Question about Shanksville crash

[saiweril]

You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.

There wasn't much in that crater. The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground. If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.

Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.

You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

 

[saiweril]

I doubt 95% was found in the hole, there was a debris field. I believe an engine was found in a nearby pond even. But 95% of the plane was recovered, And DNA matches identified body parts of all passengers and crew, minus the hijackers as they had no DNA samples of theirs to compare to.

I'd like to see some evidence for that other guy's claim that most of the plane was down in the hole.

I'd also like to see some evidence there was a hole! I only saw a crater there.

well google is your best friend while you search for these things.

What is the difference between a crater and a hole? I know it doesn't have anything to do with anything, but am curious. A crater is a hole isn't it? However, a hole is not neccesarily a crater, but it can be.
So, everyone feel free to answer my question;

What exactly is the difference between a crater and a hole?

A crater is a bowl-shaped indent in the ground, commonly caused by bombs. I hole is something that would be left if a plane could travel down to 45 feet.

I searched. Couldn't find any evidence that remotely proves most of Flight 93 was under the surface.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.

There wasn't much in that crater. The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground. If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.

Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.

You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

Go get a sling shot and shoot a rock into a sand pile from close up with all the power you can. It will disapear into the sand while leaving little trace. Think about it. Hell just think period.

 

[DiveCon]

You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.

There wasn't much in that crater. The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground. If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.

Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.

You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

Go get a sling shot and shoot a rock into a sand pile from close up with all the power you can. It will disapear into the sand while leaving little trace. Think about it. Hell just think period.

hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
that didnt even leave a crater to see

 

[saiweril]

You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.

There wasn't much in that crater. The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground. If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.

Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.

You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

Go get a sling shot and shoot a rock into a sand pile from close up with all the power you can. It will disapear into the sand while leaving little trace. Think about it. Hell just think period.

Comparing a hard solid rock into a sand pile with basically a long hollow aluminum tube into dirt ground? Talk about

But whatever, I would like to see some good evidence there was a plane under that crater if that's what you really think happened.

 

[saiweril]

hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
that didnt even leave a crater to see

Comparing dry dirt ground with a swamp?

Talk about

 

[Liability]

When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.

Google Image Result for http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg (see images, for example, at post number 30 of that board and thread)

 

[DiveCon]

hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
that didnt even leave a crater to see

Comparing dry dirt ground with a swamp?

Talk about

no, dipshit
it was sarcasm that you clearly are not capable of comprehending

 

[slackjawed]

There wasn't much in that crater. The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground. If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.


You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

Go get a sling shot and shoot a rock into a sand pile from close up with all the power you can. It will disapear into the sand while leaving little trace. Think about it. Hell just think period.

Comparing a hard solid rock into a sand pile with basically a long hollow aluminum tube into dirt ground? Talk about

But whatever, I would like to see some good evidence there was a plane under that crater if that's what you really think happened.

See, that's the thing. There is evidence and you and the other moronic twoofers refuse to accept it.
the only thing I can figure is that you idiots hate your country so much that you refuse to believe anything that anyone in a position of power tells you.
So ask for "evidence" all you want. But the thing is you clowns wouldn't accept evidence so there is no point to bother. The fact is, that is why you guys are a bunch of treasonous fuckwads......

 

[Fizz]

[
You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground? Seriously???

Talk about

considering radar reconstruction shows the track of the plane the entire time, the FDR recovered from your hole that you say no plane crashed in and it had all the data and voices from the flight 93 pilots and hijackers and considering dna from the crew and the passengers were found at the crash site.....

and considering the only evidence you have to counter all of that is that the bucket of a backhoe and a piece of airplane are about the same saize i would say its pretty overwhelming evidence that flight 93 actually did crash where ALL THE ******* WITNESSES THAT SAW THE PLANE ABOUT TO CRASH say it crashed.

******* idiotic twoofers.

who cares what the evidence is or how absurd it is as long as it blames the government.

 

[CurveLight]

I doubt 95% was found in the hole, there was a debris field. I believe an engine was found in a nearby pond even. But 95% of the plane was recovered, And DNA matches identified body parts of all passengers and crew, minus the hijackers as they had no DNA samples of theirs to compare to.

I'd like to see some evidence for that other guy's claim that most of the plane was down in the hole.

I'd also like to see some evidence there was a hole! I only saw a crater there.

You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice. Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.

Seems to be a strange juxtaposition of the soft earth and absence of debris. A commercial jet had an explosion at 16,000 feet then crashed into the ocean yet they were able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together. But here, hardly any pics of debris are available. If it was a reclaimed mine then the softness would play a huge role in how the plane broke up on impact.

 

[CurveLight]

here is what is really funny....

you claim athiesm.about.com is an authority on the fallacy of the appeal to authority

It's embarrassing when you try to debate. Your deflection is painfully weak and here is the proof:

Pick any link of your choice that offers a sincere definition of the fallacy. Your fallacy on citing the fbi's claim doesn't change regardless of the source you use but you will ignore that as well.

no, here is what must be really embarrassing for you. the FBI was the lead investigative agency and was assisted by the NTSB. please tell me who would be more authoritive than those two.

