-posting morons from YouTube comments (http://xkcd.com/202/).

[twinstead]

Why don't you start thinking for yourself and stop believing every piece of BS your cult throws at you?

Yup. And they think WE are the sheep :rolleyes:

[CptColumbo]

Yup. And they think WE are the sheep :rolleyes:
It's posts like this that got me banned from LCF. I was just commenting on seeing a video of a group of people all wearing the same shirt, marching in a line and yelling the same phrase over and over again. I didn't say who they were, or if their shirts were black or brown.

[Drs_Res]

Don't make me post the photo again.

[TC329]

great work so far duh-bunkers!

[twinstead]

great work so far duh-bunkers!

Dude. It's 'duh-bunkers' ROCK!

Get with the program.

[leftysergeant]

We can determine with at least 90% certainty, based on the damage to the trees, that some very heavy object or objects entered the woods there on a low trajectory at high speed. This is consistant with the separation of the empanage from the fuselage after impact with the ground. That it was already breaking loose when it hit the ground is obvious from the abngle of the tail print.

Bear in mind that the empanage is generally stronger than the rest of the aircraft aft of the wings. In crashes which do not utterly destroy the aircraft, one's chances of survival increase with distance of one's seat behind the wings. That part of the aircraft frequently falls off as a large assembly.

Because they contain no fuel cells or other large internal voids, parts of the tail section tend to remain recognizeable, even when broken apart. Moveable control surfaces will often survive whole or as still-revcognizable fragments. They don't crumple like outboard wing or fuselage segments do. Thus, even broken into pieces less than two feet long, sections of the rear control surfaces would clearly be recognizable even to an amateur as parts of a tail.

There really is no mystery here to anyone familiar with either psychology or crash investigations.

[A W Smith]

great work so far duh-bunkers!


Why thank you Dom!

Watch this video. particularly the last few moments of it. Compare the way it crashed and compare it to flight 93, Note the reporters description of "there's barely anything left here that's recognizable as being a part of an aircraft" it will ruin your thread. And killtowns fairy tale creation all in one stroke, yes there are some larger parts than flight 93 but keep in mind this is a plane that almost leveled off but ran out of altitude.

FJhsBAnZJ0M

[aggle-rithm]

great work so far duh-bunkers!

Thank you. We live for recognition from people of your stature.

[chris lz]

Watch this video. FJhsBAnZJ0M

Another interesting parallel between flight 981 and 93 was lack of fire. Witnesses saw a fire ball and mushroom cloud at the scene of flight 981. And just like F93, there was no evidence of a major fire. How was that possible?


Fire frequently consumes most of the remains of air-crash victims, but in this case the ferocity of impact precluded any such cremation. The DC-10's wing tanks were carrying about 100 tons of fuel: as the tanks disintegrated this liquid was transformed into a huge cloud of minute droplets which hovered for a fraction of a second before vanishing in a thunderous fireball. Trees (and here and there flesh) were scorched and blackened, but the flame was too transient to fire the forest still damp from winter.

(from Destination Disaster)

So next time the truthers play fire expert, mention flight 981.