Latest airplane accident

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Latest airplane accident; compare with Shansville
Topic Started: Aug 21 2008, 10:16 AM (497 Views)
FUNWO	Aug 21 2008, 10:16 AM Post #1
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	Here are some pictures of the latest plane crash in Spain. Some 153 were believed dead in Madrid. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424.html#backToArticle=573536 http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/Catastrofe/aerea/aeropuerto/Barajas/5729-1/elpgal/ See also the staff that was there: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424-16.html#backToArticle=573536 http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424-18.html#backToArticle=573536 Do you see any differences? I do.
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


Flippy	Aug 21 2008, 10:37 AM Post #2
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	I do too
Posts: 578 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Grit1645	Aug 21 2008, 10:41 AM Post #3
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	FUNWO Aug 21 2008, 10:16 AM Here are some pictures of the latest plane crash in Spain. Some 153 were believed dead in Madrid. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424.html#backToArticle=573536 http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/Catastrofe/aerea/aeropuerto/Barajas/5729-1/elpgal/ See also the staff that was there: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424-16.html#backToArticle=573536 http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34424-18.html#backToArticle=573536 Do you see any differences? I do. Ok, but why wouldn't you see differences? Or, maybe I should ask, what relevant differences do you see?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


outside	Aug 21 2008, 11:11 AM Post #4
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08	Debris after an airplane crash? What a joke, must be fake.
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08


ShaDow	Aug 21 2008, 12:18 PM Post #5
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08	The plane just took off, then crashed like within a minute. It was not going at 500MPH like flight 93. Pretty lame comparing there..
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08


FUNWO	Aug 21 2008, 01:00 PM Post #6
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	"We're saying that the scene in Shansville, again, is not consistent with a jumbo jet crashing into the ground. Whether or not it was shot down, or crashed by Ziad Jarrah, because he knew that, you know, the passengers were coming in and they were going to storm the cockpit, regardless of what happened to that plane in the air.. You know again, the crash scene, you've got a 15-foot crater, you've got small whiffs of white smoke coming up, you've got no substantial debris. I mean, if you look at any plane crash, there is a huge gouge in the earth, usually from some kind of a trail where the plane skidded to a stop, you've got, at the very least, the nose and the tail. Granted, sometimes the fuselage will melt away, but you still have a large tail section, wings, engines, and the cockpit. And again, at Flight 93, you've got a crater about as big as this hotel room, you've got small whiffs of white smoke, you know, you've got 10,000 gallons of jet fuel that just ignited, and you're telling me it all basically just vaporized, and you've got white smoke trailing off."
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


ShaDow	Aug 21 2008, 01:13 PM Post #7
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08	"you've got a 15-foot crater" The plane went almost straight down at 500mph it's not gonna bounce up and explode. "you've got no substantial debris" Really i've seen the FDR, some fuselage and and what looks to be part of an engine. "usually from some kind of a trail where the plane skidded to a stop" The plane went almost straight down into the ground, its not gonna pull out and skid.
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08


FUNWO	Aug 21 2008, 01:29 PM Post #8
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	Those were the wise words from Dylan Avery: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911avery.html ShaDow, somehow you think that flight 93 went down at 500mph. Do you have some evidence to support and confirm that figure. Are you the one who could read the flight data recordings from flight 93 that were found September 13th? http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp Just share with us your sources to be certain that your claims are based on facts.
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


ShaDow	Aug 22 2008, 06:22 AM Post #9
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08	I'm going from what I've been told by the official story and Ntsb, until I see evidence that over rides that.. I'm gonna believe it.
Posts: 104 Group: Members Member #612 Joined: 05/27/08


FUNWO	Aug 22 2008, 06:53 AM Post #10
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	Ok, so you BELIEVE in something without evidence. I thought that mankind nowadays was influeced by the scientific efforts and know that they do crimal researches based of empirical data, facts and evidence. You gain empirical data by observation. You can compare everything. And that means that you do not campare only for the purpose to find a perfect match. But if you believe in something then you should not claim twice that it went at 500 mph. You should have said 'if the theory is right that it went about 500 mph then...[fill the blank]'. The problem is that your premise is baseless and therefore all your other other sentences went into the dust bin. That means that 'Pretty lame comparing there..' was a pretty stupid remark. I hope it is not a dogma for you to question the official fabel.
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


