# Question about Shanksville crash



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

Isn't it true that almost all of the plane was recovered there?

Some people I know are arguing no plane crashed there because they say there's hardly any debris there but I heard somewhere that most of the plane was recovered.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 29, 2010)

95% of it was recovered.

CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001


----------



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

Wow, didn't know it was that much!  Where was most of it, in the woods?


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 29, 2010)

I imagine most of the plane hit the ground....well....maybe all of it hit the ground....nose first.....and blew the fuck up. So I'm sure some of it burned....but the metal parts were all there.....mutilated all to hell.

Gravity can be a bitch sometimes.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> I imagine most of the plane hit the ground....well....maybe all of it hit the ground....nose first.....and blew the fuck up. So I'm sure some of it burned....but the metal parts were all there.....mutilated all to hell.
> 
> Gravity can be a bitch sometimes.


It looks like 5% of it burned to unrecoverable pieces.  Did they find most of the recovered pieces in the woods?  Wasn't an engine found in the woods?


----------



## Trojan (Mar 29, 2010)

420ish said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine most of the plane hit the ground....well....maybe all of it hit the ground....nose first.....and blew the fuck up. So I'm sure some of it burned....but the metal parts were all there.....mutilated all to hell.
> ...



No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2010)

Trojan said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


the heavier parts were found burried in the hole
lighter parts were scattered around the site


----------



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

Trojan said:


> No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.


Oh you mean most of the plane was found beneath the crater?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 29, 2010)

420ish said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.
> ...



what do you mean "beneath"??

it was in the crater.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2010)

420ish said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.
> ...


the area was a reclaimed strip mine, most of it was landfill and as such was soft ground
so, much like ValuJet Flight 592 that crashed into the everglades, most of it sunk into the ground
ValuJet Flight 592 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now the landfill wasn't as soft as the everglades, but I'm saying that in a similar manor, the plane embedded into the ground


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...


you are forgetting the stuff they had to DIG out


----------



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...


Is that what Trojan meant?  

He mentioned the one engine that was dug out from beneath the crater, so I figured that's what he meant with most of the rest of the plane, that it was found beneath the crater as that one engine was.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> now the landfill wasn't as soft as the everglades, but I'm saying that in a similar manor, the plane embedded into the ground


OK thanks.  I just wanted to get clarification so I can tell the people I'm arguing with.

Does anyone know how many days it took them to dig all of the plane out?


One more thing, are there any news or official reports that state most of the plane was found beneath the ground?


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2010)

where is this 95% of recovered plane kept and where are the photo's?  how was the DNA not cross contaminated in such a horrific crash ...link please


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> where is this 95% of recovered plane kept and where are the photo's?


At United Airlines.  You'll have to call them for photos.  



> how was the DNA not cross contaminated in such a horrific crash ...link please


You can get DNA from hair and nails.  Those are unlikely to get cross-contaminated.  100% of DNA was identified out of 8% of total remains found btw.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> where is this 95% of recovered plane kept and where are the photo's?  how was the DNA not cross contaminated in such a horrific crash ...link please



stoned again?

a link was provided in the second post. the fbi was done with the investigation and turned the remnants of the plane back over to united airlines.

you do realize that even mixing blood together doesnt mix the DNA together to form one mixed dna strand. 

let me put this in terms you can understand. if you were making "special" brownies and mixed milk from a cow together with eggs from a chicken it wont make a substance that came from a cow with feathers. it would just be milk and egg mixed together.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

View-from-Wilmington: Forensic DNA contamination


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

Contamination

Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater
attention to contamination issues is necessary when identifying, collecting,
and preserving DNA evidence. DNA evidence can be contaminated when
DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This
can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches
his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches the area that
may contain the DNA to be tested. Because a new DNA technology called
"PCR" replicates or copies DNA in the evidence sample, the introduction
of contaminants or other unintended DNA to an evidence sample can be
problematic. With such minute samples of DNA being copied, extra care
must be taken to prevent contamination. If a sample of DNA is submitted
for testing, the PCR process will copy whatever DNA is present in the
sample; it cannot distinguish between a suspect's DNA and DNA from
another source.

Transportation and storage

When transporting and storing evidence that may contain DNA, it is
important to keep the evidence dry and at room temperature. Once the
evidence has been secured in paper bags or envelopes, it should be sealed,
labeled, and transported in a way that ensures proper identification of
where it was found and proper chain of custody. Never place evidence that
may contain DNA in plastic bags because plastic bags will retain
damaging moisture. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions also may be
harmful to DNA, so avoid keeping evidence in places that may get hot,
such as a room or police car without air conditioning. For long-term
storage issues, contact your local laboratory.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> View-from-Wilmington: Forensic DNA contamination



and?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Contamination
> 
> Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater
> attention to contamination issues is necessary when identifying, collecting,
> ...



oh i get it. you worried that someone that works at a lab will sneeze on the DNA evidence and suddenly become a victim on flight 93.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Contamination
> 
> Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence


They identified all the passengers through DNA.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> One more thing, are there any news or official reports that state most of the plane was found beneath the ground?


Can someone help me out with this?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Contamination
> ...



There is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with EOTS on this issue, he is a flaming troofer. Further all you will get is a large repeated posting of links to people that do not say what he claims they say.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > One more thing, are there any news or official reports that state most of the plane was found beneath the ground?
> ...



i dont think it was ever stated. i would imagine the heavier pieces would carry momentum and end up in the ground but the lighter pieces, such as the aluminum skin would be shattered into small pieces and be easily deflected.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


Yes they had to dig down 40-some feet to dig it all out.  The soil was loose and the speed the plane was going caused most of it to end up beneath the surface.  I was a little confused at first when hearing that 95% of the plane was recovered.  It makes sense now to me where most of the debris was.  I'd like to find a news report stating it for debate purposes.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



for example in RGSs mind these people are not saying what they are saying



*Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.*  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career. 

Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. 
Essay: *"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... *The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, *yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. &#8230; *
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, *any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. &#8230; *
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the *most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."   *Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001 



*Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former combat fighter pilot.  Aerospace engineer.*  Currently Captain at a major airline.  Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch.  Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber.  *Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.* *Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. * *Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism,* four Air Medals, *four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.  20-year Air Force career. *Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 

6/25/07:  Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information: 

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.  And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11.  And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ... 



*Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam*.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  *Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., *a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.

Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. 

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could! 

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". 

*Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth.  It seems, "Something is rotten in the State*." 




*Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot.  Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO&#8217;s Tactical Leadership Program. * As an *Air Force weapons effects expert was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures. * Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis.  Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber).  3,000+ fighter hours.  Combat time over Iraq.  20-year Air Force career. 


Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and *committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government.  It is now time to take our country back. *
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.  There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break.  It is also impossible to report the building&#8217;s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned.  Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse." [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] 

We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail.  Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, *it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it. *

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.  Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. * The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason*!" 


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." 


Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,130 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition 


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Tell me eots, if no plane crashed in Shanksville, how did this engine get here?







Did they dig up the ground and plant it the night before without being noticed?


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> Tell me eots, if no plane crashed in Shanksville, how did this engine get here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know the fact is it is a photograph and nothing more.. my concern is there are some extremely credible and skilled individuals in crash investigation that are not at all satisfied with the evidence presented and the lack of any independent investigation or verifcation of the claimed crash site evidence


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 30, 2010)

Eots Denial Part: 29425. 

Congrats!


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Are you suggesting it's photoshopped?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


 you got it from a GOVERNMENT website
it MUST be faked


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



I warned you. He is delusional and paranoid. Facts are unimportant since he just ignores them when it suits him, for example your photo. 

For awhile he used to claim a couple guys could have pulled off 9/11 for the Government, until it was painfully pointed out to him the HUNDREDS of witnesses and investigators involved that would have had to be in on the secret.

His latest is to claim that the phone calls were all faked. All the while demanding to know why us Unbelievers would disrespect the couple of crack pot victims families that buy this shit.

He refuses to answer simple questions as well. Go ahead ask him directly if a plane crashed there and he will hem and haw and just keep saying well no one knows for sure.

Ask him if a plane hit the Pentagon and he will do the same.

Ask him if explosives brought down the twin towers and he is off to the hemming and hawing again.

BUT he won't waste a SECOND any time someone does say that a plane hit the pentagon that a missile probably did it, He won't waste a second attacking anyone that posts evidence as in this thread that a plane crashed in Pennsylvania, same with explosives at the Twin Towers.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



it is a possibility,there are others but the the investigation into the crash was not adequate and fell below standards of other air crash investigations in favour of the lets roll story


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i told ya


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



For the recored I am as certain as I can be without a full independent re-investigation the towers And especially wtc 7 where controlled demolitionsand the truth of shakesville and the pentagon has not been accurately told and there was prior knowleadge of the impending attakes and they were allowed to happen


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



You are certifiably INSANE. SEEK help they really can make you better.

There is absolutely NO WAY that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers. NONE at all. The physics of the planes hitting prevents any explosives from being anywhere near the floors that were hit. The number of people daily that passed through and worked in and around those two buildings makes the idea that explosives were laced on numerous floors ridiculous and insane. Once again you dumb ass they could not have just used explosives in the basement to get the buildings to collapsed on themselves. It takes months to wire smaller buildings for just that with split second timing and electronically controlled explosives that can accidently be set off by other transmissions. A working building with cell phones, cables, computers WIFI, telephone lines and the Myriad number of electronic producing signatures could not safely be wired at all.

This means that building 7 also was not brought down by explosives unless they were placed that day. And that couldn't have happened because of the fires and condition of the building. NOT to mention all the police and firemen in the area.

And I find it HILARIOUS that because you think the ground work was not as thorough in Pennsylvania that somehow negates the fact the PLANE debris and bodies were there. It goes hand in hand with you taking statements from people that cite some small detail and ask for a reinvestigation and equate them to saying the Government was involved or that planes did not crash where they did or explosives were used.


----------



## Terral (Mar 30, 2010)

Hi 420:



420ish said:


> Isn't it true that almost all of the plane was recovered there?



Flight 93 landed in Cleveland on 9/11 (story) at Hopkins Airport (story). These Jetliners have hundreds of 'time-change parts' and NONE of them were ever recovered (Colonel George Nelson Testimony). 

*Flight 93 NEVER Crashed In The Empty Field Outside Shanksville* (my Topic). Period ...






That is why all the photographs show the same EMPTY HOLE ...






Anyone trying to convince you that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed here is either a Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE, or a DoD Disinformation Stooge (How To Spot). We know that for A FACT, because the *April 20, 1994 U.S. Geological Survey Photographs* show the same ...

Click Here

... EMPTY HOLE. This is a picture of the *Diamond T. Mine Excavation* that was abandoned in *1996* (story).



