Why Don't Brazilian Airplanes Vaporize When THEY Crash Nose First From 36,000 Feet?

I read with great interest that there was recent plane crash in Brazil where a brand new commercial plane plunged from 36,000 feet nose first at speeds in excess of 300 mph into the ground.....apparently there was a mid-air collision with another jet. But for some reason, planes in Brazil don't vaporize when they hit the ground, unlike flight 93. The pictures show actual wreckage...wheels....wings...and lots of whole bodies. Here is the link for some of the pictures


Is this as important as I think it is?





This is important. It's a damn shame the media ignores these types of examples that tend to disprove the "official version" of what transpired on 9/11.

I am frightened for our country and our world.

Planes in America

are DESIGNED to vaporize on impact to minimize the damage to the ground and/or buildings they hit. This is is similar to American skyscrapers, which are designed to collapse completely in the case of airplane impacts (to themselves or nearby buildings) to pre-empt a more dangerous "topple" collapse which could make an entire city disappear like one of those fancy rube goldberg domino setups.

Brazilians just don't have the technology that Americans do.

omg lol

That was GOLD

i dunno how important it is

i dunno how important it is until the flight data comes out.. could it be that the plane gradually went down with the pilot unable to keep it under control due to the damage?

where did you see that it crashed nose first, or that it was going more than 300mph? i didnt see that in the link you posted..

here's an NYTimes article about the same story

thanks for the link, that is

thanks for the link, that is just incredible, especially when taken in comparison to the plane in brooklyn that we are told had the wings just kinda fall off because of a draft of a plane way out in front of it..

crazy stuff.

I thought the story was that

I thought the story was that this plane hit another plane before crashing? I don't know how or if that affects the type of crash one should expect. Also, consider the different foliage at crash sites (the tangled jungle of the Brazilian crash versus the open field in Pennsylvania). Perhaps this was a factor?

this story smells fishy

So a big plane crashes, and the only evidence provided for how and why it crashed is the fact that a corporate jet clipped it. Where is the actual news report in an english paper of this event? Why is it covered in what amounts to a short story by a literary wannabe? What are the chances of this collision occuring in the first place? What kind of nonsense is it that no one on the corporate jet heard the Boeing they allegedly clipped, before or after? Isn't it maybe possible that that plane was blown up to kill someone on board and that the corporate jet was intentionally "damaged" to provide a plausible but ultimately unproveable explanation other than sabotage? Does no one else smell this? :)

Here's a

link to see how little recognisable debris is present after plane crashes:


more links re: bodies and wreckage from nose first Brazil crash

Robert Brand



The official story re: Flight 93 is that there are no bodies or plane wreckage because it crashed nose first at high velocity into the ground....

but here, another commercial airplane crashes nose first from 37,000 feet at over 500km/h and yet there are whole bodies and plane wreckage.....