The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info
Post Reply
Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Sun May 13, 2012 2:27 am

Pieces of all passengers were located, identified. The black box was found and transcribed. Nothing was missing. Nothing vaporized.
Dr. Michael Baden, the state's chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, said in September that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires had not reached the 3,200 degree (F), 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body.

"Recovered tissues will likely be identified," Baden said, because "bodies are not cremated — or burnt beyond the ability to be identified — in the type of fire that occurred at the World Trade Center. The cremation of a body requires a temperature of over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit for close to half an hour... and that did not occur when the airplanes struck the World Trade Center."
To put things in perspective, the temperature of a normal house fire is about 1700 degrees (F); jet fuel burns at a temperature a little lower than that. In a normal house fire of 1700 degrees, the body is charred on the outside but remains intact on the inside; it is not reduced to ashes," he said.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FCsqayKrSM

When a plane crashes the tail section usually survives.
Image

Sometimes fully.
Image

Sometimes partially.

Image

And even in very violent crashes where nothing looks to be left...

Image

► Uncontrolled Descent and Collision With Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585
"The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder were in the impact crater, damaged severely by impact and fire.
The horizontal stabilizer was in the crater, in pieces and severely burned. The horizontal stabilizer parts were located at the top of the pile of destroyed airplane debris." – NTST
B


the tail still survives.
Image



On a Boeing 757, the tail section is HUGE.

Image
Image

Well so much for the samuri theory.
Image


Between the four airplanes which allegedly crashed on 911 there should be
approximately 9 million parts. 3 million parts each for the 767 and 1.5
million parts for the 757. In addition to the parts there should be 60 miles
of wiring for each 757 or 120 miles for both. There is 90 miles of wiring
on each 767 which makes 180 miles for both 767's. Wiring is stamped every 12
inches or so with data which includes where it is going, where it is coming
from and its maximum load capacity. The reason for this is that wiring is
braided into bundles of up to one hundred wires and when you are tracing
down a problem you have to know quickly which wire you are looking for and
identify it.


Every single part on a Transport Category airplane which means it is
certificated to the standards of CFR14 (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 25
of the U.S. Federal Air Regulations and to be certificated either it has to
be made by the factory (Boeing) itself or subcontracted to another parts
maker. If it is made by another parts maker that parts maker has to be
inspected by the FAA and given PMA Parts Manufacturer Authority.


There should be At least 1 million parts scattered in that crash site.
There should be body parts at least of 37 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants.
Image

NONE.


Image
Image

MrSinclair
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by MrSinclair » Mon May 14, 2012 2:28 am

Equinox, that is a really excellent post and it just points to the utter absurdity of that pathetic hole in the ground. Of all the staged aspects of this media event that has to be perhaps the most laughable. :D :lol:

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Maat » Mon May 14, 2012 12:35 pm

burlington wrote:
Equinox wrote: Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.
They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...
But of course all planes that crash are going really, really fast. Do you mind if I post photos of a different plane crash for comparison sake? This DC-8 (Flight 621) also flipped over (because it lost 2 engines and most of one wing) and hit the ground going very fast, nose pointed almost straight down by the time it reached the earth (according to a farmer and two golfers). The wreckage and bodies scattered over the farmer's field in an area described as being "the size of half a city block". Pieces of all passengers were located, identified. The black box was found and transcribed. Nothing was missing. Nothing vaporized.
Burlington, I must ask you (and as a general reminder for all) to please provide your reference sources for quotes with links to the original sites of photos etc. when posting images. Researchers need verifiable information to work with (it also saves everyone time pasting image urls into Google's image finder to source them.) Thanks :) e.g.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/i ... 1crash.jpg

@ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVN ... 100703/NFL

Also ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Mon May 14, 2012 1:05 pm

MrSinclair wrote:Equinox, that is a really excellent post and it just points to the utter absurdity of that pathetic hole in the ground. Of all the staged aspects of this media event that has to be perhaps the most laughable. :D :lol:
Thanks Buddy, All research is free and dedicated to those who have lost thier lives as a result of 9/11.

Yes UA 93 is what I first researched before I got into fakery...

It is def a major smoking gun...

