Germanwings crash has a debris field covering hundreds of yards.

[dixiegrrrrl]

He said the largest pieces of debris are the size of a small car.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-24/first-images-germanwings-crash-debris-emerge-white-house-says-no-indication-terroris

unlike Penn.on 9-11
and the Pentagon...

jus saying.

[Mira]

1. That was my very first thought as well Dixiegrrrrl

We may not know the reason for it yet - but we are witnessing a true crash of an airliner.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

2. just listening

heard you loud and clear

[Thor_MN]

3. The debris fields would not be remotely comparable.

Flight 93 was descending at at 40 degree nose down attitude.

Flight 77 was flown into a massive building, terminating the debris field.

The Germanwings flight was at a gradual descent, ending in ravine. The Germanwings flight was covering more horizontal distance during the crash and spread itself over unlevel ground. It would be expected that the debris field would be much bigger.

[Mira]

4. I gently suggest you start digging a little

and you will find that Flight 93 had barely a debris field at all, and the small particles of it covered a tremendous area. It has been argued that the flight was shot down from the air.
And Flight 77 is the most mind blowing deception, (other than building 7 and the 10 second free fall of two buildings designed to withstand the impact of airplanes) it had a hole in the side of the Pentagon not much bigger than 16 feet across, no outside debris at the impact zone, and no debris to speak of inside the pentagon. No luggage, no remains anywhere. When I start reading about 9/11 those are the things I find that are startling and make me want a real investigation of what happened in the worst way.

I hope I live long enough to find the answers.

[Thor_MN]

5. I gently suggest you are attempting to compare apples, hubcaps and shampoo.

The conditions of the three crashes did not resemble one other.

[zappaman]

6. I gently suggest you search a little more

Here are some links.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[Politicalboi]

13. LOL!

Where the seats? Over 200 seats, and not ONE picture of seats or sections of seats. Those pieces in that picture can be picked up by anyone walking by. Airplane engines are 9 feet tall and made of Titanium. Not knee high to a fireman.

[William Seger]

7. "Digging?"

Where have you been "digging" that virtually nothing you claim it true?

(That's a rhetorical question, of course -- the major "truth movement" bullshit factories are well known on this board -- so there's no need to answer. I hope you live long enough to realize that you've been deceived by people calling themselves "truthers," but that will indeed require some digging on your part.)

[Mira]

8. Here is what I know for certain:

The American people have not been told anything resembling the truth, and that is the bottom line truth about 9/11
The people questioning it are not irrational and unscientific nut cases.

I know that when you have to use quotes and profanity you are not all that certain of your own truths.

I also know that when something is overwhelming we first ignore it, then we attack the ones who dare to speak, and then, hopefully, the doubters win by unearthing the truth.

As I said, I'm not sure I will live to know the truth, but I am certain I do not know it at this point.

[William Seger]

9. That's a pretty lame excuse for posting bullshit

It's as if you don't really care if it's bullshit. How do you expect to find this truth you're claiming to be after if you don't make any effort to weed out the bullshit?

[Politicalboi]

14. Very well said

[jonno99]

11. I found the Snopes article pretty comprehesive

in terms of the "no plane" arguments:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

From a 'USA Today' article:
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm"

Applying Occam's Razor to this conundrum, you'd have to admit that "charred bodies still strapped to their seats" and airplane parts strewn about suggests it is more likely that the scene was the result of an airline crash - rather than a missile.

Is it possible that it was a missile? Perhaps. But it's more plausible that it was the 757.

And if it was a 757 at the Pentagon, what does that say about the rest of the "stories"?

My two cents...

[Politicalboi]

15. I don't believe that

We had other witnesses who said their were no bodies or blood at the Pentagon and Flight 93. Even the mayor of Shanksville said no plane crashed. Be he's just the mayor. Even news outlets said no plane hit the Pentagon. And why would 19 terrorist who planned this for years, get thwarted by box cutters so they couldn't fly out of their nearest target in NY. I guess flying over military bases was the safer way to commit terrorism.

I NEVER wanted to go into the No Planer Land, but that is what I believe. Ever since I watched a video of the second attack on the tower and thought, boy, that plane sure went in fast. So how does a plane traveling at sea level speeds penetrate steel and concrete 3 times on the same day. So I slowed it down to a stop, and the picture below is what I got.

Let the flaming begin. I can take it

Here's the video that made me jump the shark. Pause it on or near 18 seconds and watch it frame by frame. I didn't photoshop this nor would I even know how. And even if you don't think it's a missile, a plane traveling at sea level speeds would have resistance and a lot of plane debris on the ground at the building. But yet we see NONE as the "plane" glides through like a hot knife to butter.

[William Seger]

18. "jump the shark"

That's an excellent description, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

[jonno99]

20. You don't by chance

have six fingers on you left hand?

