How much Flight 93 debris was found under the ground (in the crater) versus above ground???

[spooked911]

Poll question: How much Flight 93 debris was found under the ground (in the crater) versus above ground???

Clearly this question has generated some controversy--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=238479&mesg_id=238479

though I really didn't think it was such a controversial issue.

But maybe the best thing is to generate some consensus here.

What do the experts here think is the answer to the question--

How much Flight 93 debris was found under the ground (in the crater) versus above ground???

[Matsuflex]

1. I say >20%

Wouldn't be surprised if it was only around 10%. We see the engine and black boxes were found beneath.






And we're still waiting for official source of that 80% claim spooked. A couple of us asking many times in your other thread. We want an official source and not misspeak from a tour guide and an author's opinion. Any CT who thinks 80% of the plane in down under this crater is looney.

[spooked911]

2. only two people think a plane really crashed?

or only two are willing to go with a number of how much plane went in the ground?

[SidDithers]

3. Where's the option for...

"I don't know what the ratio of above to under ground was, but a plane definately crashed"

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

4. There is no "cop out" option

If you can't answer this reasonable question, why are you Religiously certain that a plane crashed?

[SidDithers]

5. I'm certain a plane crashed...

because aircraft debris and human remains were found at the scene. I don't particularly care how much of it was above ground, and how much was below ground. Is there some reason you think the above to under ground ratio is important?

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

6. You are only certain of debris, and you presume 'plane crash'

Which is the picture-book assumption we are meant to swallow by those who made those images.

If I jumped off a cliff and splattered my remains on a flat, plain surface below, but they only found my head and my hand, wouldn't you want them to discover that the other 80% of my body was accounted for?

Otherwise, who took it? Did my body spontaneously combust?

[SidDithers]

7. I'm comfortable believing the reports of the first responders...

who were at the scene, and found aircraft debris and human remains.

Is there some other explanation of how that debris and those remains got there?

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

8. who claimed to be baffled by the lack of wreckage?

The 1st responders were confused when they arrived because they couldn't tell it was a plane that crashed other than apparently being told that it was. The coroner mentioned how eerie it is that he never saw a drop of blood at the scene ... so this is why it's important to know where most of the wreckage was. The 1st responders couldn't see it, but you're willing to go with their authorities who reassure them. We were later told by the FBI that 95% of the plane was recovered. The FBI is the mouthpiece of the fairy tale. The politicians are like your parents, reading the story before bed time.

You are willing to trust these people who provide you with nothing but an entertaining story about how you are the victim and the evil brown men will be stopped by the Great White Brotherhood, your servants and protectors.

But you're not willing to trust those who are trying to give you the truth. You are crushing it in your hand like a paper cup and asking for more Kool-Aid from the perps.

[SidDithers]

9. You need to search through the archives here...

and read previous discussions of this very topic. Your objections have been addressed repeatedly. I'm not going to have that discussion again.

But I'll leave you with these.

This is a DU'er who has visited the site:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=124403

These are further comments from the coroner that you've referenced above(credit to hack89 for the links):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=238479&mesg_id=238556

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

10. Wow. I've never seen a purported skeptic so blatantly dodge the question.

You will refer me to a bad argument by a bigot, but you cannot speak for yourself?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You live in a false reality of referals, where the facts staring you in the face are not beholden to the Mystery School of your Masters the News Networks.

Look at what you are faced with: a question of personal discernment.

You are showing complete incapability of personal discernment, so you refer me to others who have made a point that has nothing to do with my question.

Have you *ever* gotten into a discussion, or have you only refered to vague statements made by others?

[SidDithers]

12. Speaking of dodging questions...

you never did answer why you thought the ratio of above ground to under ground debris was important.

And just to be clear, are you calling Bryan Sacks a bigot?

Look, I'm comfortable enough with the varacity of the reporting to form my own opinion. Frankly, I think you're deluded if you don't think a plane crashed at Shanksville, but again, that's only my opinion.