Full Post here...
When a plane crashes the tail section usually survives.
Image

Sometimes fully.
Image

Sometimes partially.
Image

And even in very violent crashes where nothing looks to be left...
Image


the tail still survives.
Image



► Uncontrolled Descent and Collision With Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585
"The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder were in the impact crater, damaged severely by impact and fire.
The horizontal stabilizer was in the crater, in pieces and severely burned. The horizontal stabilizer parts were located at the top of the pile of destroyed airplane debris." – NTSB


On a Boeing 757, the tail section is HUGE.
Image

So that begs the question:
What happened to Flight 93's tail section???
Image


Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.
They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...
Image
Image

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...
Image
"80% of the plane was in the crater."
- UA93 Memorial ambassador

in which the tail struck the ground really, really hard, thereby causing it to shatter into a million little pieces too small to be seen from a distance.
Image
Wow!
Can you imagine what the ground that was described as:

► On Hallowed Ground
"To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground..." - The Age (09/09/02)

Is a massive Boeing 757'tail shattering against the ground going to look like a fragile wine glass dropped on a hard surface?!
Image
Image


You would think that a huge visible mark would be left in the "loose and uncompacted" soil just like the marks the wings supposedly made...
Image
Image



and not some perfect imprint of itself like you see in the cartoons.
Image


I mean that would just be ridiculous to believe!
So that begs another question:

Why IS there a "Wile E. Coyote" tail imprint in the ground?
Image
Image
Image
Image

Image
WTF???
Who would have thought that a Boeing 757's tail would leave a near-exact impression of itself after striking loose dirt so hard that it was essentially obliterated by it?

Maybe its tail acted like a Samurai sword instead and sliced cleanly through the ground like we are supposed to believe Flight 175's tail did through the South WTC Tower's steel facade?
Image
Image


Well apparently not because whatever made that "tail imprint" in that Shanksville field didn't even penetrate through the ground!
Image
Image



Well so much for the Samurai sword theory.
Image

So how in the world could Flight 93's tail slam down so hard against loose soil that it shatters against it like a dropped wine glass, but looks as if it was just lowered down on its edge thereby leaving a faint impression of itself in the grass from its own weight?
Image

Could it be that this "tail imprint" is something else and just by chance looks like a tail imprint?
Well I suppose, but is it just another coincidence that there is another imprint in the ground that looks to have come from the left horizontal stabilizer?
Image
Image
Image
Image



Of course that begs yet another question:

Did Flight 93 suffer from "taco neck"?
Image
Image


Maybe Flight 93 kept spinning on its right-side as it burrowed into the ground causing the right tail to strike in the imprint created by the right wing?
Well not according to the NTSB’s flight path animation as it shows Flight 93 spinning slightly back to the left before it supposedly hit.
Image


But something else really proves that the right tail didn't strike inside the right wing's imprint.

The ground!
Image
Image



So we have quite a mystery here.
How can Flight 93's tail section do this:
Image


Yet only leave this:
Image
Image

burlington
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:03 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by burlington » Tue May 15, 2012 3:12 am

Maat wrote: Burlington, I must ask you (and as a general reminder for all) to please provide your reference sources for quotes with links to the original sites of photos etc. when posting images. Researchers need verifiable information to work with (it also saves everyone time pasting image urls into Google's image finder to source them.) Thanks :) e.g.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/i ... 1crash.jpg

@ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVN ... 100703/NFL

Also ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621
Sorry, you've had to tell me that twice now, Maat. I'll try to be more careful in future. That particular accident happened when I lived 8 miles from Toronto Airport, and I've known the details for so long I was forgetting I need to cite my post.

Anonymouse
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:02 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Anonymouse » Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:03 am

I think "ridiculous" is an understatement by the look of that so-called debris field. It's almost as if they didn't have a single "Air Crash Investigation" fan in their planning circle.

However, I am. Zomigosh...so absurd!
Equinox wrote: Image
However I should point out the above picture isn't the best for comparison, since that was from the Helios flight featured on the "Ghost Plane" episode of Air Crash Investigation, which had essentially no fuel at the time of impact. I know that it doesn't invalidate your point at all, only that it's an example that is subject to such a rebuttal.

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Maat » Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:38 am

Anonymouse wrote:I think "ridiculous" is an understatement by the look of that so-called debris field. It's almost as if they didn't have a single "Air Crash Investigation" fan in their planning circle.

However, I am. Zomigosh...so absurd!
Equinox wrote: Image
However I should point out the above picture isn't the best for comparison, since that was from the Helios flight featured on the "Ghost Plane" episode of Air Crash Investigation, which had essentially no fuel at the time of impact. I know that it doesn't invalidate your point at all, only that it's an example that is subject to such a rebuttal.
Yes, good point, Anonymouse. Nonhocapito recently added a reminder above the post submit button re source links so everything we post can be verified and compared accordingly.

i.e. Greek Helios Airways Flt 522 in 2005:
@ http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displ ... r=8&kind=C

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 20050814-0

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:44 am

I have opened a dedicated thread for "FLIGHT 93" here:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2371047

(Warning: thread takes ages to upload due to Equinox's very large Flight 93 analysis.)

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Maat » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:52 pm

Thank you, Simon :) I couldn't do anything with it, or even read the last post here, it just kept bouncing back :(

I would recommend opening it in a new tab & leaving it for a while until it loads ;)

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by fbenario » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:18 am

Maat wrote:I would recommend opening it in a new tab & leaving it for a while until it loads ;)
Excellent suggestion, I just did that myself - before I read this post of yours! Worked like a charm.

Post Reply