Question about Shanksville crash

[Fizz]

Someone forgot to send out the memo saying your petty whining is supposed to have meaning. It has none. All it does is show you're a crybaby Snitch Bitch that is so stoopid you try to compare an F4 to a 757.

you're right... the F4 should hold up much better than a 757.

It's one of the dumbest fuxxing comparisons....ever...on any issue.

why? you got a better one? (thats a simple yes or no question. let's see if you evade that one too!!)

 

[HUGGY]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction. I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash. In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait. This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's my functioning that got me to go:

"hmmm...not very valid to try and compare a two seater plane to a two hundred seater plane for crash debris."

It's like a troofer trying to compare a barbie house to the towers to prove explosives were used.

the jet fighter was only to show what happens to a plane at high speed when hitting concrete, but you are too fucking stupid to understand that analogy

So why are you punks scared of comparing other 757 cashes? Here's a pic of a 757 that crashed into a mountain.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: American 965

After looking at the pic it's understandable why you avoid such comparisons........

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

 

[CurveLight]

you're right... the F4 should hold up much better than a 757.

It's one of the dumbest fuxxing comparisons....ever...on any issue.

why? you got a better one? (thats a simple yes or no question. let's see if you evade that one too!!)

"How do you put your foot in your mouth on the internet?"

"I don't know. Ask Fizz, he managed both feet up to his kneecaps."

(see #1057)

 

[HUGGY]

the jet fighter was only to show what happens to a plane at high speed when hitting concrete, but you are too fucking stupid to understand that analogy

So why are you punks scared of comparing other 757 cashes? Here's a pic of a 757 that crashed into a mountain.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: American 965

After looking at the pic it's understandable why you avoid such comparisons........

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So why are you punks scared of comparing other 757 cashes? Here's a pic of a 757 that crashed into a mountain.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: American 965

After looking at the pic it's understandable why you avoid such comparisons........

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

 

[DiveCon]

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

its the "full throttle" comment that he is fixated on
and while i agree with you that the plane was doing a near nose dive directly into the ground, i have not heard or seen anything that says the plane was at "full throttle"

 

[DiveCon]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction. I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash. In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait. This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

 

[SFC Ollie]

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

its the "full throttle" comment that he is fixated on
and while i agree with you that the plane was doing a near nose dive directly into the ground, i have not heard or seen anything that says the plane was at "full throttle"

True, however If I were a religious extremist dead set on crashing an Airplane and killing myself and everyone on board, I'm pretty sure I would be at full throttle.

 

[Fizz]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

FUCKING LIAR

"The jet fuel smell was really strong, and it was eerily quiet. It was really unnerving and surreal."
Courage after the crash: Flight 93 ... - Google Books

 

[CurveLight]

the jet fighter was only to show what happens to a plane at high speed when hitting concrete, but you are too fucking stupid to understand that analogy

So why are you punks scared of comparing other 757 cashes? Here's a pic of a 757 that crashed into a mountain.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: American 965

After looking at the pic it's understandable why you avoid such comparisons........

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

You're such an amateur. Did you see the word "stalled" and go "Yippee! I found an escape hatch so I don't have to make a comparison!"

Let's go back to your two seater plane comparisons.....that makes so much more sense.

 

[HUGGY]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction. I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash. In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait. This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

There you go Ollie straying off the path... Alcohol evaporates at room temp.. it isn't the liquid that catches fire..it is the fumes. Jet fuel does not evaporate at room temp or even close to it. Your comparison is bogus. Wrong as wrong can be. Most of the jet fuel would have been absorbed and not evaporated into combustable fuel for a fire. The residual jet fuel ..after the fire burned out would have not been subtle. The stench of unburned jet fuel would have been overwelming. The air in the immediate vicinity would probably not been breathable for several days.

 

[DiveCon]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction. I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash. In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait. This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.

hey dipshit, that was the REPORTER saying he didnt smell jet fuel
not a first responder

 

[CurveLight]

"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew initiated a climb, but failed to retract the spoilers. The aircraft stalled and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

Good point! Flight 93 hit the ground over a mine. Flight 965 hit the much softer terrain of a.......mountain.

Amateur.

 

[DiveCon]

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

There you go Ollie straying off the path... Alcohol evaporates at room temp.. it isn't the liquid that catches fire..it is the fumes. Jet fuel does not evaporate at room temp or even close to it. Your comparison is bogus. Wrong as wrong can be. Most of the jet fuel would have been absorbed and not evaporated into combustable fuel for a fire. The residual jet fuel ..after the fire burned out would have not been subtle. The stench of unburned jet fuel would have been overwelming. The air in the immediate vicinity would probably not been breathable for several days.

well, it turns out bentdick lied

 

[DiveCon]

I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the first thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions.. It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

Good point! Flight 93 hit the ground over a mine. Flight 965 hit the much softer terrain of a.......mountain.

Amateur.

holy shit
the mountain would have been harder than landfill, dipshit

 

[DiveCon]

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

There you go Ollie straying off the path... Alcohol evaporates at room temp.. it isn't the liquid that catches fire..it is the fumes. Jet fuel does not evaporate at room temp or even close to it. Your comparison is bogus. Wrong as wrong can be. Most of the jet fuel would have been absorbed and not evaporated into combustable fuel for a fire. The residual jet fuel ..after the fire burned out would have not been subtle. The stench of unburned jet fuel would have been overwelming. The air in the immediate vicinity would probably not been breathable for several days.

that doesnt mean it wouldnt have burned

 

[CurveLight]

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction. I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash. In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait. This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.

Interesting point about the smell of fuel. In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable. This is an easy question to verify. Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand. Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit. OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two. take a sniff... dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff. No smell of fuel at the site. IMPOSSIBLE!

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

Lol! Dude! Stick to ad homs! You're actually trying to discredit the first responders because the crash site was in a rural area? Rotfl!

 

[CurveLight]

What part of initiated a climb and turn the wrong way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.

its the "full throttle" comment that he is fixated on
and while i agree with you that the plane was doing a near nose dive directly into the ground, i have not heard or seen anything that says the plane was at "full throttle"

True, however If I were a religious extremist dead set on crashing an Airplane and killing myself and everyone on board, I'm pretty sure I would be at full throttle.

Oh...it's the famous OCTA Ball. (like a crystal ball)

You peered into the Ball and clearly saw who was controlling the throttle. That's neato!

 

[HUGGY]

would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out

There you go Ollie straying off the path... Alcohol evaporates at room temp.. it isn't the liquid that catches fire..it is the fumes. Jet fuel does not evaporate at room temp or even close to it. Your comparison is bogus. Wrong as wrong can be. Most of the jet fuel would have been absorbed and not evaporated into combustable fuel for a fire. The residual jet fuel ..after the fire burned out would have not been subtle. The stench of unburned jet fuel would have been overwelming. The air in the immediate vicinity would probably not been breathable for several days.

that doesnt mean it wouldnt have burned

"It" meaning all or even most? Can't buy that. If it was a 757 obviously there would have been a source of ignition caused by the crash. But still almost all of the fuel would have splashed directly into the earth making it shy of oxygen. Hey ...if you are curious go buy some briquette lighter fluid which is almost identical to jet fuel and try my previosly explained experiment. I gaurantee that there will be plenty of fluid saturated sand after the fire dies out.