You're entitled to your own opinion of those events, and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

And you've been to Shanksville, right? 'Cause you would surely never talk about the "false reality of referals", unless you've been to the site, and gathered your own evidence. Right?

Sid

Edit: spelling

[hoi_polloi]

15. Is Bryan Sacks the guy who takes your questions?

Is he the guy speaking for you?

[SidDithers]

17. Did you call Bryan Sacks a bigot?...nt

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

25. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

[SidDithers]

19. Why is the ratio of underground to above ground debrist important?...nt

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

26. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

[SidDithers]

20. Have you been to Shanksville?...

I figured since 3 questions in 1 post was too much for you, I'd break them out to make them easier to answer.

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

27. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

I figured 1 question was too much for you so i thought i'd ask it again.

[SidDithers]

33. Who's the bigot in this statement?...

"You will refer me to a bad argument by a bigot, but you cannot speak for yourself?"

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

11. Let me ask again, this time answer the question.

I'm just curious. How much of 93 do you think was buried based on the photographic evidence?

[SidDithers]

13. I'll answer again, since you didn't seem to understand the first time...

I don't know and I don't care what the ratio of above ground to below ground debris was.

The fact that there was debris, and the fact that there were remains is enough to indicate to me that there was a plane crash.

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

14. That is exactly how not to answer a question.

I get it. You don't care about facts. That's fine. At least be honest about it.

[SidDithers]

16. Then perhaps you can show me how to answer a question...

by answering the one I've asked twice.

Why do you think the ratio of debris above ground to debris below ground is important?

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

24. Happily. I will repeat my answers which you did not discern from my text.

This is my text, and not some referal to a guy in another thread.
I am using my powers of discernment. Use yours to re-search what I posted and see how this is what I already said:

1. The amount of wreckage displayed does not make up the amount that should be present with a real plane crash.

2. The official story does not interest itself in facts, but presents you with a fairy tale.

THEREFORE

The official story is not providing you with adequate information to prove there was a crash. Your lack of caring in this regard shows to everyone that you are taking it on good faith in the "News" that what they tell you is trustworthy. This is not my 'opinion' in a strange world where we all make our own reality. There are physical facts that you are denying.

What happened to the wreckage?
How much of it went underground?

[SidDithers]

32. Another dodge...

"amount of wreckage" has nothing to do with the ratio of above ground to below ground. The same amount of debris could be all above ground or all below or some combination of the two.

Try again.

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

35. It took a while for you to actually address my text.

Are you shy? Let me try to guide you.

Amount of wreckage *reportedly shown* is the amount allegedly above ground: YES OR NO

[SidDithers]

36. I'll stipulate that some debris was above ground...

and some was below ground.

Did you call Bryan Sacks a bigot?

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

37. Great!!!

I'm not playing games with you. I am trying to address the subject of the thread. I used dirty tactics to get your attention because you use absolutely offensive tactics to avoid addressing your own good sensibilities.

YOU ARE A SMART PERSON. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.

You stipulate that there is some wreckage above ground.

If there is some wreckage above ground in a plane crash that follows the physical laws of nature, but that wreckage does not make up an entire plane, the rest of the wreckage is:

a) moved off site by a terrorist conspiracy to hide evidence

b) disintegrated into gasses and dust on impact

or

c) somewhere underground

?

[SidDithers]

38. b & c...

and consumed in the fire of the crash.

Now, answer. Did you call Bryan Sacks a bigot?

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

48. You're getting good.

The right answer is: c.

In the case of the disintegrating evidence, there would have to be an enormous pyrotechnic display at the site to account for the lack of the plane pieces. So "b" is negligible.

Considering that officials claimed to have found 95% of the airplane, answer the following:

What percentage of the airplane is above ground?

Feel free to compare pictures of the crash scene with the dimensions of a 757.

(Hint: officials claim to have found 10% - 20% of the plane after scouring the entire area.)

[SidDithers]

50. You forgot to answer the question I asked in my reply to you...nt

Sid

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. look, I'm going to bite my tongue really hard here, but

you are not exactly covering yourself in glory here. Are you really saying that you deliberately smeared a DUer who isn't even on the thread just to get other people's attention?

If that's even approximately true, wouldn't a classy move be to get off your high horse and apologize profusely for it? Or, if you're saying something else, don't you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to explain?

[ryan_cats]

53. Exactly what expertise do you have...

Exactly what expertise do you have to know how much of the plane wreckage should be present with a 'real' plane crash?

[hoi_polloi]

31. NOW TRY RESPONDING IN ONE THREAD: WHAT IS THE RATIO?

OF ABOVE GROUND TO BELOW GROUND DEBRIS?

[SidDithers]

34. So, let me summarize for you...

You don't know why the ratio is important.
You think Bryan Sacks is a bigot.
You've never been to Shanksville, but are relying solely on the words of others to form your opinions.

Have I got that right?

Sid

[defendandprotect]

190. The first responders found ZIP there . . . and coroner saw "nothing" . . .

In fact, somewhere down the line when they evidently had planted some stuff,
the coroner wasn't fooled by that either -- he said it looked like they had
emptied a small dump truck of scrap metal into the area!

[hoi_polloi]

18. So your definition of a convincing plane crash is ...

Pretty much just a news story about some spots of blood and scraps of metal?

Wow, no wonder they got away with fake news.

[SidDithers]

21. Why is the ratio of above ground to underground debris important?..nt

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

28. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

[SidDithers]

22. Did you call Bryan Sacks a bigot?...nt

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

29. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

[SidDithers]

23. Have you been to Shanksville?...nt

Sid

[hoi_polloi]

30. You're dodging the ONLY question I've asked which you cannot answer: what is the ratio?

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. "I'm certain a plane crashed... because aircraft debris and human remains were found at the scene."

Well, I found an old boat out in the woods on my property, so that means that my property way up on this hill was once underwater and had a marina... right? That's the only plausible explanation there is, since there was no trailer. My theory is backed up further by the fact that I saw shrimp peels and fish heads in my neighbor's garbage when I helped him haul it off.

:hi:

[LARED]

43. One thing that always impresses is the truther's

grasp of critical thinking processes.

Remarkable to say the least.

[SidDithers]

44. So you're saying that aircraft debris and human remains...

in a smoking hole isn't indicative of a plane crash to you? That you think it was, like your found boat, trucked in to the scene and left there?

Sid

[LARED]

39. Is there some purpose to this inane poll? nt

[spooked911]

40. yes-- to get you to think

about the official story.

surely you can make a decent guess!

[LARED]

41. You post an inane poll in order to get people to think?

You want people to think about inane things?

Here's my guess. Lots in the ground and lots not in the ground.

[travis80]

110. how did you vote LARED? 50/50? n/t

sounds like that's what you think.

[William Seger]

45. Really? You want people to "think about the official story"?

Do you want them to think about the real "official story" -- the mountain of evidence that UA93 crashed there, consistent evidence from every single source where we should expect to find evidence -- or do you want them to think about the deliberate deceptions, distortions, and pointless diversions offered by people like you?

[hoi_polloi]

47. What mountain are you referring to?

I keeping hearing about this "mountain of evidence," in particular the reported 95% of the plane recovered. I'm still waiting to see where most of it went. For that matter, I'm still waiting for a passenger list to be released.

There is less evidence for a plane crash than there is for a rather large propaganda wing of U.S. and U.K. military.

[SidDithers]

49. Passenger lists...

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

Why won't you identify the "bigot" you referenced upthread?

Sid

[spooked911]

55. about those lists

why haven't they been officially released?

why are they from such a dodgy source?

[William Seger]

51. We have the ATC transcripts...

... and the calls from passengers, and the cockpit voice recorder, all documenting the hijacking; the radar track showing the flight path and location where it was lost from radar; numerous witnesses seeing the plane going down and at least one direct witness to the crash; a 757-sized hole in the dirt; airplane debris recovered from in and around that hole; DNA from all the passengers recovered; and the FDR recovered showing what happened in the last few minutes. For absolutely no reason other than the fact that UA93 going down really screws up their precious conspiracy delusions, certain "truthers" simply close their eyes and insist that all of that evidence must have been faked -- yet they can't come up with a single plausible reason why that would have been done. Then they whine about being ridiculed.

[spooked911]

56. I'd like them to think about the physical evidence they have shown us

that odd plane-shaped crater where the plane disappeared

the one you and I went back and forth one whether the wing gashes were in the right spot

etc

[hoi_polloi]

46. LARED and Seger

What % do you think buried vs. remained on top of ground?

[LARED]

52. As I stated earlier, I think lots of debris was buried and lots was not

Other than that there is no quantitative way to give you an answer. I am freely willing to admit I have just about zero experience to gage how a commercial airliner impacting soil at around 1/2 mile per second is going to behave. So outside of me stating with a sure mind and clear conscious that it breaks up into lots of very small pieces that's all I have

[William Seger]

54. I believe the total was 100%

:eyes:

[spooked911]

57. 100% above ground?

why are you evading the question?

[William Seger]

58. Because A) I have no idea, and B)

... it's seems to be a perfectly pointless question. However, if I wanted to know, I'd ask the people who cleaned up the mess, not some guy who specializes in fantasy physics in the defense of conspiracy delusions. Which reminds me, is there some reason you keep avoiding the question of why you think it's an important question?

[spooked911]

59. In the grand scheme of things, it's not an important question.

I just wanted some sort of guesstimate number from you OCTers.

Clearly some official accounts have a great deal of the plane going in the hole and others say most splattered outside the hole. The point was how you OCTers could reconcile the two models.

Obviously you really don't want to even hazard a guess, which indicates this is a real weak point in the official story.

[spooked911]

60. would like some more votes

apparently the official claim at the flight 93 site is that it went in the ground completely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7O7cU4AVjA&feature=player_embedded

[HannibalCards]

61. Really?

Which reports from the scene have you read that lead you to this conclusion?

[spooked911]

62. did you read what I just wrote?

the official position at the memorial site is that the plane went deep in the ground

[HannibalCards]

63. I did

I'm asking you which official reports you read that lead you to that conclusion. Not a guy in a video, stating what he thinks at the moment - the official reports. If they differ from what the video says, we can discuss that then.
What is the real, official opinion? Have you read it?

[spooked911]

64. well, the whole problem is that different news articles say different things

and there is no "official" govt report on the fate of the plane re: going in the ground.

So this guy at the memorial is about as official as it gets. Unless you want to define "official" for me.

[travis80]

66. "guy in a video, stating what he thinks at the moment"

your ignorance is astounding. don't you know those volunteers at the memorial go through a rigorous training course of the official details of the crash before presenting to the tourists? obviously you don't.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Maybe you could find some actual proof of that...

too.

[travis80]

69. actual proof of what? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

70. The "rigorous training" part...

dude. How do you know? Even if it is, does that make it the "official story"?

[travis80]

71. Ambassadors have participated in "rigorous educational training"

"Today Ambassadors are at the temporary memorial every day of the year and have welcomed over one million visitors from all over the world. They have participated in rigorous educational training to become familiar with details of Flight 93 and the passengers and crewmembers to inform visitors about what happened here on 9/11. They also offer an orientation of the entire site and talk about plans for the new memorial and national park that will protect and preserve the sacred ground."

http://www.honorflight93.org/memorial/memorial-today/?fa=ambassadors


do you now agree that these ambassador people don't just go to the site and make up shit?

[SDuderstadt]

72. I never said they do...

dude. However, you don't know what the content of the training is, do you? You're just assuming that they're trained on certain details when you don't know that for a fact. How do you know the ambassador in the video didn't "ad-lib" his comment?

[travis80]

73. did this ambassador ad-lib too?

"The plane came in upsidedown, went into the ground at a 45-degree angle. They were going 580 mph when they hit. The crater was 15 feet deep and 30 feet across."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxA1rU5ELes#t=2m29s


now we have two different ambassadors telling tourists the same thing in their presentations, Flight 93 went into the ground.

i have to ask you, why do you seem to be disagreeing with what these ambassadors are saying?

[SDuderstadt]

74. Dude.....

any plane crash on land could be described as it "went into the ground". That doesn't tell you what percentage of it ended up buried in the ground or that any did at all. Substitute the word "crashed" for "went". Get it? What in the world is your point? That flight 93 did not crash there?

[travis80]

75. how about "literally went into the ground"?

as that male ambassador was shown saying. how would you interpret that?

[SDuderstadt]

77. Dude...we already know that a percentage of the plane went into the soft ground...

there are site pictures of backhoes being used. Again, what is your point? Do you believe UA 93 crashed there?

[travis80]

80. backhoes being used. that's funny

why don't you show me all the tons of plane parts being extracted from the ground then?

[SDuderstadt]

82. Why don't you talk to the fucking...

recovery crew, dude?

[travis80]

85. feeling a little hostile? show me some photos

there was a photographer at the scene during the dig. there's got to be tons of photos showing tons of plane parts being extracted out of the ground if the majority of Flight 93 was in the ground.

[travis80]

76. memorial guide saying 80% was in the hole

another memorial guide saying the majority of the plane was in the ground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=238479&mesg_id=239447



is it not clear yet that the official story states that the majority of the plane was in the ground?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Dude..

I don't care! What is your point? Are you a crash denier?

[travis80]

79. the point is to see if the entire official story is true

which apparantly you don't think this part is along with us. roflmao

[SDuderstadt]

81. Dude...

How is what the "ambassadors" say at the memorial part of the "official story"?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Bye, dude...

go insult someone else.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Really?

Can you point to where I have accused another member of drinking or running "like a little girl"? You have a strange idea of what constitutes an "insult", dude.

[travis80]

86. SDuderstadt, what's your guess in the poll?

just curious.

[SDuderstadt]

87. I don't care...

dude.

[travis80]

90. as long as people believe a Flight 93 crashed there, right?

who cares of the official story doesn't add up, as long as people believe a Flight 93 crashed there, right? And you call us deniers.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Dude...people saw the plane going down...

UA says UA 93 is missing...the families are missing the victims...wreckage of the plane was recovered there...tiny pieces of the victims were found and the victims identified by DNA...we're not responsible for your failure to inform yourself, dude,

[lovepg]

156. Dude many people saw a shooter on the grassy knoll but i am sure with that point

you would stress how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. You just say anything.

[SDuderstadt]

157. "Truther Logic"...

a shooter and an airliner are about the same size.

[lovepg]

158. Say anything. A gun shooting in your direction is kind of unforgettable DUDE.

[SDuderstadt]

160. Dude...

Far more witnesses said it came from the TSBD. You're as uninformed on this as you are everything else.

[lovepg]

162. I have personally talked to Kennedy assassination witnesses have you?

Believe me you do not know what the hell your talking about dude!

[SDuderstadt]

163. Oh, really?

You honestly claim more witnesses stated that the shots came from the grassy knoll? Really? That should be easy to prove dude.

[lovepg]

164. I say you do not know what your talking about . You prove that constantly daily by the hour.

[SDuderstadt]

165. Why not just admit that you can't prove your claim, dude? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

166. Please answer the following questions, dude...

1. Exactly how many "witnesses" have you spoken to, dude?
2. What are their names?
3. When, specifically, did you talk to them?
4. Where were they in relation to JFK's limo?


Or, I'll make it easier for you. Before you embarrass yourself further, why not just admit that you're making this up, in the same way you claimed to have read the 10,000 page NIST report "multiple times"?

[SidDithers]

138. Thanks for reviving this thread...

in which hoi_polloi calls Brian Sacks a bigot.

Sid

[travis80]

68. it's actually not a pointless question. 95% was "recovered"

all that debris had to be somewhere for the official story to be true. where was most of it? the government seems to be saying most of it was in the ground and by the looks of the lack of debris in the early photos of the scene, that's the only logical explanation to make their story fit. you can't have a lack of debris above ground and a lack of debris under ground to come out to 95% of Flight 93 being recovered. that math doesn't add up.

[Realityhack]

65. My scientific survey shows that the emperors nose is 3 feet long. n/t

[travis80]

92. congratulations spooked911! you've stumped the skeptics

you've brought up a point of the official story that even they can't go along with! now they are reduced to having to deny that this is part of the official story because even they know a large plane like Flight 93 couldn't have gone into the ground! quite the pickle they are in. and they call us deniers! roflmao

[lovepg]

94. My favorite part of the fairy tale is how the multi ton engine rolled almost a mile away

from the crash site. Thats almost as good as if a magic bean stalk had grown up into the clouds!!

[SDuderstadt]

95. Which no one ever said, dude....

if they did, please provide a link to it. Where do you get this crap?

Would it be too much to ask for you to fact-check the nonsense you post? Hint: 300 yards away is not a "mile", dude.

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

[travis80]

96. it was actually an engine almost 1/2 mile away pulled out by a bulldozer

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020607193748/http:/www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html

[SDuderstadt]

97. Dude...even if it was about 600 yards away....

(which is contradicted by other sources), that isn't close to a mile like lovepg claims, nor is it close to a 1/2 mile like you claim. 600 yards is more like a third of a mile. Did you bother to corroborate the article?

I guess in addition to remedial civics, physics and science classes, we need to add remedial math classes for you.

[travis80]

99. weren't you just bitchin earlier about insults?

we'll add hypocrite to your list.

[SDuderstadt]

101. That isn't an insult, dude....

it's a statement of fact...your math sucks, your physics sucks, your science sucks and your civics sucks. How in the world is 600 yds (even if true) a half mile?

I'd love for you to point to a single name I have called you. One example will do.

[travis80]

100. fine, 2x further than the pond. happy dude?

so were they lying about finding an engine in the forest that they had to winch out?

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude....YOU'RE the one claiming no plane crashed there...

Jesus.

[lovepg]

118. Look it SD the jesus thing is getting old. really love pg is just fine!

[travis80]

102. bother to corroborate? can i see a corroboration photo of the fan in the pond?

or do we just have to take people's word that a fan piece was found in the pond?

[SDuderstadt]

104. Go ahead and corroborate it, dude...

you're the one claiming no plane crashed there, not me.

[lovepg]

119. Oh SOOOORRRRYY the engine rolled three football fields instead of six or seven.

Or bounced. Or flew, or skipped, or danced, or trotted.
And by the way you do not have to be a no planer to see the idiotic but highly entertaining LIE in this story.
But I guess you do have to be an OCT BOT to actually believe it! LOL!

[SDuderstadt]

120. Dude...

you're no better at math than your compadre Travis.

How many football fields would a mile be? Hint: there are 5280 ft in a mile. That means a mile is 1760 yards or more than 58 football fields, dude, not six or 7. You might want to stick to subjects you actually understand, dude, although, admittedly, that would not leave much.

Again, when you're wrong by orders of magnitude like you typically are, that would explain why you are not taken seriously here, dude.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Take it up with Michael Hynes, dude...

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

Unlike you, he's an actual expert.

[lovepg]

123. Popular mechanics that cartoon science rag????

Stop it your killing me.

[lovepg]

124. And SD you naughty boy you neglected to say anything about the trees between the ...

engine that was found and the crash site. Now that is a good trick!

[travis80]

130. and remember lovepg, the engine story kept changing

first they claimed to find an entire engine in the woods, then it finished at an engine fan in the pond (although there is no photographic evidence of this).

but good point, how did any part of an engine get past that big wall of trees? lol

[SDuderstadt]

133. "Truther Logic"...

trees grow with absolutely no space between them. That's why people cannot go for walks in the woods.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

136. Dude...

your grasp of probability is so poor, that you fail to understand that coincidences are commonplace. In fact, I can make something that has millions to one odds happen with regularity. If you want to know what that is, ask me some time and I'll explain it, although I doubt you'll understand it.

BTW, the only reason I'm engaging you is that you have claimed not to be a "no-planer", although I suspect that's not the truth. In the meantime, read "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Nicolas Taleb. Maybe it will help you shed your "magical thinking" handicap.

[lovepg]

139. Hey how about we hurtle you at 500 miles per hour at that woods and see if you come out

the other side? You would have total faith that you would right?
Come on SD back up your posting bluster.
Your posts are the definition of gullible.

[SDuderstadt]

142. You first, dude

You're the one that apparently thinks a human is like an aircraft engine.

[lovepg]

145. No, you i assume are smaller and weigh less and therefore would have a better..

chance of making it thru the trees.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Dude...what do you think would have a better chance of knocking down a tree...

that was in the way? Would you use your fucking brain for a change?

BTW, even though you claim you're not a "no-planer", I'm done.

[lovepg]

149. ha ha now you claim this engine was knocking down trees?

Yes you best retire from this line of posting.

[SDuderstadt]

150. Dude...

you're such a literal thinker, it's impossible trying reason with you. Bye.

[lovepg]

151. You mean its impossible to use truther reason on me.

[lovepg]

140. Changing stories to explain impossible circumstances is just part of the amazing Oct.

[SDuderstadt]

137. That's what I get for doing this without a calculator and doing the conversions...

as well as the calculations in my head.

A mile would be 17.6 football fields in length, not 58. Duh.

[lovepg]

141. See SD stuff like this is why no one here takes your posts seriously! LOL!

[SDuderstadt]

143. I'm not the one that claimed 300 (or 600) yds is a...

mile, dude. I pointed out my own mistake and corrected it. If you followed suit, that's all you'd be doing, dude.

[lovepg]

146. Come on SD I am just joshing ya lighten up dude.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Bye....

dude.

[lovepg]

152. Ahhh if it were only true!

[SDuderstadt]

98. BTW, did you notice that his statement...

"I found a lot of parts" contradicts your claim that not much was found at the site? I always think it's funny when "truthers" provide evidence that actually refutes their claims.

[travis80]

105. oh brother. how percentage is "I found a lot of parts"

compared to the percentage of "not much was found" even though i don't recall ever made that claim.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Simple question, dude...

do you believe UA 93 crashed there?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

113. I didn't agree to anything dude...

and, why don't you tell the relatives of the victims who were identified by DNA precisely how that DNA got there, dude?

You no-planers are an embarrassment to DU. Bye, dude.

[travis80]

114. you promise?

about the "bye" part? you seem to say that a lot and not mean it like a hypocrite.

[SDuderstadt]

115. I don't waste time with "no-planers", dude

You were being coy, but it finally came out. I do, however, reserve the right to point to and laugh at your posts with others. I just won't be engaging with you, dude. Bye.

[travis80]

116. ok, bye!

;)

[travis80]

108. the person who voted 80% in the ground, care to explain?

why you think that much did?

[Bolo Boffin]

109. Why do you think it didn't crash there? n/t

[travis80]

111. #107 n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

125. #107 has been deleted. n/t

[travis80]

128. Doesn't censorship suck? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

134. Yes, rules are awful...n/t

[travis80]

112. what # did you vote Bolo?

a highly educated person like you who knows a lot about 9/11 must have guess.

[travis80]

117. Bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

127. Patience. Life doesn't revolve around your requests. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

126. I didn't vote.

I don't have any idea.

[travis80]

129. you have no idea?

so when spooked asks "What do the experts here think is the answer to the question," this would not refer to you?

[Bolo Boffin]

144. I'm sure that spooked is sarcastically referring to me (among others) in that statement.

And he didn't provide an answer for my thought, which is I have no idea. Now you're continuing spooked's cynicism and making it personal. Aren't you clever.

[travis80]

153. you are saying you're not an expert on Shanksville?

you don't have a clue?

[travis80]

131. should be 15%, not 20%

not to nitpick, but since the FBI said they recovered 95% of the plane, if 80% was underground, then only 15% would be above ground.

[travis80]

132. and only looks like 5% tops is above ground!

maybe enough to build a cessna.

[travis80]

154. so far, 16 think no plane crashed. only a measly 4 do! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

155. "Truther Logic"...

online polls in which the respondents are self-selected magically produce representatve samples...

[spooked911]

159. so no consensus amongst official story supporters?

odd, no?

[SDuderstadt]

161. No...

no one cares.

[spooked911]

167. why

are you here then?

[SDuderstadt]

168. Because you make us laugh?

That would be my guess, dude.

[spooked911]

170. so you're not taking 9/11 seriously

I guess that explains a fair amount.

I am asking a straight-forward question about a key event of 9/11, and you laugh at it.

Awesome.

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. no, we're not taking you seriously

If I took you seriously, I would find it difficult to bear.

You have a heck of a lot of nerve insinuating that other people don't take 9/11 seriously. I'm trying to be kind here.

[spooked911]

173. Answer the question then

And I didn't say it was you, but rather SD, who wasn't being serious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

175. well, I shouldn't speak for SD, but

what I construe as your personal attack on him is, in my view, no more warranted than if it were a personal attack on me. I think you have a heck of a lot of nerve.

[SDuderstadt]

177. Dude...

no one cares what proportion was above or below ground. That's what you don't seem to grasp.

[SDuderstadt]

172. No, we're laughing at you...

Spooked.

[AZCat]

169. Not really.

There certainly has never been much consensus among conspiracy theorists, but you never let that stop you.

[spooked911]

174. Not sure what that has to do with anything

The point is, we have had various conflicting stories in the media about how much of the plane went underground. So I am asking the OCTers here for their educated opinion on what happened.

[AZCat]

176. It has everything to do with this. n/t

[spooked911]

180. sigh

another waste of time post from you

[AZCat]

182. SIGH

Another misguided thread from you.

[travis80]

178. of course not spooked, skeptics in a bind

on one hand they even know a 757 can't bury deep into the ground, on the other hand they won't be able to explain where's all that 95%-worth of recovered debris if the plane didn't bury into the ground when surface photos and video hardly show any debris comparatively.

you've stumped the skeptics on this one!

[SDuderstadt]

179. It's not hard to see why "truthers" and, especially, that breed known as...

"no-planers" are the objects of derision all over the world.

[spooked911]

181. if we're truthers

that must make you a non-truther

[SDuderstadt]

183. Ouch, Spooked, ouch!

Oh, wait, you only CALL yourself "truthers".,.that doesn't mean that your goofy claims ARE the "truth". Duh.

[travis80]

184. weird, i thought a certain someone was boycotting no-planers?

boy, that lasted long.

[SDuderstadt]

186. You have a short memory....

I reserved the right to point to "no-planer" posts and laugh.

[travis80]

185. 4 to 17

doesn't look like a lot of DUers believe a plane crash in shanksville!

[Bolo Boffin]

187. Oh, bruddah. n/t

[HannibalCards]

188. 17 Travis

When does the revolution begin?

[SDuderstadt]

189. When they get to...

a more significant number...let's say 170 million.