| Viewing Single Post From: Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers | |
|---|---|
| Mick | May 22 2009, 01:42 PM |
|
Looking at your small photo of flight 427; I would have not known it was an airliner crash site unless I was told so. It looks like a garbage dump in the forest. Of course it looks different than the flight 93 site. If flight 93 was moving at 500 mph at impact and flight 427 was at 300 mph (from what I read about them), then flight 93’s kinetic energy was about 2.7 times higher per unit mass. Taking into account the different aircraft, speeds and possibly ground composition, it is not surprising that photos of each site differ. I am repeating questions in an attempt to get a direct answer. First I asked, “Can we start off with what experience Barron had with airliner crashes that would have left him or her with any certain preconceptions of what the crash site is supposed to look like?” You answered with, “well for starters when a 100 ton 757 crashes and the government claims to have recovered over 90% of it i expect to see 90 tons of debris at the site.” After I repeated my request, you responded with “to the best of my knowledge the locals who went to the scene expected to see what you find when 757's crash…..” and “they dont have to spend years taking courses and classes to be able to recognize a crashed 757.” Then finally you say “i don't expect them to know its a 757. i expect them to know its an airplane.” All I was really hoping for when I asked for an answer to my original question was yes or no. Instead you go from expecting a lay person to know that a 757 crashed at Shanksville to not expecting them to know it was a 757. You are being remarkably inconsistent in your replies and appear to be goading me into something by your attitude. You could be more polite. I take a hole in the ground to be part of the evidence of a plane crash. Nowhere did I ever say it was the sole proof. My analogy of a bullet shot into the ground was not meant to be proportional to an airplane crash. It is rude of you to suggest otherwise. It was merely meant to demonstrate that an object can bury itself farther down than the bottom of the crater. I fail to see how you can not understand this. There is not 90 tons of aluminum in any 757, the empty weight is about 64 tons or so, not all of that aluminum. Hyperbole is not suitable here. I have never read any claims that the entire aircraft was contained in the crater, have you? I do not believe in magic and I also think that parts of the 757 were in, under and outside of the crater. |
 |
|
| Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers · Skeptics | |
8:15 PM Nov 29