420ish said:


> Some people I know are arguing no plane crashed there because they say there's hardly any debris there but I heard somewhere that most of the plane was recovered.








Just look at how much evidence these liars are missing and compare that to the very small (15 X 20 feet) empty hole.  You heard that 100-ton Jetliner parts were recovered from Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES and DoD Disinformation Idiots sent here to run diversion for Inside-Job Murderers of Innocent Americans destined for the *Lake Of Fire* with 'all liars' ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

terral, you still havent explained what this is inside your *EMPTY HOLE *


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> Tell me eots, if no plane crashed in Shanksville, how did this engine get here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Terral said:


> Hi 420:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hey dipshit, how is that hole "empty" when they dug that out of it?


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Terral, how did this engine get planted in the ground?


----------



## Terral (Mar 30, 2010)

Hi 420:



420ish said:


> Terral, how did this engine get planted in the ground?



First of all, the empty hole has grass growing on all the inclines (pic) and you are mistaking that rusty 'planted' evidence for a 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine (like this):






Then you are missing more than 200 seats ..






... 60 Tons of Titanium Frame, two (2) massive wing sections, indestructible landing gear ...






... and a tail section ...






... that stands more than 40 feet above the tarmac. The question for the Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE cuckoo is:

How did your planted evidence get under the green grass? :0)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu3qDCv-jb4]Debunk This!!![/ame]

420 Is Another Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE. Good Grief ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi 420:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not missing anything terral. where is your proof? 95% of the plane was revovered in your "empty hole" (which you have been proven to be lying about) and the surrounding area. other than showing us a picture of a hole with airplane parts in it and claiming its empty what proof do you have?

where is your proof the engine is RUSTY? you just pulled that one out of your ass, didnt you....


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

Terral said:


> 420 Is Another Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPE. Good Grief ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral


terral is another fucking stupid moronic troofer that makes stupid claims he cant back up


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Terral said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > Terral, how did this engine get planted in the ground?
> ...


That's what I'm asking you.  How did that engine get under the ground?


> ... and a tail section ...


Both the tail and wings left a marks in the ground.  Do you think they are still going to be intact after crashing at nearly 600 mph?


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtao0f8C4MU&feature=related]YouTube - 'Horrible' scene at Iran crash site - 15 Jul 09[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - 'Horrible' scene at Iran crash site - 15 Jul 09


thats consistent with the wreckage of flight 93, dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Mar 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - 'Horrible' scene at Iran crash site - 15 Jul 09
> ...



and once again it needs to be pointed out the the pilots in iran were not intentionally trying to smash the plane into the ground as is the case with flight 93.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


true, but it still nose dived into the ground and there was very little OBVIOUS plane parts laying around
about the same as was recovered from flight 93


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> and once again it needs to be pointed out the the pilots in iran were not intentionally trying to smash the plane into the ground as is the case with flight 93.


That actually wouldn't matter as long as the speeds of impact were similar.

I think the confusion with a lot of truthers is they expect larger debris and for most of the debris to be littered on the field.  In the case of Flight 93, it appears most of the debris embedded into the ground because the ground happened to be a reclaimed strip mine.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > and once again it needs to be pointed out the the pilots in iran were not intentionally trying to smash the plane into the ground as is the case with flight 93.
> ...



Angle of impact has a direct relation to debris field.  

Think of it like this; if you were tp our a cup of water on the ground, it would land in a puddle.
If you were to take the same cup of water and move the cup as you pour it, you'd end up with a trail of water.  Same content, same volume, different distribution pattern.

A nose-dive will give you a different debris field than a leveled off aircraft doing the same velocity.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

candycorn said:


> A nose-dive will give you a different debris field than a leveled off aircraft doing the same velocity.


I was just mentioning there's no difference if a plane nose dives and crashes nearly 600 mph into the ground on purpose, or accident.

Flight 93 crashed at around a 45 degree angle if I recall correctly.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

Does anyone know any reports that state most of the plane debris went into the ground?  I'd like to use it in future debates with truthers when they ask what happened to the plane.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 30, 2010)

420ish said:


> Does anyone know any reports that state most of the plane debris went into the ground?  I'd like to use it in future debates with truthers when they ask what happened to the plane.


i dont recall if anyone ever said what percentage was embedded and what they found around the site
it doesnt matter that much to me
as they found 95% of the plane at the site
most of it within a small radius


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

If you call  6 miles a small radius


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> If you call  6 miles a small radius


it wasnt 6 miles, moron
that was the DRIVING distance


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> i dont recall if anyone ever said what percentage was embedded and what they found around the site
> it doesnt matter that much to me
> as they found 95% of the plane at the site
> most of it within a small radius


I don't need what percentage was embedded if there was no mention of that, just a general official explanation that most of the plane was embedded.

I like to be able to back up my facts when debating truthers just as I ask them to back up their claims. 

I had been confused about the debris when first starting to debate these truthers I know.  They complained there wasn't enough debris in the field to come from a Boeing 757.  I said most had disintegrated from the force of the high-speed impact. I found a few article that stated that. But they countered with the claim that most of the plane was recovered.  I hadn't heard that and agreed that would be a contradiction if true, that most of the plane was recovered, but little was present at the scene after the crash.

I started this thread to confirm most of the plane had been recovered, which it turned out to be true; 95%.  I was initially stunned when Fizz posted the news article that confirmed most of the plane was indeed recovered, but then Trojan explained that most of the wreckage was located in the hole, which all makes sense as to how most of the plane could have been recovered when so little was visible strewn across the ground.  It's because most of the wreckage was actually beneath the surface and that's why they had dug some 45 feet down in the ground.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

*Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former combat fighter pilot.  Aerospace engineer.  Currently Captain at a major airline*.  Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch.  Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber.  *Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board*.  Also *served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Offi*cer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.  Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals,* four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.  20-year Air Force career. *


Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07:  Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information: 

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.  And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11.  And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ... 

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that  would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.]  Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ... 

You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon.  So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area.  [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.]  But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ... 

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission.  There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder.  And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there.  [The film he refers to is the video documentary, Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ... 

And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found.  And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." Google Videos 




*Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; FAA certified commercial pilot.  Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.*  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career. FAA certified Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic. 


Essay: "*In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... *

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that *all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. &#8230; *
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, *with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. &#8230; *

*As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."* Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001 




*Lt. Col. David Gapp, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired Pilot and Qualified Aircraft Accident Investigator.  Served as President, Aircraft Accident Board.* Military aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon.  3,000+ total hours flown.  31 years of U.S. Air Force service.  One year as commercial pilot for Continental Airlines. Commercial aircraft flown: ATR-42. 
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 




*
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.  Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).  Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. * 22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University. 
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

*They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official &#8220;investigations&#8221; have really been cover-up operations. *



*Lt. Cdr. Bernard J. Smith, U.S. Nay (ret) &#8211; Retired carrier Naval Aviator and former aircraft accident investigator. *
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"From my several years experience as an aircraft accident investigator for the U.S.Navy, I am appalled at the basic principles of investigation being ignored; ie, premature destruction of evidence, reliable eye witness accounts ignored, etc. To allow the official version to be the final word in this planned event, as is evident from the AE9/11 investigation, would be a major disservice to the victims and the nation*."  AE911Truth 



Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)

Still no Proof, just more Questions and This guy wants an Investigation, blah blah.. In all the time you folks post and find this shit you could've been using that time for "Investigation".


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Still no Proof, just more Questions and This guy wants an Investigation, blah blah.. In all the time you folks post and find this shit you could've been using that time for "Investigation".



Top military crash investigators put their reputations on the line to say there is something wrong here and this is the shit ass response you give..pure avoidence..pure denial


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Still no Proof, just more Questions and This guy wants an Investigation, blah blah.. In all the time you folks post and find this shit you could've been using that time for "Investigation".
> ...



They can say whatever they want.. but they still show nor present Facts to back up their stories.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

To do so they would require access to the evidence and subpoena power


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> To do so they would require access to the evidence and subpoena power



so get it. all you need to do is file a lawsuit that actually has some validity.

......oh., that's the problem, i guess.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

the petitions and law suites are valid but when taking on the highest offices of the u.s government the obstacles are great


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

yeah, obstacles like PROOF are hard


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

You have no proof just a story and two failed investigations


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> You have no proof just a story and two failed investigations



i'm sorry?

did you just say the official version has NO PROOF?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > You have no proof just a story and two failed investigations
> ...


see, they are totally delusional


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

I say the facts of 9/11 are not known due to the failure of the 9/11 commission and nist report


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> I say the facts of 9/11 are not known due to the failure of the 9/11 commission and nist report



Yet WHERE did all the aircraft parts and pieces come from at the crash site, most of it buried in the earth? The cockpit was in the woods as it sheared off and ended up there not far from the crash site.

How exactly did the US Government secretly bury all those parts there in the hour or so after the crash?


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

I think you better check your facts on the sheard off cock pit being found there bud


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The cockpit was in the woods as it sheared off and ended up there not far from the crash site.


Hi Sarge, where you just being facetious with this or something?  Never heard this one.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

he is just talking out his ass again


----------



## elvis (Mar 31, 2010)

Irony sure is a whore.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

elvis said:


> Irony sure is a whore.



that wasn't he real name moron..thats what she tells you on your 20$ dates


----------



## candycorn (Mar 31, 2010)

Amazingly, earlier the twoofers were saying that Flight 93 was shot down. 

Now THAT is some precision gunwork...shooting down the plane at 30,000 feet and having it all land neatly where the governement supposedly planted airplane parts.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Amazingly, earlier the twoofers were saying that Flight 93 was shot down.
> 
> Now THAT is some precision gunwork...shooting down the plane at 30,000 feet and having it all land neatly where the governement supposedly planted airplane parts.



if the plane was shot down there would still be parts..


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Amazingly, earlier the twoofers were saying that Flight 93 was shot down.
> ...



actually, it makes no difference to me at all if it was shot down or it wasnt. all the evidence points to it not being shot down.


----------



## Liability (Mar 31, 2010)

It is very sadly ironic that the assholes who misuse the term "Truth" in their group identification, the assholes we like to call the 9/11 Troofers (or "troofers" for short) are best and most accurately characterized by one simple phrase:  

Troofers are all lying scumbags.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



all evidence being what you were told without any credible independent verification


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


there has been credible verifications, dipshit
you dont have any, and neither does alex Jones


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



i would say the same about your evidence.....


....if you had any!!


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

Does anyone know if there's a [news] article or something telling about them finding most of the debris in the hole?


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

no ,there is not


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> no ,there is not


Looks like we got a debate here!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> Does anyone know if there's a new article or something telling about them finding most of the debris in the hole?


why would there be a new article on something that was established and settled years ago?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So you're on the fence about this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing? You think the government could still be telling the truth about 9/11, but you're not sure because there is no credible independently verified evidence saying so?


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if there's a new article or something telling about them finding most of the debris in the hole?
> ...


I don't feel comfortable making claims that I can't back up.  At first, I thought not much of the plane was recovered and that most had disintegrated.  Now I found out that in fact 95% of the plane was recovered.  I didn't know where most of this wreckage was.  I assumed most of it was in the woods.  I was told be here that most of it was in the hole.  That does make sense to me, because I forgot they had to dig 45 feet down and the black boxes were found at 15 feet and 25 feet.

But there must be a news article, or official report that details most of the plane was in the hole.  I don't want to tell the truthers that got me into this debate that most of the plane was in the hole without a source to back it up.  

How was it established and settled years ago?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


 you meant a "news" article and not a "new" article
my bad
i'm sure there are hundreds, but its not really worth it to me to take the time to filter out all the delusional nutcase results of searching for one


here is a good site
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93.html
you might find a link there with what your looking for


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> you meant a "news" article and not a "new" article
> my bad
> i'm sure there are hundreds, but its not really worth it to me to take the time to filter out all the delusional nutcase results of searching for one


That was my bad!  I fixed my typo.

If someone can help me, I suck at searches.


----------



## Liability (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



Here's a link from less than two weeks AFTER the attacks of 9/11/2001:  





> SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that *95 percent of the plane was recovered*.
> 
> The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues.
> 
> ...


CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

CNN (according to the Troofers) might be "in on the hoax" together with the FBI and the US Government in general, I suppose.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> here is a good site
> Flight 93
> you might find a link there with what your looking for


That site only linked to this article, but surprisingly for a debunking article, it didn't mention anything was found in the ground.

It did say an engine was found in the bushes.  Hadn't heard that before.  I only knew of that one engine being found in the hole and an engine fan found in the pond.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001


I didn't find what I was looking for in that article.  That just stated the percentage of the plane that was recovered, but nothing about wreckage being pulled out of the ground.


----------



## Liability (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001
> ...



Try this Google (Topeka) link.  flight 93 debris - Google Search

Lots of stuff is available.  Those are mostly IMAGES.  Reports, however, are also abundant.

Here is one of  the more famous images of "debris" being dug out from deep in the crater formed by the crash:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It was a Government exhibit at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> Try this Google (Topeka) link.  flight 93 debris - Google Search
> 
> Lots of stuff is available.  Those are mostly IMAGES.  Reports, however, are also abundant.
> 
> Here is one of  the more famous images of "debris" being dug out from deep in the crater formed by the crash:  http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/93debris1.jpg


It looks like that's the only photo of debris being dug out of the ground.  I can see the conspiracy theories coming!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Try this Google (Topeka) link.  flight 93 debris - Google Search
> ...


the thing is, trooferism is a mental illness, no amount of proof will ever change their minds


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Try this Google (Topeka) link.  flight 93 debris - Google Search
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BouDNRfX-o]YouTube - FLIGHT 93 - NO 8 MILE DEBRIS FIELD[/ame]
CNN.com - 'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found - September 13, 2001
United Airlines Flight 93 -Debunk 9/11 Myths
Flight 93 - Picture of the Fence Which Surrounds the Crash Site of Flight 93
Flight 93 Photos

That should do ya.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

*United Airlines Flight 93 -DebWunk 9/11 Myths*

IF 95% OF AN AIRCRAFT WAS RECOVERED WHY DO THEY ONLY EVER SHOW THE SAME HALF DOZEN PHOTOS OF NEXT TO NOTHING ?


http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_debris


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> *United Airlines Flight 93 -DebWunk 9/11 Myths*
> 
> IF 95% OF AN AIRCRAFT WAS RECOVERED WHY DO THEY ONLY EVER SHOW THE SAME HALF DOZEN PHOTOS OF NEXT TO NOTHING ?
> 
> ...


Did you see the photo of the big dumpster filled up with plane debris?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> *United Airlines Flight 93 -DebWunk 9/11 Myths*
> 
> IF 95% OF AN AIRCRAFT WAS RECOVERED WHY DO THEY ONLY EVER SHOW THE SAME HALF DOZEN PHOTOS OF NEXT TO NOTHING ?
> 
> ...


do you REALLY need to see ALL of it to admit it was flight 93?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2010)

I doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> i doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.



but of course it should be noted our opinion means little compared to two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military air crash investigators


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.


yeah, lets go get the back to the future delorean and take some HD cams with us and visit the respective sites


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > i doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.
> ...


except in typical troofer fashion, you take their words out of context


----------



## elvis (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.
> ...



the illuminati would tamper with the HD cams and the delorean.  You wouldn't really see what happened, but rather what "they" want you to see.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that most of these truthers would believe it if they were able to go back in time and eye witness each crash in slow motion.
> ...



We would know just where to be at each crash site, and could even drop in on the terrorists a day in advance. Ah, such dreams.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


yeah, if that was possible, i'd rather pay those assholes a visit first


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *united airlines flight 93 -debwunk 9/11 myths*
> ...



I am sure the former presidents of the air accident investigation board and the military air crash investigators did and they are clearly not impressed


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


we would not,,,



oops


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> *United Airlines Flight 93 -DebWunk 9/11 Myths*
> 
> IF 95% OF AN AIRCRAFT WAS RECOVERED WHY DO THEY ONLY EVER SHOW THE SAME HALF DOZEN PHOTOS OF NEXT TO NOTHING ?
> 
> ...



respect.

something you know nothing about, obviously.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???


----------



## Liability (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???



Irrelevant deflection.  They SHOW a part of the crashed jetliner being extracted from the crater left when the plane crashed and they show other images of that very plane's wreckage.  You don't accept any of that.  So why would it matter if they showed additional piles of crash wreckage?   DiveCon is absolutely right on the money.  You filthy scumbag shit sucking lying Troofers wouldn't accept any of it anyway.  Your mind is completely welded shut and you are stuck on stupid forever.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???



you just dont get it.

i know this might be hard for you but please do something you are not ordinarily asked to do.

...think...

how many people died and had pieces of their bodies scattered all over along with the plane wreckage?

i know burnouts like you dont understand the concept of respect for people that died and you really want to see body parts and gore but luckily the first responders to the scene dont share you grotesque and morbid curiosity.

here's a few more that show that more than a half dozen exist.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

are you actually trying to claim the reason we never see any other photos of the 95% of the plane recovered because they are all covered in body parts ?  they hauled them away examined them, stored them, all while they are covered in gore ?..is that what you just made up ?..I don't suppose you have a limk to this statement of gore and bodiy parts at the scene do you ?...no of course you don't


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> are you actually trying to claim the reason we never see any other photos of the 95% of the plane recovered because they are all covered in body parts ?  they hauled them away examined them, stored them, all while they are covered in gore ?..is that what you just made up ?..I don't suppose you have a limk to this statement of gore and bodiy parts at the scene do you ?...no of course you don't



no jackass. thats not what i claimed at all. you really do have no concept of what "respect" is.

the reason you dont see many pictures is because because it is morbid and disrespectful.

how many pictures do you see of the dozens (maybe hundreds?) of jumpers from the WTC after they hit the ground? it doesnt mean it didnt happen. it certainly did.

...and thats another concept you have yet to grasp. lack of evidence is not evidence. you cant claim OJ simpson didnt kill nicole simply because there are no pictures.


----------



## elvis (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???



no dumbfuck. it's  because they don't care about fuckstains like you who believe all this paranoia. they realize people like you are loads who should have been spit and are not going to take the extra time to take 35 pictures to satisfy you.  got it, cumsucker?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???
> ...


actually, there are likely thousands of photos that were taken
but just because they were taken, doesnt mean they would be published anywhere
most photographers would take hundreds of images to find the ONE they want to use

had i been at any of the sites with my camera that day, i likely would have used every roll of film i had
and i used to carry at least 10 rolls in my camera bag
(this was before i got my first digital camera)


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > are you actually trying to claim the reason we never see any other photos of the 95% of the plane recovered because they are all covered in body parts ?  they hauled them away examined them, stored them, all while they are covered in gore ?..is that what you just made up ?..I don't suppose you have a limk to this statement of gore and bodiy parts at the scene do you ?...no of course you don't
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they show the same half dozen photos out of... respect ???
> ...



so are the two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and the military crash investigators dumbfuck fuckstains ? cumsuckers ?...or is pedoelvis ?


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Fuckbrain:

just because you can point to some conspiracy jackasses with apparent credentials doesn't mean that their positions are reasonable, you shithead.

You are engaging in the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

The FACT remains that your sub-retarded theory requires that a massive amount of pre-existing conditions be met in order for your "theory" to even have a hope of beginning to make sense.  And none of those conditions are met.

You are a lying scumbag retard.  You are a treasonous piece of shit.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and with your track record of twisting the words of people, they more than likely dont support the bullshit you do


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



YOU are a fuckstain. YOU are a cumsucker.  you paranoid delusional sick fuck.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


he ALWAYS appeals to authority
rarely do you ever see him post his OWN opinions


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



And that is a REAL insult to paranoid delusional sick fucks!


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



but I am only posting the concerns of these gentleman and scholars E-ped


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you post shit, you watch shit, you read shit, you believe shit, and you ARE shit.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

divecon said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



it is my opinion that a logical person would listen to the concerns of multiple air crash and air craft parts authority's when looking for independent analysis on a plane crash...as opposed to popular mechanics


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



p-elvis


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

Here's my own conspiracy theory.  Josef Goebbels' wife didn't really poison all her children.  One of them survived and his offspring is eots.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> Here's my own conspiracy theory.  Josef Goebbels' wife didn't really poison all her children.  One of them survived and his offspring is eots.



whats a josef goebbles ?...I have a theory p-elvis spends an inappropriate amount of time around playgrounds

and then I have this fact.. I post the concerns of two former presidents of the air accident investigation board calling for an independent investigation of the crash and this is the moronic response it receives from the debwunkers


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my own conspiracy theory.  Josef Goebbels' wife didn't really poison all her children.  One of them survived and his offspring is eots.
> ...



that whore irony loves this post.  a braindead fuckstain troofer calling other people's responses moronic is just too much..  and I don't spend a lot of time at playgrounds, you sick fuck.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...


yes, because PM has MORE than 2 experts, dipshit
and have you ever named those two experts?
i dont remember


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my own conspiracy theory.  Josef Goebbels' wife didn't really poison all her children.  One of them survived and his offspring is eots.
> ...


so, not only are you delusional, you have no clue about actual history


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



well you addressed the theory but I am yet to hear you address the facts

so yes ,I am calling your response to my posting opinions of air accident investigators as moronic


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



eots,

Are you on the fence about this crash and the governments explanation about it? Are you saying that the government could be telling the truth, but then again they might not.