Lol....thank you for proving you run like a scared *****. This question has been addressed several times but you ask it again because all you have is deflection. Pay attention dumass. The fbi are not experts in crash investigations. If they were they would not have needed experts from NTSB.

You punks also fail to realize even if it was the NTSB that made the claim I would still ask for evidence. Why? The appeal to authority fallacy. Just because X says something that doesn't mean it is automatically true.

 

[CurveLight]

I always thought that Laredo was a hole, and it would be a much nicer place if it was a crater.......

Be nice, my wife was born in Laredo.

The fact she married you proved slackjawed's point.

 

[CurveLight]

When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.

Google Image Result for http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg (see images, for example, at post number 30 of that board and thread)

No matter how crazy something is you OCTAs always say "it makes perfect sense!" as a way of trying to support a claim you cannot support. You don't even understand basic dimensions of a passenger jet and think that just because it is heavy it would disintegrate upon impact. A 747 blew up and crashed into the ocean yet the NTSB was able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together. I know you punks will ignore any comparisons you don't like but at least you can't say nobody pointed it out.

 

[candycorn]

 

[Fizz]

It's embarrassing when you try to debate. Your deflection is painfully weak and here is the proof:

Pick any link of your choice that offers a sincere definition of the fallacy. Your fallacy on citing the fbi's claim doesn't change regardless of the source you use but you will ignore that as well.

no, here is what must be really embarrassing for you. the FBI was the lead investigative agency and was assisted by the NTSB. please tell me who would be more authoritive than those two.

Lol....thank you for proving you run like a scared *****. This question has been addressed several times but you ask it again because all you have is deflection. Pay attention dumass. The fbi are not experts in crash investigations. If they were they would not have needed experts from NTSB.

You punks also fail to realize even if it was the NTSB that made the claim I would still ask for evidence. Why? The appeal to authority fallacy. Just because X says something that doesn't mean it is automatically true.

you still dont get this "appeal to authority fallacy" even after it has been explained to you.

must be that reading comprehension problem you have rearing its ugly head again....

feel free to keep using it incorrectly and proving what an idiot you are.

 

[CurveLight]

no, here is what must be really embarrassing for you. the FBI was the lead investigative agency and was assisted by the NTSB. please tell me who would be more authoritive than those two.

Lol....thank you for proving you run like a scared *****. This question has been addressed several times but you ask it again because all you have is deflection. Pay attention dumass. The fbi are not experts in crash investigations. If they were they would not have needed experts from NTSB.

You punks also fail to realize even if it was the NTSB that made the claim I would still ask for evidence. Why? The appeal to authority fallacy. Just because X says something that doesn't mean it is automatically true.

you still dont get this "appeal to authority fallacy" even after it has been explained to you.

must be that reading comprehension problem you have rearing its ugly head again....

feel free to keep using it incorrectly and proving what an idiot you are.

School time for Fizzbitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

 

[DiveCon]

Lol....thank you for proving you run like a scared *****. This question has been addressed several times but you ask it again because all you have is deflection. Pay attention dumass. The fbi are not experts in crash investigations. If they were they would not have needed experts from NTSB.

You punks also fail to realize even if it was the NTSB that made the claim I would still ask for evidence. Why? The appeal to authority fallacy. Just because X says something that doesn't mean it is automatically true.

you still dont get this "appeal to authority fallacy" even after it has been explained to you.

must be that reading comprehension problem you have rearing its ugly head again....

feel free to keep using it incorrectly and proving what an idiot you are.

School time for Fizzbitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

dipshit, it is NOT a fallacious appeal because the FBI IS an authority and they ran the investigation

 

[Liability]

When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.

Google Image Result for http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg (see images, for example, at post number 30 of that board and thread)

No matter how crazy something is you OCTAs always say "it makes perfect sense!" as a way of trying to support a claim you cannot support. You don't even understand basic dimensions of a passenger jet and think that just because it is heavy it would disintegrate upon impact. A 747 blew up and crashed into the ocean yet the NTSB was able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together. I know you punks will ignore any comparisons you don't like but at least you can't say nobody pointed it out.

No matter how crystal clear, obvious and accurate something is you MFTLPAs always say "it isn't possible" as a way of trying to support a claim you cannot support. You don't even understand basic physics and you cannot grasp the dimensions of a passenger jet and you are incapable of comprehending that because it is SO heavy and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact. Sub-retards like you ***** Troofer lying fuckwad treasonous scumbags compare that kind of impact with a 747 being blown-up and then crashing into the ocean, and you idiots then contend that since the NTSB was able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together, the entirely different scenario at Shanksville must be a "lie." I know you fuckstains will ignore the invalidity of your stupid baseless comparisons, but at least you can't say nobody pointed it out.

All Troofers are compulsive lying treasonous scumbag shit-fuckers.

 

[Fizz]

School time for Fizzbitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

read.

try to comprehend....

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

please tell me even one authority that has more experience with a hijacked jetliner crash than the FBI assisted by the NTSB. if you claim they are not an authority then who is?