Reason #1054 Why the Official 9/11 Story Makes No Sense

[spooked911]

According to Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes", which is the most protracted version available for the official version of flight 93, when flight 93 crashed, the cockpit and the front third of the plane shattered on the ground, yet the ground was so soft that the rest of the plane was completely swallowed up leaving only a smoking crater with various pieces of debris scattered around. Officially, the cockpit broke into millions of tiny pieces, including the people in the cockpit, and it was only the people in the front of the plane (hijackers and the people attacking the hijackers) whose remains were found outside the crater. Officially, the rest of the passengers' remains were located in the crater.

So, got that?

The front of the flight 93 Boeing 757 smashed apart ON SOFT GROUND as the plane impacted nose first.

What about the other planes on 9/11?

The fronts of those planes were virtually made of titanium, as ALL three penetrated completely into building walls that were constructed of either steel (WTC) or thick stone and concrete (Pentagon).

One of the most amazing contradictions in all of 9/11.

[trotsky]

1. Um...

How is this even a question? The ground may be "soft" but it's not infintely compressible. No plane, no matter how fast it's going, is going to bust through the earth's crust, or land like it was a giant perfect energy-absorbing sponge.

Thinking about steel beams or even a thick wall of reinforced concrete, crashing into the ground is NO comparison. The ground will win, every single time.

Do you understand how to calculate momentum and kinetic energy?

[spooked911]

3. Ummm... the point being the ground was soft enough to swallow 2/3s

of the plane, but the front 1/3 busted up?

I don't buy it.

I don't mind the front of the plane getting smashed up, it's the other 2/3 getting swallowed up that make no sense.

In any case, if it was soft ground, the nose should have gone in some ways, then the rest of the plane crumple up and explode.

What makes no sense is what they say happened-- the nose disintegrate and the rest of the plane go in the hole.

[trotsky]

5. Exactly what report states that

"two-thirds" of the plane was "swallowed" by soft ground, while the front third was "busted up"?

Your primary objection in your initial post was that the PA flight crashed into the ground and disintegrated (to be expected), but that the other planes crashed into buildings and did more damage to the buildings.

That's entirely to be expected.

But now you come back with this other claim, which I have yet to see any sources to back up, other than your say-so.

[rman]

7. Disintegration is not to be expected

outside of road-runner cartoons.

In the real world there's no precedence other than that military test where they smash a fighter jet into a massive concrete block.

[Make7]

2. I think I may have missed some of these. What was Reason #82? ( n/t )

[spooked911]

4. No pilot pushing the hijack code on the transponder

:)

[Make7]

6. Shouldn't that be Reason #7500?

:)

[reprehensor]

8. No. That's "Why didn't Burlingame attempt a Barrell-roll..."

... and send the "hijackers" ass over teakettle in the cabin?

There may have been electronic brakes to stop a full rotation, but even the first couple of clicks would have given "Hani" a headache to remember.

[spooked911]

9. True!

:)