• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Malaysia wreckage

HeatXfer

HeatXfer

Not Erudite, just er
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Location
East Bay
Moto(s)
'14 KTM 1190R
Name
Chris
BARF perks
AMA #3295418
Am I the only one who noticed how big the debris field is from Malaysia flight 17 compared to any of the 911 wrecks?

No debris at the Shanksville site and nearly none at the Pentagon. Both atypical of a commercial airliner crash site.

911 was not a conspiracy but a well executed plan before a gullible audience. Much like a birthday party magician completely fools a group of 7yr olds who want to believe in magic.
 
Ummmm....on the off chance that you're serious, I will respond. The debris field from a plane which was blown up by a missile at 30,000 feet will be MUCH larger than that of a plane that runs into a building at close to ground level. One does not need a degree in physics to understand this. Or so I thought....
 
scimmione said:
Am I the only one who noticed how big the debris field is from Malaysia flight 17 compared to any of the 911 wrecks?

No debris at the Shanksville site and nearly none at the Pentagon. Both atypical of a commercial airliner crash site.

911 was not a conspiracy but a well executed plan before a gullible audience. Much like a birthday party magician completely fools a group of 7yr olds who want to believe in magic.
Click to expand...

The simple answer might be because it was a bigger plane ;). A 777 is about twice as big as a 757
 
Last edited:
Lunch Box said:
Ummmm....on the off chance that you're serious, I will respond. The debris field from a plane which was blown up by a missile at 30,000 feet will be MUCH larger than that of a plane that runs into a building at close to ground level. One does not need a degree in physics to understand this. Or so I thought....
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing with the OP, but don't understand this logic. If a plane runs into the ground, it's not surprising find no substantial remains of engines, wings, fuselage, landing gear, luggage, bodies...but it's easy to find remains from a plane hit by a missile at 30k feet? I don't have a degree in physics, but I have three in physical chemistry, so I'm familiar with conservation of mass. Please clarify this for me.
 
CoorsLight said:
I'm not agreeing with the OP, but don't understand this logic. If a plane runs into the ground, it's not surprising find no substantial remains of engines, wings, fuselage, landing gear, luggage, bodies...but it's easy to find remains from a plane hit by a missile at 30k feet? I don't have a degree in physics, but I have three in physical chemistry, so I'm familiar with conservation of mass. Please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...

It's like a car hitting a wall at 100mph. The car virtually disintegrates. A car you blow up with C4, probably won't create as much damage. An airplane crashing at 700mph won't leave much debris, similarly blowing up an airplane will probably leave more of a trail. I am no expert, and I'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
jh2586 said:
It's like a car hitting a wall at 100mph. The car virtually disintegrates. A car you blow up with C4, probably won't create as much damage. An airplane crashing at 700mph won't leave much debris, similarly blowing up an airplane will probably leave more of a trail. I am no expert, and I'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make sense to me.

Anyone here whose dad's an engineer?
 
Last edited:
CoorsLight said:
I'm not agreeing with the OP, but don't understand this logic. If a plane runs into the ground, it's not surprising find no substantial remains of engines, wings, fuselage, landing gear, luggage, bodies...but it's easy to find remains from a plane hit by a missile at 30k feet? I don't have a degree in physics...
Click to expand...

We've seen what so far? Some grainy, ground level cell phone vids of the crash site?

Might want to wait for some better quality overhead crash survey pics/vids.
 
CoorsLight said:
I'm not agreeing with the OP, but don't understand this logic. If a plane runs into the ground, it's not surprising find no substantial remains of engines, wings, fuselage, landing gear, luggage, bodies...but it's easy to find remains from a plane hit by a missile at 30k feet? I don't have a degree in physics, but I have three in physical chemistry, so I'm familiar with conservation of mass. Please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...

At 30k traveling 500 mph the debris will travel much further. It reaches terminal velocity within 1000 feet of falling. Then it travels another minute or two before hitting earth. The stuff with the most bulk but least mass will travel further. Should be along a couple mile of flight path, minimum. Those are before coffee lazy ass figures. Eventual terminal velocity maybe 150 mph. As opposed to ground strike 500 mph when everything smashes into everything else and is in a fuel dump. Little pieces and lot of them from the high plane. Lots of mass but few pieces from the low strike.
 
Last edited:
CoorsLight said:
I'm not agreeing with the OP, but don't understand this logic. If a plane runs into the ground, it's not surprising find no substantial remains of engines, wings, fuselage, landing gear, luggage, bodies...but it's easy to find remains from a plane hit by a missile at 30k feet? I don't have a degree in physics, but I have three in physical chemistry, so I'm familiar with conservation of mass. Please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...

As a scientist, you will understand the difference between size and mass. The OP did not say that there was a greater mass of debris found; merely that it was strewn over a larger area. This is absolutely consistent with the circumstances of the events. A plane that gets blown up while flying at 30,000 feet is going to leave debris over a VERY large area. A plane that hits a building will leave debris in a much smaller radius. Very basic stuff.
 
Got it. AFM and LB, your explanations make sense, if OP meant the actual spread of debris was significant.

I interpreted his post as contrasting the sheer amount of debris from this Malaysia wreck versus the wrecks on 9/11 in which no substantial remains of the planes or passengers were recovered.
 
:thumbup
He was referring to the size of the debris field in his opening statement (before all of the tinfoil hat craziness).
 
CoorsLight said:
Not sure why they need to be overhead. There is plenty of debris in these shots.
Click to expand...

Any speculation about how things went down (pardon the pun) would benefit from accurate overhead mapping of the size/pattern of the debris field.

Ground based photos only present a limited perspective.
 
mlm said:
Clearly they had more time to stage the debris field
Click to expand...


YES!

giphy.gif
 
mototireguy said:
Any speculation about how things went down (pardon the pun) would benefit from accurate overhead mapping of the size/pattern of the debris field.

Ground based photos only present a limited perspective.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me. Thanks.
 
Someone said to me yesterday" At least it was quick death". I suppose if you were lucky enough to black out from cabin depressurization it might be at least be death while you were out ,but anyone unlucky enough to be awake it was a long time to think about what's coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top