Author Topic: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...  (Read 2970 times)

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« on: August 16, 2010, 09:15:56 PM »
The technology in 2010 is so incredible compared to 2001... Now planes can crash, fall into pieces and NOT EXPLODE OR VAPORIZE... If only such planes existed September 11th.... (sigh)


'Miracle' in Colombia crash: Woman dies, 130 live

AP


Vivian Sequera, Associated Press Writer – Mon Aug 16, 7:36 pm ET

BOGOTA, Colombia – A Boeing 737 jetliner filled with vacationers crashed in a thunderstorm and broke apart as it slid onto the runway on a Caribbean island Monday. Only one of the 131 people on board died, and the island's governor called it a miracle.

The plane hit short of the runway on Colombia's San Andres Island and skidded on its belly as the fuselage fractured and bits of landing gear and at least one engine were ripped off. The jet wound up on one end of the runway, crumpled and in pieces, as passengers scrambled or were helped to safety.



Officials were investigating reports the Aires airline jet was hit by lightning before the crash on the resort island, Colombian air force Col. David Barrero said. He said other possible causes were being investigated as well.

Of the 125 passengers and six crew members aboard Aires Flight 8520, the only one killed was a 68-year-old woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, San Andres Gov. Pedro Gallardo said.

"It was a miracle and we have to give thanks to God," Gallardo said.



Officials said 119 people were treated or checked at clinics and five of them were seriously injured. The airline said at least five U.S. citizens were on the plane, and the U.S. Embassy in Colombia confirmed at least four Americans suffered injuries and were receiving care.

Airline representative Erika Zarante said four Brazilians, two Germans, two Costa Ricans and two French citizens also were on the plane.

The accident occurred so suddenly that the pilot did not report an emergency to the control tower, said Col. Donald Tascon, deputy director of the civil aeronautics agency. He said the plane's low altitude as it prepared to land — perhaps 100 feet (30 meters) just before the crash — may have averted worse damage.

Passenger Ricardo Ramirez, a vacationing civil engineer, told Caracol Radio that all had seemed normal, even though the plane was flying through a storm, with flashes of lightning, as it neared the airport.

"The plane was coming in perfectly. We were just about to land, everything was under control," he said. The accident "appeared out of nowhere."

After the plane hit and skidded to a stop on the pavement, Ramirez said he struggled to free himself and his wife from their seat belts.

"We tried to get out of the plane because the plane was starting to shoot flames," he said. "In a few minutes, a police patrol arrived and helped us."

Survival was "a miracle of God. Thanks to God we are alive," Ramirez said, though his wife suffered a dislocated shoulder.

Firefighters quickly doused the beginnings of a fire on a wing, police Gen. Orlando Paez said. He a group of police officers who were waiting at the airport for the plane to fly them back to the mainland aided in rescuing victims.

Barrero, commander of the Colombian air force's Caribbean Air Group, said by telephone from San Andres that "the skill of the pilot kept the plane from colliding with the airport."

He said the cause of the accident was uncertain. "You can't speculate. Lightning? A gust of wind? The investigation will say," Barrero said.

The jet crashed at 1:49 a.m. on the island, a resort area of 78,000 people about 120 miles (190 kilometers) east of the Nicaraguan coast.

Ninety-nine passengers were taken to Amor de Patria Hospital on San Andres, said Dr. Robert Sanchez, the hospital director. "It's incredible. For the dimension (of the accident), there should be more," he said.

Sanchez said an initial examination indicated that the single fatality may have been caused by a heart attack.

Twenty other passengers were treated at another clinic, according to the national civil aviation agency.

Among the seriously injured was a 12-year-old girl who suffered a broken pelvis, Gallardo said.

A 1- 1/2-year-old boy among the passengers wasn't listed among those with serious injuries.

Dr. Ricardo Villarreal, director of the clinic of the same name, said the pilot suffered some cuts to his face and was under observation. He identified him as Wilson Gutierrez.

The airline, Aerovias de Integracion Regional SA, said it has about 20 planes, including 10 Boeing 737-700 jets. It said in a Twitter posting that it was "working and investigating with the aeronautical authorities to determine the causes."

Barrero said scattered pieces of the plane blocked part of the 7,800-foot (2,380-meter) runway. But enough was usable that air ambulances would be able to land, he said.
C

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2010, 09:23:12 PM »
The plan was just about to land dumb ass...

"The plane was coming in perfectly. We were just about to land, everything was under control,"

it may suprise you to know that when a plane lands it is going alot slower...

tarzan

  • Time Out
  • Getbig II
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2010, 04:52:14 AM »
The plan was just about to land dumb ass...

"The plane was coming in perfectly. We were just about to land, everything was under control,"

it may suprise you to know that when a plane lands it is going alot slower...
Good point. While I have my doubts about airliners crashing in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon this example is not a good one because this plane in Columbia did not hit a building and it was more of a crash landing at slower speed and less impact damage.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2010, 07:45:41 AM »
Good point. While I have my doubts about airliners crashing in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon this example is not a good one because this plane in Columbia did not hit a building and it was more of a crash landing at slower speed and less impact damage.

Speed, mass, density of the consistency of surface area & fuel of the plane combined wiht mass,  consistency of surface area & density of the object being hit contribute to results.  You are right, this is NOT evidence supporting a theory that those were not planes.

But like some people think of suggest in there own worlds, those are not factors.

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2010, 10:38:19 AM »
The plan was just about to land dumb ass...

"The plane was coming in perfectly. We were just about to land, everything was under control,"

it may suprise you to know that when a plane lands it is going alot slower...

Oh... I must have misunderstood knuckle dragger. You see the world was told that the plane fuel exploded and created those tremendous plumes of fire, smoke and explosions at the former WTC. This plane crashed too..albeit slower, but fuel doesn't know whether it is suppose to explode in LOW IMPACT situations or HIGH IMPACT situations...IT JUST BLOWS UP...supposedly. Now obviously the plane was going fast enough to be torn into pieces...but not fast enough to create a bit KABOOM???... No vaporized parts?...No landing gear flying all the way over to Venezuela? No disintegration into such small pieces they can be picked up by hand?...technology has come such a long way.
C

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2010, 10:48:18 AM »
Oh... I must have misunderstood knuckle dragger. You see the world was told that the plane fuel exploded and created those tremendous plumes of fire, smoke and explosions at the former WTC. This plane crashed too..albeit slower, but fuel doesn't know whether it is suppose to explode in LOW IMPACT situations or HIGH IMPACT situations...IT JUST BLOWS UP...supposedly. Now obviously the plane was going fast enough to be torn into pieces...but not fast enough to create a bit KABOOM???... No vaporized parts?...No landing gear flying all the way over to Venezuela? No disintegration into such small pieces they can be picked up by hand?...technology has come such a long way.
LMAO youre comparing a plane that crashed at high speeds into a FUKING BUILDING

to...

a plane that skid along a run way while landing

are you fuking serious?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2010, 10:50:20 AM »
LMAO youre comparing a plane that crashed at high speeds into a FUKING BUILDING

to...

a plane that skid along a run way while landing

are you fuking serious?

He is,  there's no difference between a plane going 400 mph full of fuel crashing into a concrete building and one that's landing going 150 mph with much less fuel skidding along a run way.  

Remember, Physics in his world doesn't exist, only the puppet masters exist.

boonasty

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • are you a famous getbigger? click on the globe!
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2010, 10:52:35 AM »
is SAMSON really this stupid or just trying to aggravate ???

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2010, 11:00:24 AM »
No, he's not trying to aggravate or get rises.  He believes that because a b-25 crashed into the empire state building and it didn't come crashing down that the planes that crashed into the WTC's shouldn't have brought them down either.  He reasoning is that the Empire State building is much older and therefore not built as well as the WTC's, so when the B-25 crashed into it it's the same as a jet liner crashing into it, and because it didn't collapse the WTC's shouldn't have either.

Brilliant thinking, if you live in his world.  That's why something like this particular crash makes total logical sense to him when comparing it to the pentagon crash. 

boonasty

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • are you a famous getbigger? click on the globe!
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2010, 11:07:39 AM »
 :-\

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2010, 11:28:13 AM »
is SAMSON really this stupid or just trying to aggravate ???

Not trying to aggravate, but rather EDUCATE...something that is near IMPOSSIBLE with americans.

Could any of you geniuses (ha ha) tell me at what speed does plane fuel blow up? Or at what impact intensity does it blow up? I ask because this is the crux of the issue here. Is it 150 MPH or the outlandish claim of 400 to 550 MPH for the planes that struck the WTC? or is it something else entirely? Let me know? With this info we can then determine the outcome of all future plane crashes. I guess the fact the plane crashes seen recently that resulted in VERY LARGE pieces being left behind with no VAPORIZATION (using your logic) weren't going fast enough to blow up or vaporize.

Tell me the correct speed and/or impact for vaporization and explosions to occur.

I'm waiting...
C

boonasty

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • are you a famous getbigger? click on the globe!
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2010, 11:46:32 AM »
Not trying to aggravate, but rather EDUCATE...something that is near IMPOSSIBLE with americans.

Could any of you geniuses (ha ha) tell me at what speed does plane fuel blow up? Or at what impact intensity does it blow up? I ask because this is the crux of the issue here. Is it 150 MPH or the outlandish claim of 400 to 550 MPH for the planes that struck the WTC? or is it something else entirely? Let me know? With this info we can then determine the outcome of all future plane crashes. I guess the fact the plane crashes seen recently that resulted in VERY LARGE pieces being left behind with no VAPORIZATION (using your logic) weren't going fast enough to blow up or vaporize.

Tell me the correct speed and/or impact for vaporization and explosions to occur.

I'm waiting...

are you saying fuel travelling at a certain speed without coming into contact with a heat source will ignite?



 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2010, 11:47:50 AM »
Lets see we have a B-24 a world war II attack bomber

Wingspan 67 FT
Length: 51 FT
Height: 16 FT
Empty Weight : 19,000 lbs ( we'll assume it was a bit more because of fuel load)
Max Speed: 285 Mph Cruising: 230 Mph

Boeing 767

Wingspan: 156 FT
Height: 52 FT
Length: 159 FT
Empty Weight: 188,000 Lbs full loaded: 284,000 Lbs
Cruising Speed: 530 Mph

Hmmm which one does more damage if it hits a building?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2010, 11:49:18 AM »
i thought crashing planes punched perfect holes thru 6 steel/concrete reinforced walls before completely vaporizing into a small enough pile to fit in the back of a pickup truck.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2010, 12:07:08 PM »
They used my Dodge Ram.  It's only a 1500, but it had enough juice to take it to the scrap yard where the parts were melted down that day.  I saw it happen.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2010, 12:11:07 PM »
is SAMSON really this stupid or just trying to aggravate ???

Have you not read her other posts? Her gems on the laws of physics tell you all you need to know about Samson's level of intelligence. I would honestly be shocked if she has a GED.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2010, 12:15:34 PM »
Actually it been determined that fuel traveling the speed of light doesn't ignite in Sammy's world.  In fact heat doesn't ignite fuel in sammy's world, shit, fuel never ignites.  We all drive cars with tiny nuclear power plants embedded in the engine block and the only way to get the car to work is to put gas in it.  The gas never ignites, it just leaks out the back.  This is how oil companies stay in business....in Sammy's world.   ;D

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2010, 12:21:58 PM »
Lets see we have a B-24 a world war II attack bomber

Wingspan 67 FT
Length: 51 FT
Height: 16 FT
Empty Weight : 19,000 lbs ( we'll assume it was a bit more because of fuel load)
Max Speed: 285 Mph Cruising: 230 Mph

Boeing 767

Wingspan: 156 FT
Height: 52 FT
Length: 159 FT
Empty Weight: 188,000 Lbs full loaded: 284,000 Lbs
Cruising Speed: 530 Mph

Hmmm which one does more damage if it hits a building?

Neither...the cause of the WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was , as reported, due to explosion and fire. So you must consider the fire and explosive force on both buildings from the FUEL in the planes. Pictures show that each building sustain about equal damage...yet the Empire State Building is still there and the WTC is GONE.....
C

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2010, 12:26:38 PM »
Googly-eyes, stop embarrassing yourself.  :-*

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2010, 12:30:55 PM »
Neither...the cause of the WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was , as reported, due to explosion and fire. So you must consider the fire and explosive force on both buildings from the FUEL in the planes. Pictures show that each building sustain about equal damage...yet the Empire State Building is still there and the WTC is GONE.....
we will get to the rest of the idiocy in this statement in a while but first please post pictures side by side and tell me how you can tell by a simple picture that the damage structurally is the same?

boonasty

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • are you a famous getbigger? click on the globe!
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2010, 12:40:31 PM »
Have you not read her other posts? Her gems on the laws of physics tell you all you need to know about Samson's level of intelligence. I would honestly be shocked if she has a GED.

i don't read many of samson's posts.  

he must have some real doozies




Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2010, 12:55:18 PM »
i don't read many of samson's posts.  

he must have some real doozies





Smart man.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Another NON VAPORIZING Plane...
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2010, 01:06:36 PM »
Googly-eyes, stop embarrassing yourself.  :-*

She's way beyond that,  she's in "spectacle" mode  lol