Question about Shanksville crash

[SFC Ollie]

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 that because it is SO heavy and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact. Sub-retards like you pussy Troofer lying fuckwads 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.

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

 

[CurveLight]

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?

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

 

[Liability]

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?

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

When giving "examples," the ones chosen should make sense. Yours don't, fucktard.

A prosecutor is an authority in some things. So is the judge. So is the defense attorney. so are the witnesses who were there and thus in a position to speak with more authority on the events than any of the other folks just mentioned, you asshole.

If a lawyer at a trial calls an "expert witness" on some matter of importance to determining the facts, that expert gets cross examined not just on his general expertise, but also on any biases AND on WHETHER or NOT he happens to be talking from a position of any specific knowledge of the relevant facts in dispute. The expert is not called for the purpose, you moron, of engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You don't have the foggiest goddamn notion about the term of logic you keep erroneously bandying about, you menstrual blood clot imbecile.

But when the FBI, working with the NTSB, engages in a hands on investigation AT the location, their observations and conclusions ARE relevant and their expertise is clearly genuine; and it is NOT in any way a fallacy to seek their factual testimony and their expert conclusions precisely BECAUSE they have the requisite expertise.

AGAIN, you are a lying imbecile. What you are attempting to argue (but for some reason you remain far too dishonest to use the correct terminology) is that they may be "lying." Anything is possible, but that one is a fucking stretch and there are no sound reasons to speculate along those stupid lines, you asshole.

Your argument still has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

 

[Rat in the Hat]

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 that because it is SO heavy and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact. Sub-retards like you pussy Troofer lying fuckwads 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.

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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 that because it is SO heavy and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact. Sub-retards like you pussy Troofer lying fuckwads 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.

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

Well it's obvious that your teachers were not Truthers, or they may have taught you truther physics.

 

[CurveLight]

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?

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

When giving "examples," the ones chosen should make sense. Yours don't, fucktard.

A prosecutor is an authority in some things. So is the judge. So is the defense attorney. so are the witnesses who were there and thus in a position to speak with more authority on the events than any of the other folks just mentioned, you asshole.

If a lawyer at a trial calls an "expert witness" on some matter of importance to determining the facts, that expert gets cross examined not just on his general expertise, but also on any biases AND on WHETHER or NOT he happens to be talking from a position of any specific knowledge of the relevant facts in dispute. The expert is not called for the purpose, you moron, of engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You don't have the foggiest goddamn notion about the term of logic you keep erroneously bandying about, you menstrual blood clot imbecile.

But when the FBI, working with the NTSB, engages in a hands on investigation AT the location, their observations and conclusions ARE relevant and their expertise is clearly genuine; and it is NOT in any way a fallacy to seek their factual testimony and their expert conclusions precisely BECAUSE they have the requisite expertise.

AGAIN, you are a lying imbecile. What you are attempting to argue (but for some reason you remain far too dishonest to use the correct terminology) is that they may be "lying." Anything is possible, but that one is a fucking stretch and there are no sound reasons to speculate along those stupid lines, you asshole.

Your argument still has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

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


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

 

[Fizz]

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

i didnt ignore your link. i read it. i also read mine. i still dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that the FBI and NIST are not authorities on an airline hijacking and crash. please state who is more of an authority than them.

twa 800 was an airplane that exploded while climbing over water. i dont see how that relates to an airplane intentionally put into the ground at high speed . i dont even see the relevance of comparing the investigations when twa 800's cause was unkown and flight 93's cause was known to have been hijacked even before it hit the ground.

 

[CurveLight]

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 that because it is SO heavy and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact. Sub-retards like you pussy Troofer lying fuckwads 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.

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

Guess you missed the point. The NTSB did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi. That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise. So why couldn't the same happen with 9E? Hell, we even have a post 9E terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9E and the NTSB did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage. Do you get it yet dumfuk?

 

[CurveLight]

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

i didnt ignore your link. i read it. i also read mine. i still dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that the FBI and NIST are not authorities on an airline hijacking and crash. please state who is more of an authority than them.

twa 800 was an airplane that exploded while climbing over water. i dont see how that relates to an airplane intentionally put into the ground at high speed . i dont even see the relevance of comparing the investigations when twa 800's cause was unkown and flight 93's cause was known to have been hijacked even before it hit the ground.

The NTSB did not do an investigation. Tomorrow we will discuss reasons why you don't stick your bare hands in an open flame.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

Guess you missed the point. The NTSB did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi. That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise. So why couldn't the same happen with 9E? Hell, we even have a post 9E terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9E and the NTSB did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage. Do you get it yet dumfuk?

I get it completely. They were able to re-construct flight 800 due to the pieces fluttering down to the ocean, and big enough to be salvaged and reconstructed.

However, that does not equate to an airliner power-diving into solid ground, and being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????

 

[Fizz]

The NTSB did not do an investigation. .

really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?

 

[eots]

it becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

guess you missed the point. The ntsb did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi. That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise. So why couldn't the same happen with 9e? Hell, we even have a post 9e terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9e and the ntsb did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage. Do you get it yet dumfuk?

i get it completely. They were able to re-construct flight 800 due to the pieces fluttering down to the ocean, and big enough to be salvaged and reconstructed.

However, that does not equate to an airliner power-diving into solid ground, and being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????

so are you saying the claimed 95% recovery consisted mainly of metal filings ?

 

[Fizz]

so are you saying the claimed 95% recovery consisted mainly of metal filings ?

that isnt what he said at all.

stoned again?

 

[eots]

being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????

really ?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

guess you missed the point. The ntsb did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi. That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise. So why couldn't the same happen with 9e? Hell, we even have a post 9e terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9e and the ntsb did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage. Do you get it yet dumfuk?

i get it completely. They were able to re-construct flight 800 due to the pieces fluttering down to the ocean, and big enough to be salvaged and reconstructed.

However, that does not equate to an airliner power-diving into solid ground, and being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????

so are you saying the claimed 95% recovery consisted mainly of metal filings ?

No, what I'm saying is that an aircraft hitting solid ground is incapable of being re-constructed in the same manner as an aircraft exploding at altitude and the pieces falling to the ocean surface.

 

[eots]

So planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?

 

[CurveLight]

The NTSB did not do an investigation. .

really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

So planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?

A plane that power-dived nose first in PA at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?

 

[eots]

so planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?

a plane that power-dived nose first in pa at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?

it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history

 

[Fizz]

The NTSB did not do an investigation. .

really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)