Examples of plane crashes with minimal intact wreckage

1337m4n

Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
1337m4n
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
3,510
Aeroflot Nord Flight 821, Russia, 13 September 2008

PermPlaneCrashWreckage.jpg



Sosoliso Airlines, Nigeria, 10 December 2005

_41116776_policemenwalk_afp416.jpg



Airblue, Pakistan, 28 July 2010

103131567_blog_main_horizontal.jpg



Golden Aviation, Colorado, 2 October 1970

70-10-02-GregRecordsCrashSceneJune05MoreWreckage(400).jpg



Republic of China Air Force, 16 Aug 2010, Taiwan

Slight-Side-plane-crash.jpg





Truthers, what are your opinions on these wreckages?
 
impact5.jpg

USAF jet, high speed impact, what you see is what is left, small fragments.

impact3.jpg

Another military jet high speed impact like the speed Flight 93 impacted at; the largest fragments are in this photo.
 
These were not plane crashes. Someone just dumped a few bits of junk in a field and released a fake press story.;)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QrT6joi4gco/0.jpg

PSA 1771
Click to expand...

Which is (arguably) the best example to cite when a troofer starts screeching about United 93; the lack of wreckage, where's the plane in the hole, et cetera. A passenger plane hijacked and intentionally piloted directly into the ground at full speed in a suicide mission, and the end result of the crash looks much the same. Plus, unburnt paper was swirling around the site after the crash, and investigators found the suicide pilot's confession on an airsickness bag that was obviously made of the same indestructible material Atta's passport was. Obviously.

So obviously, David Burke was a CIA asset deployed by them to create an air crash that was obviously a dry run for their 9/11 plot, with the added bonus of giving a later group of CIA assets ammunition to defend the indefensible Official 9/11 Story™. :tinfoil
 
triforcharity said:
Why would ValuJet Flt. 592 be unfair?
Click to expand...

Because they actually found a few large pieces of the aircraft hull and were able to partially reconstruct the air craft. The plane landed in a deep swamp area and fragmented when it hit the bedrock. The difference in how the debris wound up has to do with the fact that the impact was "dampened" both by the water impact, and the layer of peat that sits on top of the bedrock. Unfortunately the passengers weren't so lucky. As I recall, several of them were never identified in the wreckage. Of course some people will look at pictures and reject the notion that anything was there because it wasn't "filmed" or because they "can't see 100 tons of plane" in pictures of the crash site, but consistency is a tough nail to crack with some people claiming 93's site was faked or otherwise.


eromitlab said:
Which is (arguably) the best example to cite when a troofer starts screeching about United 93; the lack of wreckage, where's the plane in the hole, et cetera. A passenger plane hijacked and intentionally piloted directly into the ground at full speed in a suicide mission, and the end result of the crash looks much the same. Plus, unburnt paper was swirling around the site after the crash, and investigators found the suicide pilot's confession on an airsickness bag that was obviously made of the same indestructible material Atta's passport was. Obviously.

So obviously, David Burke was a CIA asset deployed by them to create an air crash that was obviously a dry run for their 9/11 plot, with the added bonus of giving a later group of CIA assets ammunition to defend the indefensible Official 9/11 Story™. :tinfoil
Click to expand...

Good luck ever getting a Shankseville shoot down theorist to even acknowledge its existence... They avoid this crash like the bubonic plague
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Why would ValuJet Flt. 592 be unfair?
Click to expand...

Because, in RedIbis's world, if there are five air crashes that leave only small pieces of wreckage for the same reason as the reason claimed for UA93 to leave only small pieces of wreckage, but there's one air crash that leaves only small pieces of preckage for a different reason, then that disproves the claim. One inapplicable example always refutes a claim that's only supported by five relevant examples, even if you can't find a single counter-example.

Dave
 
RedIbis, what are your opinions on the other wreckages presented in this thread?

Are they shootdowns?
 
The centre section of PanAm 103 (wings, rear fuselage and tail) at lockerbie left a similar crater (there was a house there as well.....where did it go???).....the only identifiable parts were the aileron and flap screws.
The plane had partially broken up at altitude and wreckage was EVERWHERE but the main section of the aircraft came down in a near vertical dive and left almost nothing.

I lived in Scotland at the time and saw the hole with my own eyes...........

http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/2009/08/large_lockerbie1.JPG
 
sheeplesnshills said:
The centre section of PanAm 103 (wings, rear fuselage and tail) at lockerbie left a similar crater (there was a house there as well.....where did it go???).....the only identifiable parts were the aileron and flap screws.
The plane had partially broken up at altitude and wreckage was EVERWHERE but the main section of the aircraft came down in a near vertical dive and left almost nothing.

I lived in Scotland at the time and saw the hole with my own eyes...........

http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/2009/08/large_lockerbie1.JPG
Click to expand...

The pieces in the crater look like they are about the same size as that car.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because, in RedIbis's world, if there are five air crashes that leave only small pieces of wreckage for the same reason as the reason claimed for UA93 to leave only small pieces of wreckage, but there's one air crash that leaves only small pieces of preckage for a different reason, then that disproves the claim. One inapplicable example always refutes a claim that's only supported by five relevant examples, even if you can't find a single counter-example.

Dave
Click to expand...

Every one of those pics contains far more wreckage than the Shanksville site. To believe otherwise is delusional.
 
RedIbis said:
Every one of those pics contains far more wreckage than the Shanksville site. To believe otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Each one of those pictures contains more wreckage than is visible in photographs taken at the Shanksville site, but the convergence of evidence makes it at worst perfectly reasonable to believe that a similar quantity of wreckage was present at the Shanksville site, buried beneath the surface, where it was not apparent from photographs.

Dave
 
Infoexcavator said:
The pieces in the crater look like they are about the same size as that car.
Click to expand...

It rained parts of aircraft after the main section came down.....those are likely part that came down after the impact. The biggest part I saw was about 12 x 5 feet with windows in it. The nose fell separately and was largely intact.

Pan Am 103 was blown up at 30,000 feet at came down in two large peices (the main fuselage wings and tail, the nose and the rest as litter.......)

That hole was where a house stood, it was obliterated and its occupants killed, thats what high speed impact leave.....almost nothing visible
 
I love that we're to the point in history where truthers point to pictures of apples and say those are elephants.
 
TK0001 said:
I love that we're to the point in history where truthers point to pictures of apples and say those are elephants.
Click to expand...

Not even.

We're to the point in history where we're shoving apples into Truthers faces while they continue to ask where are the apples we promised them.

RedIbis: WHERE ARE THE APPLES YOU PROMISED ME?

1337m4n: They're right in front of you, geez are you blind? Stop shouting

RedIbis: WHERE ARE THE APPLES 1337m4n?

1337m4n: I JUST SHOVED ONE INTO YOUR MOUTH

RedIbis: *muffled* yoo prmsd me appls

1337m4n: JUST EAT IT ALREADY JESUS
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Not even.

We're to the point in history where we're shoving apples into Truthers faces while they continue to ask where are the apples we promised them.

RedIbis: WHERE ARE THE APPLES YOU PROMISED ME?

1337m4n: They're right in front of you, geez are you blind? Stop shouting

RedIbis: WHERE ARE THE APPLES 1337m4n?

1337m4n: I JUST SHOVED ONE INTO YOUR MOUTH

RedIbis: *muffled* yoo prmsd me appls

1337m4n: JUST EAT IT ALREADY JESUS
Click to expand...


ROFL

That is EXACTLY what talking to truthers is like these days.....
 
RedIbis said:
Every one of those pics contains far more wreckage than the Shanksville site. To believe otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has cozied up into bed with Dr. Judy and the other No Planers.

well, you'd CERTAINLY know delusion, Red.

Hutchinson Effect! Hurricane Powered Direct Energy Weapons! No Debris at Shanksville!

Someone remind me of this thread the next time Red whines about how unfair it is that we only pick on the craziest truthers, instead of mature, stable, No Planers like Dr. Judy, Red Ibis, and Killtown.
 
16.5 said:
Says the guy who has cozied up into bed with Dr. Judy and the other No Planers.

well, you'd CERTAINLY know delusion, Red.

Hutchinson Effect! Hurricane Powered Direct Energy Weapons! No Debris at Shanksville!

Someone remind me of this thread the next time Red whines about how unfair it is that we only pick on the craziest truthers, instead of mature, stable, No Planers like Dr. Judy, Red Ibis, and Killtown.
Click to expand...

Where have I ever supported any of Woods' ideas? You babble like a lunatic.
 
RedIbis said:
Where have I ever supported any of Woods' ideas? You babble like a lunatic.
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I know you seem to be all chuffed up, full of piss and vinegar, "Anyone who thinks a plane crashed at Shanksville is a babbling person with Dee-Lusion!" but one must remind oneself of one's obligations, Red.

Now, on to your question "Where has Red ever supported any of Judy's ideas?" Excellent question Red.

The answer: right here in this here thread.

You No Planers have a thanksgiving get together coming up? Say hi to Ace for me, and keep a close eye on your silverware, Hutchinson might cause it to float across the room! Oohhhhhh, scary!

/that reminds me, there is a piece of debris from Flight 93 in the Smithsonian. I wonder if Red ever saw that? Probably not
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Tsk, tsk, tsk, I know you seem to be all chuffed up, full of piss and vinegar, "Anyone who thinks a plane crashed at Shanksville is a babbling person with Dee-Lusion!" but one must remind oneself of one's obligations, Red.

Now, on to your question "Where has Red ever supported any of Judy's ideas?" Excellent question Red.

The answer: right here in this here thread.

You No Planers have a thanksgiving get together coming up? Say hi to Ace for me, and keep a close eye on your silverware, Hutchinson might cause it to float across the room! Oohhhhhh, scary!

/that reminds me, there is a piece of debris from Flight 93 in the Smithsonian. I wonder if Red ever saw that? Probably not
Click to expand...

The Smithsonian is in on it.
 
Quad4_72 said:
The Smithsonian is in on it.
Click to expand...

No, no, no... The Smithsonian is

DELUSIONAL!!

I and know it is true, because Red told me so.

The new Mount Rushmore is going to have:

Dr Judy, Dr Hutchinson, Red Ibis and Killtown on it.

Oh look at me, just babbling away!
 
sheeplesnshills said:
The centre section of PanAm 103 (wings, rear fuselage and tail) at lockerbie left a similar crater (there was a house there as well.....where did it go???).....the only identifiable parts were the aileron and flap screws.
The plane had partially broken up at altitude and wreckage was EVERWHERE but the main section of the aircraft came down in a near vertical dive and left almost nothing.

I lived in Scotland at the time and saw the hole with my own eyes...........
Click to expand...

The house was dustified - it just went 'poof':cool:

large_lockerbie1.JPG
 
Notice on this video, clear evidence of 'fuming' at the crash site.



10 sec into this video, a fake passport planted at the scene - no way it could have survived the crash.



Notice in this picture there is no plane - nothing crashed here. There are no serial numbers for the plane in this picture, therefore it is fake.

incrater.jpg


This Plymouth hubcap has clearly been planted in the hole. The men are caught in the act planting the evidence

digging.jpg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Every one of those pics contains far more wreckage than the Shanksville site. To believe otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...

Above ground, yes. But Flt 93 moire closely resembled the Value Jet site than it did the Caspian Airlines site. Both Flt 93 and Value Jet went down in substrate that would reseal the entry hole behind them. Water and sand act the same way.

Heavy clay acts more like stone. This did not, however, keep Klipsch's Spitfire from blasting a hole big enough that the pancaked remains were completely below ground level. That it went almost perfectly straight down into the hole kept it from scattering.

The wide-spread, indentifiable debris that you expect to find only occurs when the debris is allowed to fan out because it is not buried.
Both Value Jet and Klipsch show that the entire empanage CAN follow the rest of the aircraft into the crater, even below ground level, at a sufficient speed.
 
There are loads of WWII crash sites, including heavy bombers, that have been excavated over the years. Often the only way of pinpointing where to dig is by using metal detectors after asking the local farmer roughly where the aircraft came down.

"Engines" (rather parts thereof) are often found under several feet of earth (which isn't surprising).
 
TK0001 said:
I love that we're to the point in history where truthers point to pictures of apples and say those are elephants.
Click to expand...

I find the thought processes of truthers to be both baffling and fascinating.
 
RedIbis said:
Every one of those pics contains far more wreckage than the Shanksville site. To believe otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...
Please get some new glasses!
Why do get everything about 911 wrong? USAF crashes were smaller planes, thus you are wrong because by weight flight 93 beats the two USAF crash sites. Your judgment is clouded by your obsession with Gravy.

Here is the CVR, did not see that at the other crashes...
93VDR.jpg

... this was buried 20 feet in the ground due to E=1/2mv2, you know, physics, something 911 truth can't do. Parts underground, did you miss that day in physics?
Thousands of parts, Flight 93!
flt93debris18sm.jpg

Thousands of parts, Flight 93!
flt93debris8sm.jpg

Thousands of parts, Flight 93!
flt93debris21sm.jpg

Thousands of parts, Flight 93!
flt93debris9sm.jpg

flt93debris11e.jpg

More parts, Flight 93
flt93debris12.jpg

flt93debris11g.jpg

The impact of Flight 93 was at a speed ~600 mph, the energy was equal to 1600 pounds of TNT, this is why the parts are all over. I have worked accident site with less energy at impact and objects were ejected over 300 feet away.
You failed this time; you could have take a course in aircraft accident investigation in 9 years instead of failing for 9 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom