• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom