Bizzare findings of Flight 93 crash in PA on 9-11

"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:2wnac.50477$QO2.43514@pd7tw1no...

Sounds to me like you don't know anything about plane crashes, or
explosives
either. Certainly the folks at the NTSB would have found explosives
traces
on the wreckage when it was examined. Of course its likely you
believe they
too were in on whatever plot it is you believe in this week.

Of course there were explosives on board. It's called Jet Fuel. :^)
Slam it into the ground at 500knots plus in a combustible metal
container
with an ignition source and it goes off pretty nicely. Remember that
aircraft
are mostly *empty space* and combustible organic material and
combustible
*metal*. Aircraft are mostly aluminium - which *burns* quite readily if
you get it
hot enough in the presence of an oxidiser. (Oxygen in the air in this
case )


PS - and please note that this article is in a canadian paper.

The staff of which would likely laugh at you if they read your post.

It's all just crap from a whacko.

The CO

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:04:39 +0930, "The CO"
wrote:


Of course there were explosives on board. It's called Jet Fuel. :^)
Slam it into the ground at 500knots plus in a combustible metal
container
with an ignition source and it goes off pretty nicely. Remember that
aircraft
are mostly *empty space* and combustible organic material and
combustible
*metal*. Aircraft are mostly aluminium - which *burns* quite readily if
you get it
hot enough in the presence of an oxidiser. (Oxygen in the air in this
case )


HAHAHA. Listen to this loonie. Now he's saying airplanes just burn
up all on their own. All that flammable aluminum you know!! HAHA.
You rw nuts will lie about anything.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:15:10 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
wrote:

HAHAHA. Listen to this loonie. Now he's saying airplanes just burn
up all on their own. All that flammable aluminum you know!! HAHA.
You rw nuts will lie about anything.

"0108 crashed 11/10/64 near Glasgow AFB while on low-level mission"

The fuselage and wings had been completely VAPORIZED! There were some
small, melted aluminum "puddles?" left on the ground. Maybe five
pieces would fit in your hand if you could find that many.

Aluminum burns and it isn't really a loonie HAHA situation when you
realize there were real human beings inside of that aluminum frame.

From: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend


On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:04:39 +0930, "The CO"
wrote:


Of course there were explosives on board. It's called Jet Fuel. :^)
Slam it into the ground at 500knots plus in a combustible metal
container
with an ignition source and it goes off pretty nicely. Remember that
aircraft
are mostly *empty space* and combustible organic material and
combustible
*metal*. Aircraft are mostly aluminium - which *burns* quite readily if
you get it
hot enough in the presence of an oxidiser. (Oxygen in the air in this
case )


HAHAHA. Listen to this loonie. Now he's saying airplanes just burn
up all on their own. All that flammable aluminum you know!! HAHA.
You rw nuts will lie about anything.

Hey, genius, have you ever heard of thermite? One of the components is
aluminum. The other is iron oxide (rust) which provides oxygen. In the case of
a burning airplane the oxygen comes from the air which, mixed with fuel and
aluminum will be extremely hot and not much is likely to survive.

Look up rocket fuels and you'll find some that include aluminum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
HAHAHA. Listen to this loonie. Now he's saying airplanes just burn
up all on their own. All that flammable aluminum you know!! HAHA.
You rw nuts will lie about anything.

And which part does your twisted mind think he is lying about?
Aluminum burning? Nope. It's true. Jet fuel burning? No, that's
true too. It's how the jet engines run.

Come on, out with it. What is he lying about?

-Geoff

"The CO" wrote in message
...

"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:2wnac.50477$QO2.43514@pd7tw1no...

Sounds to me like you don't know anything about plane crashes, or
explosives
either. Certainly the folks at the NTSB would have found explosives
traces
on the wreckage when it was examined. Of course its likely you
believe they
too were in on whatever plot it is you believe in this week.

Of course there were explosives on board. It's called Jet Fuel. :^)
Slam it into the ground at 500knots plus in a combustible metal
container
with an ignition source and it goes off pretty nicely. Remember that
aircraft
are mostly *empty space* and combustible organic material and
combustible
*metal*. Aircraft are mostly aluminium - which *burns* quite readily if
you get it
hot enough in the presence of an oxidiser. (Oxygen in the air in this
case )


PS - and please note that this article is in a canadian paper.

The staff of which would likely laugh at you if they read your post.

It's all just crap from a whacko.

Comments from the original poster aside accompanying the posted article, I
see no one discussing or refuting the two weird, misplaced tidbits of
information contained herein:

"There was, in my conclusion, no way we could ever know who they were
that charged that cockpit," Wallace Miller told students at the B.C.
Institute of Technology.

Uh, no, Wallace. The plane was smashed to bits. Right?

Was there a reason that we needed to be so redundant? Perhaps it was a badly
written article, and thus, a bad example?

But then there's this:

"The debris field spanned about 2.5 square kilometres of wooded area."

How big is that in miles? I'm not sure, but I'll bet it's bigger than the
generic "size of a couple of football fields across" reference in most of
the other "official stories" I've seen.

And in another "official story", the word "six" is used in relation to
"miles from the crash scene":

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20...somersetp3.asp

"Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County,
reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human
remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned
over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris
floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like
debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the
explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday"

Whoo! But hey--if that isn't enough to confound you, get a load of this:
they even had robotics out there, poking around, looking for pieces and
parts:

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines...ppernat3p3.asp

Boy, they musta wanted to find EVERY scrap of that plane. That isn't
unusual, in and of itself, of course. The more pieces of the plane they can
find, the better chance they have of finding a cause.

BUT, why would they go to all that trouble, if the thing was smashed
completely to bits on its only "impact"?

This is what is called a "contradiction":

http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...rset0911p4.asp

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces
of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said
he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long."

Draw your own conclusions.

mellstrr