Grit1645	Aug 22 2008, 07:05 AM Post #11
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	FUNWO Aug 22 2008, 06:53 AM Ok, so you BELIEVE in something without evidence. I thought that mankind nowadays was influeced by the scientific efforts and know that they do crimal researches based of empirical data, facts and evidence. You gain empirical data by observation. You can compare everything. And that means that you do not campare only for the purpose to find a perfect match. But if you believe in something then you should not claim twice that it went at 500 mph. You should have said 'if the theory is right that it went about 500 mph then...[fill the blank]'. The problem is that your premise is baseless and therefore all your other other sentences went into the dust bin. That means that 'Pretty lame comparing there..' was a pretty stupid remark. I hope it is not a dogma for you to question the official fabel. It seems to me that you are the one for whom it is dogma to question the "official fable"?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Aug 22 2008, 07:11 AM Post #12
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	FUNWO Aug 22 2008, 06:53 AM Ok, so you BELIEVE in something without evidence. ok and you believe a plane didn't crash there. so where is the evidence that it flew away? any eyewitnesses to a fly over?
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


FUNWO	Aug 22 2008, 08:27 AM Post #13
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	Domenick DiMaggio ok and you believe a plane didn't crash there. so where is the evidence that it flew away? any eyewitnesses to a fly over? Domenick, is this the kind of questions you ask the people you interview? If so, then you suck at asking questions. We are talking here about "500 mph". Why are you trying to put up a different topic here and where did I made any claims to make you ask those wild questions? Just tell me if you have evidence that it flew 500 mph. If you do not have any then you can believe everything you want about it, but you may call it a theory. I have read your research and based on the testimony of your eyewitnesses and on the other other empirical data I saw the theory that flight 93 was shot down is the best working theory I know of and it may have a high probability to be right. Do I need to believe in that theory and claim it to be the only possible explanation? Certainly not. I am a Truther and I believe 98,5 % that 9/11 was a false flag operation and at least partly an inside job, but there is still 1,5% probability that I am wrong. There is no law of nature in this world you can be 100% certain of. There is always a smarter scientist who finds out that the theory you had is not 100% accurate. Edited by FUNWO, Aug 22 2008, 08:29 AM.
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Aug 22 2008, 09:42 AM Post #14
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	FUNWO Aug 22 2008, 08:27 AM Domenick DiMaggio ok and you believe a plane didn't crash there. so where is the evidence that it flew away? any eyewitnesses to a fly over? Domenick, is this the kind of questions you ask the people you interview? If so, then you suck at asking questions. We are talking here about "500 mph". Why are you trying to put up a different topic here and where did I made any claims to make you ask those wild questions? Just tell me if you have evidence that it flew 500 mph. If you do not have any then you can believe everything you want about it, but you may call it a theory. I have read your research and based on the testimony of your eyewitnesses and on the other other empirical data I saw the theory that flight 93 was shot down is the best working theory I know of and it may have a high probability to be right. Do I need to believe in that theory and claim it to be the only possible explanation? Certainly not. I am a Truther and I believe 98,5 % that 9/11 was a false flag operation and at least partly an inside job, but there is still 1,5% probability that I am wrong. There is no law of nature in this world you can be 100% certain of. There is always a smarter scientist who finds out that the theory you had is not 100% accurate. let me apologize, i thought you were making the argument that there was no plane. the fdr data and cvr transcripts are fakes. there is no evidence conclusively proving any speed because the data is phony and eyewitnesses are not a reliable source for exact numbers. the average human being couldn't judge 300mph from 500mph accurately i am sure. you don't have to commit to any theory. the only theory i commit to is that the official theory is a fabrication. although i agree the shoot down evidence is the strongest argument.
Posts: 2,005 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


FUNWO	Aug 22 2008, 12:48 PM Post #15
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08	It was an misunderstanding then. No problem.
Posts: 121 Group: Members Member #493 Joined: 04/13/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic »