Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (13868)	5/4/2002 2:29:25 AM
From: russet	Respond to of 81402

"The wingtip alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the two engines would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole. "The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. "Assuming 8,600 gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. "Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped out of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? "I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact with water, land or buildings. Think on these statements for a bit. Did the wingtips shear off when the plane hit the twin towers? No!! Did the belly of the aircraft that contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo not follow the aircraft into the twin towers? Yes!! We have lots of video of these crashes,...independent and shot from many angles as the attacks occurred. Passengers etc were in the fuselage and would have followed the fuselage into the building and been burned to gases. You as a doctor should know what is left of carcasses after cremation,...not much. The French don't want to fight a war,...what else is new? Are the English, Australians, and the rest of the Commonwealth, including South Africans not always having to liberate the French after they get dominated by another country? What is the motivation of the French site?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (13868)	5/6/2002 7:18:59 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81402

<<"I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact with water, land or buildings. "If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9-11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any.">> I remember when this accident happened near Colorado Springs. A great of the problem for the NTSB coming to terms with a cause was the very small amount of personal and or aircraft debris. The airplane was also a large(er) commercial plane that slammed suddenly into the ground(a public park) at a rather high speed and a near vertical attitude. As Colorado Springs was only an intermediate stop, UAL585 was also rather full of fuel. Last I knew from NTSB DATA & from local news reports because of the lack of aircraft based evidence, the listed accident cause is still only shown as "most likely". ntsb.gov While I don't have a full enough memory of the date accident to pull it up, I do recall another similar case in / near Dallas / Fort Worth. A large commercial plane slammed into the ground at a VERY high rate of speed,very steep or near vertical attitude and a rather large amount of fuel. LOW AMOUNT OF DEBRIS. "Most Likely" cause was listed as wind sheer - the NTSB simply didn't have enough airframe left to make an absolute cause determination. I've listened to this conspiracy tripe from several of "internet experts" on the crash in Washington, and simply can't believe it or them and I'm far from a blind believer of all that comes from the government - any government.