Real Plane Crashes, with real jet fuel on board

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/...0-jetcrash.html


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/index.html


http://www.davezilla.com/archives/00000555.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/a300crash/story/...,592262,00.html




http://i.abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section...orld&id=3312781


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/gallery.j...oc=ne-main-6-l1


http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/07/29/foreign/AIRSHOW.HTM


http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002...rash020727.html


http://aboutfacts.net/Mysterious5.htm

http://www.hmm-162.com/VietNam.64.65/VietN...s/Image203.html


http://www.chinadaily.net/english/doc/2005...tent_493096.htm


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?ar...12-24cbf51e35ba


http://www.mindsay.com/tags/plane+crash+at+the+airport


http://www.cnn.com/US/9509/alaska_crash/sidebar/


http://www.ktvb.com/news/topstories/storie...M.3546e847.html


http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/07/miami.crash/


http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/13/japan.crash/

what is prevalent in these pictures... large glowing fireball.

looks like alot of debris left over too ....

what happened to flight 93 and 77 must have been a freak of nature right?

Just for comparison here's a video of a (small) jet hitting a concrete wall.

Accually me and Jackchit have theories that Hani Hanjour is accually a magical elf with magic powers...

But hey, who knows, Im sure we'll figure it out at some point lol

TheQuest and DJLegacy2k1, I deleted your guy's post so my two posts of pics run together.

Please repost your original posts.

I believe that the fisr arguement you will see in this thread is, "Those planes crashed outside, they didnt slam into buildings"...Which would not give them an arguement for Flight 93...But Im sure they will be here soon enough to argue about the others.

I'm going to pin this post later. Where's the best section to pin it?

It creates a good arguement for Flight 93 crash site, but may be argued about the other planes hitting buildings, so I dont know where youd want it.

It's mostly to compare it with Flight 93, but could also compare it with the Pentagon, because most of the black smoke similar to these plane crash scene at the Pentagon came from the generator on fire, not from inside the building!





http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...238&KEYWORD=eoc

Yeah, but how many people are going to point that one out lol

It's either a geneal post, or more of an arguement for Flight 93, so I have no idea where to put it.

Here's a couple more, from a C-130 crash into an apartment building in Tehran.

Good video....but why don't they test an American Airlines plane on that wall...or will that be too complicated? They put 6 concrete walls and will see if a jet can go threw that.

To help prove it's case that flights 11,77,93, and 175 were in fact the planes alleged to have been involved in the 4 crash sites on 9/11, the FBI/NTSB etc simply has to produce hard evidence that these particular planes (identified by tail numbers, serial numbers) were present at the crash site.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article...n28Feb2006.html

This has not yet been done.
Thus the identity of all 4 planes is a matter in dispute.

Crash a plane into anything you want, the ground, a building, the ocean, wherever. Doesn't matter. If there's a plane involved, there will be plane pieces. And if there is heat present that is sufficient to incinerate those plane pieces, you've got more going on than just fuel burning. Simple scientific fact doesn't really leave much room for debate here.

You're kidding, right? Where's the tail number from Valujet 592? Or to pick a very easy one, American Airlines 587 at Rockaway Beach? That's not the way it works. The flights took off -- people at the gates saw them leave, air traffic control cleared them for takeoff, etc. They didn't arrive. Three of the flights were tracked from departure to crash; the Pentagon plane turned off its transponder and happened to be in an area with inferior radar coverage. In any case, none of the flights which were confirmed to leave arrived where they were supposed to. All of the people on those planes are missing. The planes are missing. Insurance companies, which have a huge incentive not to pay claims, paid claims on the aircraft.

The burden of proof is on the truth movement here, not the government or anyone else. And it's going to take something a lot stronger than "well, some news bonehead reported that a plane landed in Cleveland at the same time they were reporting explosions at the State Department."

If the truth movement can't get it through its collective head that it has the burden of proof for simple stuff like this, it will never, ever be anything more than a few cranks podcasting their irreleveancy to each other.

You are wrong, the burden of proof is on the government. They are the ones in control of all the alleged PHYSICAL evidence. Its up to them to make a watertight case, of which THEY HAVE NOT.

amen.

First, let's agree on some definitions:

Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person (usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable man hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting cases. For example, O.J. Simpson was cleared in a criminal trial of murder, but, in a subsequent civil trial, due to the lower standard of proof, had substantial damages for wrongful death ordered against him.

Legal uses

In jurisprudence, the burden of proof is the concept of holding one party to a dispute or one side of a debate responsible for producing a prima facie case. If this party fails to produce a valid case, the decision will go against them, without requiring any further evidence or discussion.

So, if someone is murdered and the police say you did it, it's their responsibility to produce a "prima facie case," right? If the police flub the investigation, you can't then turn to the victim's family and go "Welp, the burden of proof is on you to show us where we messed up." It would get tossed out of court in the first place.

For the case of 9/11, the judge and jury already knew that they would support whatever the police came to tell them. It doesn't necessarily follow that the burden of proof now shifts to the Skeptics, as the government still hasn't proved its case (and has also kept control of all the evidence, which by itself would be the basis for a mistrial).

So, when is the 9/11 LIES movement going to get their heads around that one, Jack?

First, let's agree on some definitions:

Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person (usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable man hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting cases. For example, O.J. Simpson was cleared in a criminal trial of murder, but, in a subsequent civil trial, due to the lower standard of proof, had substantial damages for wrongful death ordered against him.

Legal uses

In jurisprudence, the burden of proof is the concept of holding one party to a dispute or one side of a debate responsible for producing a prima facie case. If this party fails to produce a valid case, the decision will go against them, without requiring any further evidence or discussion.

So, if someone is murdered and the police say you did it, it's their responsibility to produce a "prima facie case," right? If the police flub the investigation, you can't then turn to the victim's family and go "Welp, the burden of proof is on you to show us where we messed up." It would get tossed out of court in the first place.

For the case of 9/11, the judge and jury already knew that they would support whatever the police came to tell them. It doesn't necessarily follow that the burden of proof now shifts to the Skeptics, as the government still hasn't proved its case (and has also kept control of all the evidence, which by itself would be the basis for a mistrial).

So, when is the 9/11 LIES movement going to get their heads around that one, Jack?

If I ever do anything wrong, I want you on my jury!

Look, if an airplane goes missing and all the people on the plane are missing, except that their DNA and some of their body parts turn up in a crater in Pennsylvania, and oh by the way there are airplane parts in that same crater and a bunch of people saw a plane falling in that vicinity, it is completely reasonable NOT to doubt that, well, a plane crashed. It is unreasonable to suppose that, well, no, a plane didn't crash there, someone launched a missile or something to make it look like a plane crash, but the real plane was somewhere else, and the people are still dead but that's because they were dumped at sea and the plane destroyed somewhere else. In order for that supposition to move from unreasonable to reasonable one would have to have evidence which overcomes the evidence already provided. The truth movement isn't even in the same sector on that front.

Sorry to interrupt the arguement... I just wanted to make a comment about the video. When they're describe the characteriscs of jetfuel in a crash and show the remote controled plane... thats no normal plane. The plane seen in that video was running an experimental type of jetfuel. The FFA had been working on trying to reduce the risk of fire in a crash, and this fuel had additives that were suppose to prevent a fire (as kerosene does NOT burn at STP without a wick). The experiment was a failure, as you can clearly see from the footage. The fuel flare up was worse then is normal in a plane crash.

Not trying to debunk anything.. i just believed that piece of information was relavent.

I think most of you are missing the point…
I think that the pictures were posted to show two things about every plane crash.
There will be fire, and parts of the plane, everywhere.
But, if the case of “93” there were neither.
All of the pictures that were shown of the crash site looked like a whole in the ground with some old metal tossed around. No plane parts, not body parts, no fire, very little smoke, no luggage. Nothing that would suggest that it had anything to do with a plane.

My only question is, if the government is trying to cover up something, why wouldn’t they do a better job in making it look like an actual plane crash? Sound like some kind of a joke. They show us a picture of a whole in the ground and say it was flight 93, just to see how many people actually believe it.

Just my thought on it.
Thanks for your time.

Good question it makes you think that they are like a rapist or serial killer, they have been getting away with this for so long that they didnt care about the "details" and got clumsy and left some great big huge old clues, I think Hitler said it once right, people will believe the big lie before the small one?

have a good look at these two incidents:

the concorde disaster in paris in 2000:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/afsst/3.shtml


the El Al incident in amsterdam in 1992:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/elal1862/photo.shtml


why are these two relevant?

because they both happened right after take off (large amounts of fuel on board) and the both hit building directly.

What makes most air crashes uncomparable to 9/11 is that most crashes try to minimize impact instead of maximizing it, and are being flown by real pilots who have the ability to do this, who know how to maximize control in non-standard situations.

In a normal crash, an aircraft very rarely tumbles down as a single aircraft (so not broken up) as (is claimed to have) happened on 9/11. So not any footage of any crash can be compared one on one to the Pennsylvania footage.

You can't just take any random crash picture and compare it to 9/11, and draw conclusions from that.

I'm not aware of many online footage of plane impacts where the impact is not tried to be minimized, or is very large compared to averae by the nature of the crash. The only thing that comes to mind is the F-4 being shot into the concrete wall as a reactor test. Except for the parts missing the wall, everything is broken up into tiny pieces there.

This post has been edited by AE4 on Jul 31 2006, 06:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb5c2GMq1Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eDRhFwp0GA

more black smoke

This post has been edited by mojoscary on Aug 9 2006, 08:27 AM

What makes most air crashes uncomparable to 9/11 is that most crashes try to minimize impact instead of maximizing it, and are being flown by real pilots who have the ability to do this, who know how to maximize control in non-standard situations.

Well from now on I am buying tickets for the last seat on the plane, because u don't see planes backing into mountains etc.