[jonno99]

19. It is said that oftentimes we don't know what we don't know - so I ask -

how do you know the following?
"a plane traveling at sea level speeds would have resistance and a lot of plane debris on the ground at the building."

Unless you have an example of another plane of similar size and speed flying into a similar building, you really have no basis for an opinion - IMHO.

And concerning Flight 93: what do you think the crash site should look like when a jet flies almost straight down - at a high rate of speed - into relatively soft ground? If you don't have a lot of experience with planes crashing into things you might be surprised at the result - which is probably why the mayor (and associates) were confused.

two conflicting opinions:
"There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville [and a resident for 77 years], told German television in March 2003: "My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”

"In Shanksville, crash scene neighbor Paula Pluta, 33, said that moments before she witnessed the plane go down, she heard a loud noise outside her home. She speculated that the sound had come from the aircraft's jet engines as it passeed overhead."It sounded kind of screechy - - like something was wrong," she said in an interview on her front porch....A second later, she said she spotted the low-flier pass by outside her living room window headed in the direction of nearby Shanksville-Stonycreek School before it disappeared behind a row of trees. "By that time I saw the jet falling from the sky," she said."
http://www.devvy.com/flight_93_part_1.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Dropping 27,000 feet in 8 minutes is a "gradual descent"?

Then leveling out at 8,000 feet into a mountain range that was 9,000 feet?

Ok... if you say so...

"gradual descent"....

Ghost

[Thor_MN]

22. Compared to impacting the ground at a 40 degree down angle?

A controlled descent rate of 3000 feet per minute is several times higher than normal, but compared to 40 degree
nose down ?

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. "Controlled descent rate of 3,000 feet per minute" LOL!

You don't think that was almost a nose dive with the engines wide open, considering that he had to level the plane out to slam into the side of the mountain?? Jumpin' Jesus on a fucking pogo stick! You admit that it "is several times higher than normal", yet you seem to be implying that the plane was making a normal descent like it was coming in for a landing.

What, exactly, do you think the nose down degree angle was on this plane when it was dropping over 3,000 feet per minute, since it was "several times higher than normal"?

I want some of what you've been smoking!

right back at you, dude...

For the love of Odin, please try to make some sense!

[Thor_MN]

24. The descent was on autopilot.

Please try to find some sense, read some reports and not try to make them fit your preconceived notions.

Autopilot is not controlled? It's the fucking definition.

Flight 93 impacted at over 900 kph, the Germanwings flight at 700 kph http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32072218 , obviously indicating that the Germainwings throttles could not possibly be "wide open." The Germanwings flight was controlled, Flight 93 was falling like a rock, inverted.

What do YOU think the nose down angle on a plane that was on autopilot and a descent at 200 kph less than Flight 93? It sure as hell isn't 40 degrees. It fact, the attitude of the plane in the Germanwings flight was likely nose UP. It was not diving.

David Learmount, writing for flightglobal.com, reports that within a few minutes of leveling off at cruising altitude, the plane "entered a steady descent profile without altering its ground speed to any significant extent from the 420-450kt (780-830km/h) adopted in the cruise. It was not a dramatic descent, but was very steady all the way to impact."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanwings-flight-9525-the-unusual-nature-of-the-crash/

Whatever you are huffing is starting to affect the thought process.

[jberryhill]

10. It didn't crash into a reclaimed strip mine

Otherwise, a lot of the debris would have burrowed in.

The striking thing about the picture of the debris field in this rocky ravine was that I thought people would start playing "where's the plane?"

The impact site in PA was formerly a strip mine that had been covered in with loose fill.

[Politicalboi]

16. Here's a picture of the crash site in 1994

<a href="http://imgur.com/0Vqdhj2"><img src="" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

Kind of looks like flight 93 must have fallen in. But luckily they were able to retrieve DNA to ID the dead bodies. But no reconstruction of flight 93. They told us it was hit by a missile. Why no reconstruction of any of the 4 "planes". Isn't that what the FAA is supposed to do?

[jberryhill]

17. While I find your use of quotation marks around "planes" intriguing...

...no, the FAA does not reconstruct every airplane that crashes. It is one technique that is used to determine a cause in instances where the cause of the crash is not known. In this instance, the cause is known to pretty much anyone who (a) understands Flight 93 was a plane, not a "plane" and (b) does not believe the cockpit audio was faked.

[Politicalboi]

12. Shhhhhhhh!!!!!

You're sounding nutty.

You can't look at facts when dealing with 9/11. Planes that can penetrate steel and concrete can't hold up to soft dirt or a flock of birds. And flight 93 is still in the ground ins't it? No reason for reconstruction like flight 800 to Paris. As a matter of fact NO reconstruction of any planes for 9/11.

<a href="http://imgur.com/K1V98JO"><img src="" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>