The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash
The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.
The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.
That part is similar to the UA93 official story.
The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.
Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.
At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.
The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over.
The real question is, why anyone would believe the official story?
The answer must be is that this is just more kool-aid for the 9/11 psy-op.
The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.
That part is similar to the UA93 official story.
The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.
Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.
At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.
The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over.
The real question is, why anyone would believe the official story?
The answer must be is that this is just more kool-aid for the 9/11 psy-op.
posted by spooked at 11:01 AM
7 Comments:
""The fuselage (of flight710) telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.""
so there is precedence for the ua93 lawndart effect? right.
are there any photos of the flight710 crater/debris?
-----
1+1+1+1=4
~Boloboffin @ D.U.
wow what a strong argument in favor of the official 9/11 fairytale!
those D.U. guys are beyond moronic.
feel free to direct them over here and i will tell them so in person without hesitation. come to think of it why do they not comment at this blog? because they know that at best they are full of shit and their comments are nothing more than deflection/distractions and would be immediately called to account here.
actually the majority of americans just don't want to hear about 9/11 and as long as there are D.U. and pinch gang types around to pretend that we are kooks the american sheople have a convenient ready made excuse for continuing to pretend that 9/11 never happened.
h.
It might be helpful if you (Spooked911) would post your reasoning in a way that is easier for
more people to grasp. The way things are now allows "Segar" to come across as somewhat reasonable and serious - even though WE know he's only saying what he is because that's how he earns money for his daily dose of Corporate Joe.
"...helpful if you (Spooked911) would post your reasoning ..."
"Spooked" + "reason" in the same sentence? Isn't that something like a football bat? or a soup sandwich?
what is difficult to grasp?
I thought the diagram was clear.
Spooked911:
Is it technically possible for you to
use the MSNBC video capture and mark it so that people can instantly see what SHOULD be an outline of "the plane" and then tell why that orientation is impossible (belly up crash etc.)?
Thanks, Early. I will work on some new diagrams, I was thinking of doing something similar to what you suggest.
I am also going to make figures showing the problems with Seger's diagrams-- since it probably isn't so obvious for many people.
I have had my real job to concentrate and so haven't been able to put the time into the flight 93 story as much as I would like. But I'll get back to it soon.
I was also thinking of a video putting together for YouTube for the flight 93 proof.
--Spooked
so if the wings of the alleged 757 supposedly made those stupid wing shaped dents in the ground then where is the remains of the wings?
the yellow jacket guy squad didn't find any.
^h.
Post a Comment
<< Home