Is that why you are calling for a new investigation because you aren't sure either way?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 95% of it was recovered.
> 
> CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001



Perfect example of a stoopid ****.  The fbi says 95% was recovered and you swallow that government fed dick because you'll suck any balls put in your face if they deliver what you think you want to know.   What is the evidence of the 95% recovered?  Have you ever even asked that?  (we know you haven't)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



You're just another whiny bitch so stop wasting time.  You don't give a shit what he says because all you do is fish for some stoopid loophole.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 95% of it was recovered.
> ...



you have any evidence to the contrary?

yeah, i didnt think so. jackass.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Who the fuck are you? 



Did I address you anywhere in the above post? No? Then shut your damn pie hole! Your nothing but a word-twisting little bitch anyways with nothing of value to say in ANY thread.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> What is the evidence of the 95% recovered?  Have you ever even asked that?









Most of it appears to have been in the hole.  That's why they had to dig down 45 feet.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



I am not sure about flt 93 it seems there is a cover-up and when no less than two former presidents of the air accident investigation board question the report as they have ,it seems reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the report


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



This is why you are so fuxxing stoopid.  Instead of understanding the burden of proof is on those who make the claim you weasel dazzle and demand a negative.  Other than the FBI saying they recovered 95%, what actual evidence do you have?  (because that is the fallacy of an appeal to authority)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I'm the one that pwns you useless ***** on a regular basis.  You know it.  That is why you get so pissed when I call you out.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


WOW  what massive projections
dont hurt yourself throwing that shit around


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What is the evidence of the 95% recovered?  Have you ever even asked that?
> ...



Those are two of the most useless pics ever posted.  Ever.  Do you have any real evidence or will you link google earth and say that is all the evidence you have?

This is what you simple fuks fail to realize:  you get frustrated so easily because it is your cognitive dissonance kicking in high gear.  If the evidence is so overwhelming........why do you have to work so hard to find it?  Why is it there is basically one pic about 93 that gets posted over and over?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


gawd DAMN you are too fucking delusional
you havent PWNED anyone


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


except maybe the neighbor's dog.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



so p-elvis what is your opinion on the statement of the air crash investigation boards and the petition to re-investigate the crash evidence


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



that you and the rest of the troofers can take the petition and shove it up your ass.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



well then what an ignorant little man you are


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



You are pure genius! I love it how you OCTA whiny fuks run like little scared bitches every single time you know you cannot provide a reasonable response.  Sadly, you believe leaving petty rep comments actually accomplishes anything.  Just like your response to eots.  All it does is show you defend a position that is weak buy you are too arrogant to admit it.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



so what you are saying is that you have absolutely no evidence and that is supposed to trump the fbi evidence, right? 

what other evidence do i need? the fbi says 95% of the plane was recovered. do you have any evidence that the claim is not true?

of course you dont. so the preponderance of evidence shows that 95% of the plane was recovered.


----------



## Trojan (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Those are two of the most useless pics ever posted.  Ever.  *Do you have any real evidence *or will you link google earth and say that is all the evidence you have?




What exactly is real evidence that can be provided on an internet forum?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

trojan said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > those are two of the most useless pics ever posted.  Ever.  *do you have any real evidence *or will you link google earth and say that is all the evidence you have?
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation



sucks to be you then, eh?


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

No,sucks to be you


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> No,sucks to be you



brilliant. and you thought up that witty and insightful comeback in only 40 minutes.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > No,sucks to be you
> ...



its not a witty come back its just the facts


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you wouldnt know a fact even if it crawled up your ass and bit your hamster.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


he and facts are not on speaking terms


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'm not quite a genius, but I'm way smarter than you.  Oh, and hooked on phonics may be beneficial to you.


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



if that were true you why do you only write idiotic responses to reasonable questions ?


----------



## elvis (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



they aren't reasonable questions, fuckstain.


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



really fuckstain ? To ask if there is something valid to the statements of two former air accident investigation board presidents and several military crash investigators is not a reasonable question ? Really fuckstain ? Could you elaborate as to why it is not a reasonable question ?...fuckstain


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



id-eot, 

the transparency of your deflection is so clear, it's almost as though you have nothing whatsoever to say.

In response to an OP about the evidence (solid factual evidence) about the jet crash debris found IN the hole left by the crashing passenger jet, you, like the fuckstain piece of filth you always are, attempt to justify you insatiable desire for another investigation by telling us that some folks ("authority") have questions.

Good.  They have questions.  

Such questions will always exist, you fucking scumbag.  That's not a justification for another investigation.

You asslicking, cockgobbling, shitstain, bastard Troofers have YET to establish that the 9/11 Commission's findings are erroneous.  And even if they were in some regards imperfect and even if their findings did leave some questions (which will always be the case no matter how many "investigations" there may be), you haven't demonstrated any compelling reason to perform another investigation.  Scratching that "itch" you fuckstains have is not the job of society, you Troofer asshole.

In any case, where DID all of the jet crash debris come from in Shanksville, PA?  

Oh, and before I forget, it shouldn't go unmentioned that all Troofers are lying scumbags.  

All Troofers are lying scumbags.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Good grief you are a whiny Snitch Bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and you are a fucking moron


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




This is why you are so fuxxing stoopid.  Instead of understanding the burden of proof is on those who make the claim you weasel dazzle and demand a negative.  Other than the FBI saying they recovered 95%, what actual evidence do you have?  (because that is the fallacy of an appeal to authority.)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Trojan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Those are two of the most useless pics ever posted.  Ever.  *Do you have any real evidence *or will you link google earth and say that is all the evidence you have?
> ...



In a similar situation we have the NIST Report on the Towers.  Where is that version of the Report for flight 93?  Are you people so brainwashed you simply accept without question what the FBI says?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you can question, but you have to have some proof they are lying
thats where you dipshits fail


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...




That's the same fallacies as burden of proof and appeal to authority committed by fizz.

Just as there is a NIST report on the Towers, where is the Report on 93?

Another major aspect you are overlooking is the absence of access to information.  Even Dr. Q pointed this out and is a reason why he requests NIST's analysis be peer reviewed.

Asking for evidence is not an accusation of lying....it's asking for evidence.


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No, as a matter of fact you pussy scumbag lying piece of shit.  It's not even remotely "whining" to call you fucking scumbag asshole Troofer liars out for your petty assed lying fraudulent scumbag Troofer garbage.

If you don't like it, you lying sack of rat shit, then stop your lying, whining and treasonous bullshit.   

All Troofers are cock-gobbling fucktarded scumbag pussy liars.  Not one of you vile pieces of shit Troofer scumbag pussies has an iota of integrity.  Not one.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


sorry, dipshit, but the FBI IS the authority


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Holy fuk you punks are really brainwashed.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Snitch Bitch meltdown....


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

my phone doesn't have an airplane mode........


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





The sole meltdown is yours, of course, you filthy, diseased, useless, pussy liar Troofer scumbag.

All Troofers (like you) are pussy lying scumbags.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

hey, what modes do windows mobile phones have?

like the new HTC HD2


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

What modes does the new iPhone for Verizon have?

How about the apple touchpad?

If I buy a skype phone, can I text message with it?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

Old-Fashioned Raisin Pie  	

A country fair winning recipe from years ago.
Ingredients

2 cups Sun-Maid Natural Raisins
2 cups water
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
2 tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 tablespoon butter or margarine
1 double unbaked pie crust

Directions:

COMBINE raisins and water and boil for 5 minutes.
BLEND sugar, cornstarch, cinnamon and salt.
ADD to raisin liquid and cook, stirring until clear.
REMOVE from heat.
STIR in vinegar and butter/margarine. Cool slightly. Turn into pastry-lined pan.
COVER with top pastry or lattice strips.
BAKE at 425 F about 30 minutes or until crust is golden brown.

Makes 1 pie (8 servings). 


from;
Sun-Maid Recipes - Old-Fashioned Raisin Pie


----------



## elvis (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



the question has been answered a million goddamned times.  only delusional fuckwads like you who align yourselves with bin laden don't get it. To ask such questions after they have been answered more than sufficiently makes them reasonable questions no more, you cum gargler.


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

My dad used to make a REALLY REALLY tasty hors d'oeuvres that involved something as simple as (I recall) plain old white bread, mayonnaise and  Parmesan cheese.  I do not have the EXACT recipe, but as I recall, it involved some finely diced onions, too.  

The mayonnaise would be mixed together with a small amount of very finely diced onions to form a topping.  The bread would be cut (a small shot glass or cookie cutter would do) into small shapes.  No crusts involved.  The mayonnaise and onion mix would be spread on top of the bread shapes and then the mayonnaise topping would get liberally sprinkled with grated Parmesan cheese.  Placed on a large cookie sheet, the concoctions would get baked in an oven until the cheese melted into the mayonnaise and onion mix and the tops started to bubble and turn brown.  Then before they could burn, OUT of the oven they'd come to cool a bit.

It may have been the best hors d'oeuvres I ever had when I was young.  I want the actual recipe.  I can't find it anywhere.  But DAMN, it was good!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Calm down Snitch Bitch.....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




Why is it you bitches constantly have melt downs?  Oh that's right....we already know it's because you can't debate.  What kind of a useless **** accuses fellow americans of aligning themselves with bin laden because for challenging 9E?  You're a sik fuk.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


there is no debate with you dipshits
you ignore facts and call your delusions facts


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

just showing off my new avatar......kinda disturbing isn't it?


All you agents spreading disinformation and covering up act s of treason beware!


----------



## elvis (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> just showing off my new avatar......kinda disturbing isn't it?
> 
> 
> All you agents spreading disinformation and covering up act s of treason beware!



yeah, you're really fucking with my head.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > just showing off my new avatar......kinda disturbing isn't it?
> ...



That's the same as kicking an empty bucket.


----------



## elvis (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



this coming from a dumbfuck troofer.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> My dad used to make a REALLY REALLY tasty hors d'oeuvres that involved something as simple as (I recall) plain old white bread, mayonnaise and  Parmesan cheese.  I do not have the EXACT recipe, but as I recall, it involved some finely diced onions, too.
> 
> The mayonnaise would be mixed together with a small amount of very finely diced onions to form a topping.  The bread would be cut (a small shot glass or cookie cutter would do) into small shapes.  No crusts involved.  The mayonnaise and onion mix would be spread on top of the bread shapes and then the mayonnaise topping would get liberally sprinkled with grated Parmesan cheese.  Placed on a large cookie sheet, the concoctions would get baked in an oven until the cheese melted into the mayonnaise and onion mix and the tops started to bubble and turn brown.  Then before they could burn, OUT of the oven they'd come to cool a bit.
> 
> It may have been the best hors d'oeuvres I ever had when I was young.  I want the actual recipe.  I can't find it anywhere.  But DAMN, it was good!




Your dad should have spent more time on raising an honest person instead of making bitch treats.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




Call me whatever you want......but it won't change the fact I can kick your ass in any area of debate regarding 9E.  You know it.  That is why you avoid actually debating.  You're such a predictable skanky **** you'll do nothing but whine in response even when I offer you the chance to pick any area you want to debate.  You're nothing but a sniveling cocksucking bitch.  And. You.  Know. It.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ROFLMAO

you cant even tell when someone is using sarcasm and you think you win debates????????


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > My dad used to make a REALLY REALLY tasty hors d'oeuvres that involved something as simple as (I recall) plain old white bread, mayonnaise and  Parmesan cheese.  I do not have the EXACT recipe, but as I recall, it involved some finely diced onions, too.
> ...



Cum-guzzler, you little bag of pussy menstrual whack, 

Unlike you, I am honest and have been honest.   

You are a compulsive liar and a cock-gobbling sissy ass-sucker.

And, by the way, you hopelessly dishonest and malignantly diseased ass-hopper,  the hors d'oeuvres were terrific, not "bitch treats," you ignorant and retarded gutless pussy.

All Troofers suck shit out of Satan's asshole in hell.  It's a known fact!


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Yes.  He's a very literal cum-guzzler.   Stupid and ignorant as all hell and as dishonest as anything this side of hell, but . . . 

he's literal.  And wrong.

All Troofers are lying gutless sacks of rancid rat shit.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> hey, what modes do windows mobile phones have?
> 
> like the new HTC HD2



my Dash 3G has airplane mode.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Your dad made nothing but bitches and you are living proof Snitch Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > hey, what modes do windows mobile phones have?
> ...



You find any evidence 95% of flight 93 being recovered?


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



you have never answered the question ,not once ...you avoid it by posting your own closet homosexual thoughts like _cum gargler _and bring your own confused sexuality into it ..you cant give a reasonable answer and this is your excuse you are a sick _man .._you are pathetic


----------



## elvis (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i am through answering questions, adolf.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

elvis said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




Lol.....calling him hitler now??????? ROTFL!  It's nice to see USMB has a work program for reetawrded fuks like you.  The question has never been answered by any OCTA on here because:

EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RUN LIKE FUXXING COWARDS.  

You keep proving it over and over.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yep. a news article. find any proof that isnt correct yet?


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> * * * *
> Your dad made nothing but bitches and you are living proof Snitch Bitch.



Hey menstrual drippings:

You are a complete cowardly pussy and a total liar.  You have nothing of any interest to add to any conversation.  You suck Satan's asshole in hell -- and like it.  You gargle with rat jism after finding the most diseased rodents you can lay your fat  fingers on and sucking syphilitic rat dick for hours on end.

All Troofers are abject liars and cowardly prissy shit-stains.   And you go down on all of them for a living.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Post the article with the evidence without your appeal to authority fallacy.  Also, the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim.....but we all know OCTA bitches like you can't debate because you don't know how.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

curvey, exactly what does OCTA stand for please?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



Looks like the Snitch Bitch Syndrome is genetic.  Was your dad a Snitch Bitch like you?  Is that why he got slapped into the kitchen to make little bitch treats?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> curvey, exactly what does OCTA stand for please?



Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist.  It's a neutral term for those who defend the Bush Admin's version of 9E.


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Lying pussy menstrual flow droppings:

The article has already been linked here, you filthy cum-gargler.  CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

CNN might be "in on" the "hoax," according to lying fuckwad shitstains like you filthy treasonous Troofers.  But, nobody WITH a brain buys your idiocy.

So, since the evidence is that the FBI DID make the claim, you may proceed to now attempt to refute it, you moron ass hopper.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > curvey, exactly what does OCTA stand for please?
> ...




Labeling the facts of the matter a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it neutral, dumbass.


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Lying pussy menstrual flow droppings:

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > curvey, exactly what does OCTA stand for please?
> ...



That's neutral? mmmmk, I suppose.
Anyway, i saw you refer to a OCTA group, was hopong you could let me know where and when they meet?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > curvey, exactly what does OCTA stand for please?
> ...



did he just say its neutral?!! 

every day he says something more idiotic than the day before. i cant wait for tomorrow!!


----------



## Liability (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



That's a fucked up avie you have slack.  It makes you come across as -- I dunno -- possibly insane?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




yeah, I stole chrissy's avatar, so what? Well.....so.....
I feel ok, but do have the urge to hiss out the phrase 'agent of treason' and am starting to believe thatth eopposite of what these agents say is the truth........


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You just pulled the same stoopid shit fizzbitch did.  Way to go Snitch Bitch.  Now, do you have any actual evidence 95% was recovered?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You keep revealing new layers of stoopidity Snitch Bitch.  I never denied the FBI said it you dummfuk reetawrded Snitch Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




That's circular reasoning you dumfuk.  You don't get to label something as "facts of the matter" simply because you agree with the theory.   The official explanation is the theory terrorists conspired to do the attack unknown to agencies that could have stopped it. There has never been a full investigation into 9E so it is still a theory.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Keep telling yourself that loony.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




That isn't necessary.  Really.  We all know how often bitches like you ignore facts and hope you can successfully do it with nothing but name calling.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You.


Loony Tunes.





That is all.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

Hey Snitch Bitch, look at this post I made in the "engine planted" thread:

"Thinking people don't accept the OCT without questioning it.  These punks swallowed the OCT dick and never looked back and now they are choking to death and too proud to admit it.  

So far it doesn't look like anything was planted at the crash site but in searching for pics of the crash site there is a dearth of visible access.  In looking at pics of crash sites from other commercial jets there seems to be inconsistency in the amount and quality of identifiable debris.    

A good example is TWA Flight 800.  This is a 747 that exploded midair and crashed in the fucking ocean but look at how much they recovered from the OCEAN to reconstruct a large portion of the plane.
Http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800?wasRedirected=true

Other points of comparison:

The fbi investigated for 16 months for flight 800 but announced conclusion of the 93 investigation after 13 DAYS.

The NTSB investigated for FOUR YEARS on flight 800.  For flight 93........fucking zilch.  In fact it claims:

"The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report
or open a public docket."
Http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00106&key=1

The FBI is not equipped to do full aircraft crash investigations so how did an ill equipped organization complete it's crash investigation in less than 13 fuxxing days?  How did they calculate they recovered 95% of the airplane yet cannot do a reconstruction like we see with flight 800?  I'm sure the NTSB helped out but get real.....when in the fuck has the NTSB have ever come close to completing an investigation of this magnitude in less than two weeks? (and they are fully equipped).

Another point is the FBI did a parallel investigation with the NTSB on flight 800.  Probably because the FBI is not equipped to do aircraft investigations as that is in the field of the NTSB.  So why didn't the same approach happen with flight 93?


It must be reiterated:  look at the reconstruction from a commercial jet that blew up and crashed in the ocean....at 16,000 feet.  If they could recover that much why couldn't they recover even half as much for 93?"


Gee....do you see where I pointed out the FBI concluded their "Investigation" after 13 days?

I also noticed all OCTAs ignored the facts....once again.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



The good news for you is there are plenty of cowards just like you to help assuage the friction from your cognitive dissonance.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You.


Loony Tunes. 



That is all.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Why are you such a coward?  Oops.  Why ask? If you knew the answer you wouldn't be such a coward.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You.


Loony Tunes. 



That is all.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Okay OREO.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You. Loony Tunes.  That is all.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hey Snitch Bitch, look at this post I made in the "engine planted" thread:
> 
> "Thinking people don't accept the OCT without questioning it.  These punks swallowed the OCT dick and never looked back and now they are choking to death and too proud to admit it.
> 
> ...



The "facts" you present here are unsourced and unsubstaniated, and have led you to erroneous conclusions based on your "blame america first" attitude that clearly shows through your post and makes you an agent of treason.


and your looney tunes as well


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Do I detect an racial slur from the left-wing curvey here? 

So besides being a treasonous little fuckwit, curvey is a racist as well. What a surprise.

And being looney tunes goes hand in hand with all the other actions of the agent known as curvey.


----------



## Trojan (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation



If a murder is committed in the house next to you, what evidence do you think will be made publically available to you (a nonparty) for independent verification and investigation?

Do you think they would allow civilians to just roam about the crime scene, examine DNA evidence?

Your expectations are not realistic.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2010)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation
> ...



Has there been a plane crash anywhere at any time that posted, on the internet, 100% or even 95% of every piece recovered?  If not, why would they do that here?


Eots is garbage.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation
> ...



The twoofers expect the unrealistic and take advantage of the dissatisfied and weak-minded to advance their treasonous mission of disinformation. Apparantly you have too many working brain cells to become of dupe to their lies.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is these _story's_ and photos represent the totality of all evidence available for independent verification or investigation
> ...




You just killed your own argument with that analogy.  In such a case the Defense team would, by law, be given all evidence for scrutiny and that way the evidence presented by the prosecution is independently verified.  In the case of 9E, not only is there an incomplete investigation but the evidence gathered has not been verified.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


*

*


proof of that curvey? Or is it just something you "know"?

Prove your statement, you made it, prove up on it.


----------



## Liability (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Period puddle lying syphilitic twat stain:

I just posted some evidence.  The FBI released the information.

If your idiot-question du jour is whether I have personally verified what the FBI said, you scumbag pussy lying retard, then the answer is not just "no," but "of course not, you asshole."

You asked for evidence.  The FBI report constitutes evidence.  You may not like it, but that's a matter of no concern, you tool.  If you have any information which would ACTUALLY put the "lie" to that report (and that percentage figure), then post it.  But you don't and everyonbe knows that you don't you lying stain.

Otherwise, as always, you remain fully exposed as the lying cowardly pussy scumbag Troofer filth you have always been.

Troofers suck shit from Satan's asshole in hell, and enjoy it.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

I see an FBI agent told you so..so if I post FBI agents that say the CIA control the drug traffic in this country or that 9/11 was an inside job then I have evidence ?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> I see an FBI agent told you so..so if I post FBI agents that say the CIA control the drug traffic in this country or that 9/11 was an inside job then I have evidence ?



Do you know how stupid and childish you sound this morning?

Liability's link is to a PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FBI, not one rogue agent that went crazy and started telling lies for the attention, but an honest to god press release from the organization. 
If you post a link to a simular press release then yes it is evidence.

If you post yet another cartoon-like youtube video from some nutter claiming to be an "agent", it is not.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...



Like clockwork...another OCTA ignorant of basic facts.  The CR is incomplete by several examples including no mention of WTC 7, the omissions of many testimonies of first responders and survivors as well as not a damn thing on what bush and cheney said.  As for lacking verification....are you fuxxing joking?  Did you miss the link I posted showing the NTSB has not nor will do an investigation on the planes?  What about Dr. Quintier's call for NIST's Report to be independently examined?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Holy fuk you are dum.  For the third time....you are repeating the same fallacy of appeal to authority that fizz has done.  Divedik is so stoopid he quickly looked up what that meant but since you ***** don't know how to research he, like you, fizzbitch, slackdikjaw, and others don't understand it is the fallacy of appeal to authority to claim the evidence is the FBI said it.  When has the FBI ever produced evidence 95% was recovered you fuxxing Snitch Bitch?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



If there is so much evidence why do you continually refuse to provide any?

The link you provided did say that there will be no investigation of the plnaes by ntsb, and the reason given was THAT THE 911 COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT INFO AND NTSB provided it there you fucking dishinest fuckwit! It was in your own link.
Who the fuck is Dr Quintier other than another mentally challenged twoofer like you who calls for an expensive investigation that he will never accept because both of you have made up your treasonous minds.

Post some evidence or be considered a treasonous fucktard twoofer forever.
where are your links?
Where is this evidence of "basic facts"? 

If they are "basic facts" it should be a piece of cake to provide a link or two.

Otherwise, your just posting your own unfounded opinion, and we know what that is worth.......


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Holy fuck are you a stupid piece of treasonous shit!
The fallacy of appeal to authority argument didn't work for sacco and vanzetti and it doesn't fly for the treasonous scum twoofers either.

I can play the same game on you twoofers as well. It is fairly easy.

If a twoofer says it, it is a lie. There are NO exceptions!

That's how that works fucktardo.....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




You are one lying stoopid cocksucking ****. 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested
technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is
under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report
or open a public docket.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to
issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any
material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.
Http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00106&key=1


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



First of all you dumfuk the FBI is not equipped nor is it an expert in recovering and investing an airplane crash.  The NTSB are the experts in that field.  Secondly, you're trying to claim that just because the FBI says 95% was recovered then it must be true.  You just used two major variations of the fallacy of appeal to authority and you're too fuxxing stoopid to realize it..........


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



My point is proven best by your post agent, even though it is not your intent.

You are one treasonous little assweasel.  Maybe 911insiderimjob will show up to lick your ass in support, best you can hope for you dipshit.

You posted a link- just one mind you, and we both agree it says the same thing.

You just want to interpert it as some kind of conspiracy because you hate your country, I simply accept it for what it is, information.
That makes you a treasonous little fuckwad and makes me a patriot.
And you look stupid to boot, added bonus!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The fbi got help in the investigation from the ntsb, read the appendix (you have read the report right?) 

To those that are treasonous and looking for a way to blame america first, that is good enough.
To the treasonous halfwit truthers, this is a perfect opportunity to disparage the uSA and all her supporters, AND to cause the families of the victims a great deal of pain.


Fucking twoofers are treasonous shitstains and worse.

Here is something more cheerful as well as more useful;

Pineapple Glazed Spamburgers

 Ingredients

    * 2 (12-ounce) cans SPAM® Classic, sliced
    * 1 (8.3-ounce) jar HORMEL® pineapple glaze and dipping sauce
    * 0 Kaiser rolls, split, toasted
    * 0 Pineapple rings
    * 0 Green bell pepper rings
    * 1 red onion, sliced

Directions

   1. Prepare grill.
   2. Place SPAM® Classic slices on grill; grill, basting frequently with pineapple glaze and dipping sauce, until hot.
   3. Divide SPAM® evenly among bottoms of rolls; top with pineapple, bell pepper, onion and tops of rolls. Serve with remaining pineapple glaze for dipping

from
SPAM > Recipe Details


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



The link says the NTSB will do no report because it is under FBI jurisdiction.  Once again you dumfuk....the FBI is not equipped to do what the NTSB does.  Even with assistance to the FBI (which I pointed out a couple of days ago) it cannot do a full investigation and it has never provided actual evidence 95% was recovered.  But you ignore that because it is you who hates America and you wouldn't recognize Patriotism if it fell on you in the form of an asteroid.

Why is it for Flight 800 the NTSB spent four years investigating and the FBI did a parallel investigation but for these flights they shut out the NTSB?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



the link does say they contributed manpower to it, so just how were they "shut out"?

And even if they were, with milions of us witnessing the planes crashing, what investigation is needed? We know what happened, they were hijacked by your al qaida buddies and flown into the towers, the pentagon, and the passengers forced one to crash in a field.

Until you present some real evidence that says otherwise, that is the best information to date. So far none of you idiototic truthers have presented anything better.

dumbass


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

Juggarnaut
A juggernaut is a message board idiot who has the entire board united against him, yet he continues to ignore everyone, insisting they are the idiots, and he is the only true intellectual that can understand any concept. *Curvelight on USMB is an excellent example.*
According to some juggernaut on the board, we are in the computer age, next will be the cyborg age, then the synthetic age, all in the next two decades.

from
Urban Dictionary: message board idiot


----------



## Trojan (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*If a murder is committed in the house next to you, what evidence do you think will be made publically available to you (a nonparty) for independent verification and investigation*

Did you miss the part of the evidence not being made publically available to a non-party?  The defense would be a party to the trial, not a non party.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Trojan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...




There would be independent verification of what the prosecution claims but you somehow missed that important point.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




The NTSB was shut out because it could not do an investigation and anything it found while assisting the FBI was under the strict control of the FBI.  You obviously don't have the first fuxxing clue about why our government was structured under a checks and balances system and you don't give shit about those who died on 9E or the suffering their families have endured.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The NTSB was shut out because it could not do an investigation and anything it found while assisting the FBI was under the strict control of the FBI.


proof that the ntsb was "shut out" please.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The NTSB was shut out because it could not do an investigation and anything it found while assisting the FBI was under the strict control of the FBI.
> ...




Lol....after it's already been posted on this page......nice try but you are really sooper stoopid if you think you can apply the fallacy of appeal to authority on this and did you ever find actual evidence 95% of 93 was recovered?


----------



## Liability (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The FBI reported it and we have seen lots of the plane parts recovered and displayed.  So -- yes.  As I, for one, already pointed out to you.  Selective hearing is evident in _bent tight_.  

Did *you* ever come up with any evidence that the FBI report of 95% being recovered was in any way dishonest or misleading or deceptive or wrong?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




If you've seen lots of the plane parts then post a link showing 95% of 93.  The way you guys continue with the fallacy of appeal to authority is evidence in itself you don't have any actual facts to show the fbi announcement was true.  Do you have any idea how long it would take to collect and tag 95% of a commercial airliner when the biggest parts recovered was a 7 foot section and part of an engine fan?  Here's a hint Snitch Bitch:  it's impossible for that to happen in less than 13 days.

And once again.....asking for evidence of a claim is not an accusation of lying.  You punks keep try to spin that to attempt to distract from the fact you have no facts to support the fbi's claim.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 9, 2010)

you have yet to show even one small, little, tiny piece of evidence that the FBI claim is not true. 

your claim that it is impossible to happen in 13 days is once again you simply making shit up and talking out of your ass.


----------



## Liability (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your non-comprehension of the meaning of the term of logic "appeal to authority" is quite amusing.

Citing a source, you retard, is not an "appeal to authority."

Your baseless DENIAL is quite amusing, too.

What evidence do you have that the FBI contention of 95% of the crashed jet having been recovered is itself in any way erroneous?  (Let's go waaaaaay out on a limb and predict that the correct answer is "none whatsoever."    ) 

I can't help but note (with pure amusement) that you've dodged that question -- again.

What an imbecile like YOU claims is "impossible" is still a matter of pure contention absent ANY support, _pussy drippings_.    

Say, _pussy drippings_, is there ANY chance of you doubling down on that one brief shining display of honesty and admitting that you have ZERO evidence to support your baseless denial of the FBI contention?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You obviously don't know what appeal to authority entails so keep on embarrassing yourself.  It's your lifestyle Snitch Bitch.

You don't have any evidence to back up what the FBI claimed and you know it.


----------



## Liability (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Actually, pussy drippings, unlike you, I do know what the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is and what it means.  Clearly, despite your ever-present arrogance, you don't.  You are merely wrong again, as you were when you ignorantly suggested that my discussion about the video was somehow laughable because it wasn't "the" video under discussion.  You had missed what Jos had posted.  And now, you seem to have once heard about "appeal to authority" and you THINK you grasp what it means, but you are wrong again, pussy drippings.  



I shall now underscore how ignorant you are by exposing how you are again flatly wrong:



> An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
> 
> 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
> 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
> ...


 Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


Now, _panty liner overflow_, do try to convince us that the FBI is not sufficiently expert on the collection of evidence....  



A CITATION to an expert is not a fallacious "appeal to authority" anymore than calling a witness to an event or observation to testify about that event or observation is an appeal to authority, you mutant menstrual moron.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 9, 2010)

he doesnt even realize that "appeal to authority" doesnt prove the information is false.

here is a better example of appeal to authority. obviously the NAVY would not be an expert on the flight 93 crash but would be an expert in other areas.

here is the NAVY claiming 95 percent of flight 93 was recoverred:
_Over the days and weeks following the Flight 93 crash, recovery personnel retrieved more than 95 percent of the airplane's wreckage from the crash site_. 
Team Ship - LPD 17 San Antonio class

now that info by itself would fall into your fallacy of appeal to authority. however, since we actually have an authority in this case, the FBI, it simply backs up the claim.

did you find any proof that the 95 percent recovered claim is incorrect yet?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> he doesnt even realize that "appeal to authority" doesnt prove the information is false.
> 
> here is a better example of appeal to authority. obviously the NAVY would not be an expert on the flight 93 crash but would be an expert in other areas.
> 
> ...


instead of doing actual research into the facts he spends his time on stupid cell phone modes and proves me correct at the same time
LOL


btw, my phone STILL doesn't have a mode called either "airplane" or "flight"
but it does have an OFFLINE mode like i have always maintained


----------



## candycorn (Apr 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> he doesnt even realize that "appeal to authority" doesnt prove the information is false.
> 
> here is a better example of appeal to authority. obviously the NAVY would not be an expert on the flight 93 crash but would be an expert in other areas.
> 
> ...


*
It was the same thing with the May's phone call.  Since he personally didn't see bill, he assumes the phone call isn't made or suspects it wasn't.  Since he didn't sit there and count all 95 percent of the plane being collected...he suspects it wasn't.

On another board; there is one damn fool who...get this...swears that he's an engineer well respected in Finland.  He swears that he was going to put his findings into record at the UN and Condi Rice personally blocked it.

On the same board, anybody who believes the 9/11 Commissoin Report is a government plant and that the CIA is paying us to sit there and block him.

Do you see a trend there?  

Curvelight thinks he's important enough to be shown the phone bills and inspect the wreckage, those two boobs think high government officials are blocking their progress and of course their chance at fame.  

The twoofers are some fucked up people, are they not?*


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



School time for the Snitch Bitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.


----------



## JW Frogen (Apr 10, 2010)

Shanksville!

I want to live there.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > he doesnt even realize that "appeal to authority" doesnt prove the information is false.
> ...




Tell us again how NASA is the only way we know Africa exists you sooper stoopid bitch.


----------



## JW Frogen (Apr 10, 2010)

But then I almost bought a condo in Toadsuck Arkansas once, so do not listen to me.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> he doesnt even realize that "appeal to authority" doesnt prove the information is false.
> 
> here is a better example of appeal to authority. obviously the NAVY would not be an expert on the flight 93 crash but would be an expert in other areas.
> 
> ...




I never said the appeal to authority fallacy proves information as false you dumfuk.  You also don't know the fallacy so read the educational post provided to the Snitch Bitch.  Then I want you to completely ignore the meaning and application of the fallacy and continue to reside in your willful ignorance.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> you have yet to show even one small, little, tiny piece of evidence that the FBI claim is not true.
> 
> your claim that it is impossible to happen in 13 days is once again you simply making shit up and talking out of your ass.




You made the claim.  It's your responsibility to support it with facts.  The fbi is not the authority for investigating plane crashes you dum fuk.  Keep ignoring that fact.  You obviously don't know how crash investigations are done.  You can't collect a pile of debris then simply announce "95% has been recovered!"  How did they reach that conclusion?  You have absofuxxinglootly no idea.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you have yet to show even one small, little, tiny piece of evidence that the FBI claim is not true.
> ...



so you are trying to claim that the lead investigative agency is not an authority?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're pure bitch.  You ignore the points then try to deflect.  The fbi is not the expert authority on plane crashes.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 10, 2010)

Drop the fries and let the grown ups talk


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no jackass. you are the one trying to deflect. you enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing when you have no point at all to make.

saying the lead investigative agency of 9/11 is not an authority is just plain STUPID. 

the fbi was assisted by the NTSB, moron. its not like they were trying to determine what airplane part was defective or if it was pilot error that caused the crash. THE PLANES WERE HIJACKED and that certainly fails under the authority of the FBI.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I never said the fbi is not an authority.  Learn to read bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


if the FBI is an authority then it is NOT a fallacious appeal, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.


----------



## Liability (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What a lying sack of rancid rotten menstrual drippings.  The FBI is not required to be THE expert (as though there is only one possible expert) on plane crash investigations to be AN authority (especially when working together with the NTSB).

Since when did it become required that the "expert" be the leading expert in order for an expert opinion or assessment to avoid the fallacy of an appeal to authority?

You snake-y slimy dishonest fucking dripping pussies are a thoroughly disreputable lot.  

The FBI has developed a pronounced expertise in INVESTIGATIONS generally, you imbecile.  And how much expertise IS required, anyway, to conclude that plane crash debris -- constituting less than 100% of the plane itself -- amounts to about 95%?  And THAT is the real question, given a VALID definition of the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

If I point to YOU, for example, as an "expert" in brain surgery and cite your opinion that all brain surgery poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk of the patient contracting syphilis, THEN the complete lack of expertise you have matters.  But, when a person cites an ACTUAL expert, then the question boils down to how much expertise is required?  YOU have no expertise.  The FBI in conjunction with the NTSB has a massive amount of perfectly valid expertise.

I suspect that your actual complaint is not even associated with the alleged fallacy of "appeal to authority."  That "complaint" is ridiculous on its face.  Instead, I suspect that what you are actually attempting to grunt out is the question of whether (or not) the FBI was being truthful.  That issue is entirely distinct from one of credentials.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


moron, you are BEING schooled here, but are too fucking stupid to realize it
LOL


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them _pussie drippings_ and therefore debwunked


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them _pussie drippings_ and therefore debwunked


now here is a fallacious appeal to authority


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them _pussie drippings_ and therefore debwunked
> ...



No its a _peer review_ of multiple and highly credible experts in the Field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The authority being cited needs to be an expert in the field of the topic being discussed.  The LAPD is an authority but you can't cite them regarding a NASA launch.  The FBI is not an expert group of aircraft crash investigations......that is what the NTSB does.  But you simply ignored everything to go on another emo Snitch Bitch rant.  Congrats.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



They are authorities because they are experts in aircraft crash investigations.  You dumasses think "authority" only means sanctioned by the government.  Holy fuk you truly truly are simply stoopid.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, its YOU that is stupid, dumbfuck


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you can repeat that multiple times, it still doesnt make you right
just like repeatedly posting the AT&T links about my phone, that proved me right even though you thought it didnt'


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



lol... thats not the definition of being an _authority_ on a forensic science


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
*This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.* More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

the FBI was the lead investigative agency. the NTSB assisted the FBI. can you please tell me who would be more qualified to investigate an airplane hijacking that resulted in a crash??


----------



## Liability (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them _pussie drippings_ and therefore debwunked



First of all, asshole, I didn't claim that the findings of the air crash investigatons of 9/11 ARE accurate.  However, I also have seen ZERO credible evidence that those findings are inaccurate, you fucking imbecile liar.

And NOBODY can "_debwunk_" anybody since there is no such thing as "_debwunk_," you fucking retarded scumbag ass-licker.

Moreover, shitforbrains, the alleged experts you point to were not part of the investigation's team, now WERE THEY?  So their general expertise is of no significance, here, since they didn't perform the investigations which they pretend to criticize.  In that respect, douche bag, you ARE committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

Irony is fun, isn't it?


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them _pussie drippings_ and therefore debwunked
> ...



its ridiculous to say their expertise is of no significance they are in a position to examine the reports ,evidence presented and flt data and they have found reason to question it


----------



## Liability (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No, id-eots, once again you are simply and flatly wrong.  What IS ridiculous is offering the opinions of some alleged experts (possibly even people who could qualify as genuine experts) as "authority" for some proposition when those alleged experts have NO first hand knowledge of the very thing they pretend to be offering their "expert" opinions on.  

Anybody can review a report of people who conducted an actual investigation and come up with reasons to "question" it.  But these guys YOU point to so triumphantly, you nitwit, are not the kind of experts who can provide anything useful because 

THEY WEREN'T THERE.  

You remain an imbecile, a moron, a mutt, a mutant, a jackass, a pussy, a liar, a scumbag and, of course, an id-eot.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are.  Good job.

What's pure comedy is you ignored that link but expect the link you provided to be responded to.....even though the link I posted already addressed the point you are trying to make.  You bitches always ignore facts and links that prove your position wrong.  I'm just glad I realized long ago you have absolutely no interest in honest discussion.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But in Candyfizzdiveability Land they don't have to adhere to anything except for what the first dumfuk posts.  If the first one said an "authority" is Captain Hook the rest would follow suit and peter pan themselves right into another false sense of security by numbers.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...


ROFLMAO

you just defined the troofer mentality to a T


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 10, 2010)

​


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You ignored other links provided but you probably feel entitled to have your link addressed.  Know what's sooper dooper funny?  You just defeated your own argument you dumfuk!  The fbi fails in criteria for 1 and 2.  As for number 3, not all experts agree.  

So even when you adhere to your usual dishonesty and fail to address points posted by others you still get pwned.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




Keep lying bitch......it's funny.  I've openly criticized eots, terral, christophera, etc and you all know this for a fact.  I don't walk lock step like you punks and once again you ignored eots' point and he was fully correct.  One's expertise is not defined by who did a particular investigation you cocksucking whiner.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> ​




Go cry to Staff some more.  Bitch.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Trojan said:


> No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.


Really now.  Got a link to some overwhelming proof of that?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wrong again, dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > No it was found in hole, just as most of the plane was found in the hole.
> ...


its been posted, dipshit
read the fucking thread


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you have??????
WHERE???
i've NEVER seen it


and you are the whiniest dipshit on this forum, next to pubes


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh thass right...in your world you are always correct and you never support your claims.  Now be a good bitch and respond with one of the following:

1. More tpp

Or

2. Call me a name

Or

3. A combination of the two.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...


I only see a link that says 95% of the plane was recovered _(cough-bullshit-cough)_.  No where did it say most of the plane was found in the hole.  I'm looking for proof of that.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...




I never did in the first place.

You are looney tunes.

That is all.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are.  Good job.



here is what is really funny....

you claim athiesm.about.com is an authority on the fallacy of the appeal to authority


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you get what you deserve


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are.  Good job.
> ...



It's embarrassing when you try to debate.  Your deflection is painfully weak and here is the proof:

Pick any link of your choice that offers a sincere definition of the fallacy.  Your fallacy on citing the fbi's claim doesn't change regardless of the source you use but you will ignore that as well.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



I doubt 95% was found in the hole, there was a debris field. I believe an engine was found in a nearby pond even. But 95% of the plane was recovered, And DNA matches identified body parts of all passengers and crew, minus the hijackers as they had no DNA samples of theirs to compare to.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

Here's a good comparison of investigations.  

Stack committed terrorism by his own personal 9E attack.  He even left a suicide note on the web.  So what happened?  The NTSB gave a preliminary report after 7 weeks.  It took the experts that long for a single man cessna attack but the fbi, who are not experts at plane crash investigations completed theirs in less than 13 days on a commercial jet.  The really interesting part is the fbi took over the investigation after the ntsb did it's job.  How can the fbi be qualified for flight 93 but not qualified for a single engine cessna?


"The aircraft was destroyed on impact into the office building. The NTSB says the FBI has taken over the investigation."
Http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9ETS97G0.html


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I'd like to see some evidence for that other guy's claim that most of the plane was down in the hole. 

I'd also like to see some evidence there was a hole!  I only saw a crater there.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


^^^^ more TPP


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice. Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



well google is your best friend while you search for these things.

What is the difference between a crater and a hole? I know it doesn't have anything to do with anything, but am curious. A crater is a hole isn't it? However, a hole is not neccesarily a crater, but it can be.
So, everyone feel free to answer my question;

What exactly is the difference between a crater and a hole?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no, here is what must be really embarrassing for you. the FBI was the lead investigative agency and was assisted by the NTSB. please tell me who would be more authoritive than those two.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 10, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




A crater is CurveLights head.

A hole is what he puts his mouth to down at the porno lounge.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 10, 2010)

I always thought that Laredo was a hole, and it would be a much nicer place if it was a crater.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I always thought that Laredo was a hole, and it would be a much nicer place if it was a crater.......



Be nice, my wife was born in Laredo.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.


There wasn't much in that crater.  The other guy talks like most of the plane traveled down into the ground.  If that was the case, there would be a hole, not a crater left where you could walk in it as that one photo shows of the one guy in the jumpsuit doing.



> Doesn't matter. Remember this was a reclaimed mine. the ground was rather soft. Anything smashing into it at 500+MPH is going to sink in. If I remember right they stopped digging at about 45 ft deep.


You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground?  _Seriously???_

Talk about


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


A crater is a bowl-shaped indent in the ground, commonly caused by bombs.  I hole is something that _would_ be left if a plane could travel down to 45 feet.

I searched.  Couldn't find any evidence that remotely proves most of Flight 93 was under the surface.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can call it anything you like crater, hole, crevice.
> ...



Go get a sling shot and shoot a rock into a sand pile from close up with all the power you can. It will disapear into the sand while leaving little trace. Think about it. Hell just think period.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
that didnt even leave a crater to see


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


Comparing a hard solid rock into a sand pile with basically a long hollow aluminum tube into dirt ground?  Talk about 

But whatever, I would like to see some good evidence there was a plane under that crater if that's what you really think happened.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
> that didnt even leave a crater to see


Comparing dry dirt ground with a swamp?  

Talk about


----------



## Liability (Apr 10, 2010)

When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.  

Google Image Result for http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg  (see images, for example, at post number 30 of that board and thread)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > hey, that value jet must never have crashed in the everglades way back
> ...


no, dipshit
it was sarcasm that you clearly are not capable of comprehending


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



See, that's the thing. There is evidence and you and the other moronic twoofers refuse to accept it.
the only thing I can figure is that you idiots hate your country so much that you refuse to believe anything that anyone in a position of power tells you.
So ask for "evidence" all you want. But the thing is you clowns wouldn't accept evidence so there is no point to bother. The fact is, that is why you guys are a bunch of treasonous fuckwads......


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> [
> You guys are really think most of the remnants of a Boeing 757 was in the ground?  _Seriously???_
> 
> Talk about



considering radar reconstruction shows the track of the plane the entire time, the FDR recovered from your hole that you say no plane crashed in and it had all the data and voices from the flight 93 pilots and hijackers and considering dna from the crew and the passengers were found at the crash site.....

and considering the only evidence you have to counter all of that is that the bucket of a backhoe and a piece of airplane are about the same saize i would say its pretty overwhelming evidence that flight 93 actually did crash where ALL THE FUCKING WITNESSES THAT SAW THE PLANE ABOUT TO CRASH say it crashed.

fucking idiotic twoofers. 

who cares what the evidence is or how absurd it is as long as it blames the government.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Seems to be a strange juxtaposition of the soft earth and absence of debris.  A commercial jet had an explosion at 16,000 feet then crashed into the ocean yet they were able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together.  But here, hardly any pics of debris are available.  If it was a reclaimed mine then the softness would play a huge role in how the plane broke up on impact.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Lol....thank you for proving you run like a scared bitch.  This question has been addressed several times but you ask it again because all you have is deflection.  Pay attention dumass.  The fbi are not experts in crash investigations.  If they were they would not have needed experts from NTSB.

You punks also fail to realize even if it was the NTSB that made the claim I would still ask for evidence.  Why?  The appeal to authority fallacy.  Just because X says something that doesn't mean it is automatically true.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I always thought that Laredo was a hole, and it would be a much nicer place if it was a crater.......
> ...



The fact she married you proved slackjawed's point.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.
> 
> Google Image Result for http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg  (see images, for example, at post number 30 of that board and thread)



No matter how crazy something is you OCTAs always say "it makes perfect sense!" as a way of trying to support a claim you cannot support.  You don't even understand basic dimensions of a passenger jet and think that just because it is heavy it would disintegrate upon impact.  A 747 blew up and crashed into the ocean yet the NTSB was able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together.  I know you punks will ignore any comparisons you don't like but at least you can't say nobody pointed it out.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 11, 2010)




----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you still dont get this "appeal to authority fallacy" even after it has been explained to you. 

must be that reading comprehension problem you have rearing its ugly head again....

feel free to keep using it incorrectly and proving what an idiot you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




School time for Fizzbitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, it is NOT a fallacious appeal because the FBI IS an authority and they ran the investigation


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > When a jet traveling at around 500+ mph strikes the ground nose first at an angle (estimated) of about 40 degrees and the soil is that associated with a reclaimed mine, the fact that a VERY HEAVY object (the plane) disintigrates into much smaller pieces and goes DEEPLY into the dirt is NOT at all surprising.
> ...



No matter how crystal clear, obvious and accurate something is you MFTLPAs always say "it isn't possible" as a way of trying to support a claim you cannot support.  You don't even understand basic physics and you cannot grasp the dimensions of a passenger jet and you  are incapable of comprehending that because it is SO heavy  and moving SO fast it would largely disintegrate upon impact.  Sub-retards like you pussy Troofer lying fuckwad treasonous scumbags compare that kind of impact with a 747 being blown-up and then crashing into the ocean, and you idiots then contend that since the NTSB was able to recover enough parts to put a large fuselage back together, the entirely different scenario at Shanksville must be a "lie."  I know you fuckstains will ignore the invalidity of your stupid baseless comparisons,  but at least you can't say nobody pointed it out.   

All Troofers are compulsive lying treasonous scumbag shit-fuckers.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> School time for Fizzbitch:
> 
> Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> 
> ...



read.

try to comprehend....

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

please tell me even one authority that has more experience with a hijacked jetliner crash than the FBI assisted by the NTSB. if you claim they are not an authority then who is?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > School time for Fizzbitch:
> ...




You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours?   What else have you ignored?   The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800.  The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy.  Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore.  In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority.  Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence?  By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence.  You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



When giving "examples," the ones chosen should make sense.  Yours don't, fucktard.

A prosecutor is an authority in some things.  So is the judge.  So is the defense attorney.  so are the witnesses who were there and thus in a position to speak with more authority on the events than any of the other folks just mentioned, you asshole.  

If a lawyer at a trial calls an "expert witness" on some matter of importance to determining the facts, that expert gets cross examined not just on his general expertise, but also on any biases AND on WHETHER or NOT he happens to be talking from a position of any specific knowledge of the relevant facts in dispute.   The expert is not called for the purpose, you moron, of engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority.   You don't have the foggiest goddamn notion about the term of logic you keep erroneously bandying about, you menstrual blood clot imbecile.

But when the FBI, working with the NTSB, engages in a hands on investigation AT the location, their observations and conclusions ARE relevant and their expertise is clearly genuine; and it is NOT in any way a fallacy to seek their factual testimony and their expert conclusions precisely BECAUSE they have the requisite expertise.

AGAIN, you are a lying imbecile.     What you are attempting to argue (but for some reason you remain far too dishonest to use the correct terminology) is that they may be "lying."  Anything is possible, but that one is a fucking stretch and there are no *sound* reasons to speculate along those stupid lines, you asshole.  

Your argument still has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of "appeal to authority."


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Well it's obvious that your teachers were not Truthers, or they may have taught you truther physics.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours?   What else have you ignored?   The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800.  The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy.  Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore.  In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority.  Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence?  By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence.  You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.



i didnt ignore your link. i read it. i also read mine. i still dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that the FBI and NIST are not authorities on an airline hijacking and crash. please state who is more of an authority than them.

twa 800 was an airplane that exploded while climbing over water. i dont see how that relates to an airplane intentionally put into the ground at high speed . i dont even see the relevance of comparing the investigations when twa 800's cause was unkown and flight 93's cause was known to have been hijacked even before it hit the ground.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Guess you missed the point.  The NTSB did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi.  That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise.  So why couldn't the same happen with 9E?  Hell, we even have a post 9E terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9E and the NTSB did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage.  Do you get it yet dumfuk?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours?   What else have you ignored?   The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800.  The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy.  Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore.  In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority.  Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence?  By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence.  You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.
> ...



The NTSB did not do an investigation.  Tomorrow we will discuss reasons why you don't stick your bare hands in an open flame.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I get it completely. They were able to re-construct flight 800 due to the pieces fluttering down to the ocean, and big enough to be salvaged and reconstructed.

However, that does not equate to an airliner power-diving into solid ground, and being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The NTSB did not do an investigation. .



really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

rat in the hat said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > rat in the hat said:
> ...



so are you saying the claimed 95% recovery consisted mainly of metal filings ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> so are you saying the claimed 95% recovery consisted mainly of metal filings ?



that isnt what he said at all.

stoned again?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

> being pulverized into an unrecoverable mess. How do you re-construct a pile of metal filings and small fragments?????


really ?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> rat in the hat said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



No, what I'm saying is that an aircraft hitting solid ground is incapable of being re-constructed in the same manner as an aircraft exploding at altitude and the pieces falling to the ocean surface.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

So planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The NTSB did not do an investigation. .
> ...




The fbi you dumfuk.  Let me educate you again.  In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial.  Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> So planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?



A plane that power-dived nose first in PA at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

rat in the hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?
> ...



it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from? 
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.  

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited.  The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> rat in the hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



They are the only 2 crashes we are discussing in this twisted truther conspiracy thread.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


WTF????????


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> rat in the hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Troofer scumbzag lying pussy id-eots:

There have been numerous plane crashes in history, you hapless helpless hopeless homo-humpin' hermaphrodite.  

So, get busy.  Show us an example of one of the crashes of a large passenger jet crashing into soft soil (like reclaimed mining dirt) where the aircraft came down at a speed of around 500+ mph at a roughly 40 degree angle and where the debris was able to be reconstructed.  If you can do all of that, you might have the beginning of a point.

Until then, you remain now, as always, a lying full of shit scumbag Troofer.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


actually, you proved he is a fucking idiot, once again


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Not difficult to do.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact.  Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


i know
its been done so many times its rather funny


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you really are insane


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Nice strawman you useless ****.  Do you actually think you accomplish anything with that bullshit?


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rat in the hat said:
> ...





CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your ignorance is showing, bitch.  No shock there.  It always shows.

What I said was (ho hum) once again exactly correct.

Why do we accept testimony of witnesses, you shit for brains puddle fucker?  Is that too hard for you?  Stop sniveling, bitch.   I'll give you the answer:  It is to permit the "finders of fact" (i.e., the jury, a jury that wasn't THERE) to determine what the facts were.  

You weren't at the Flt. 93 crash site, pussy drippings.  So, like most of the rest of us, you have to base your assumptions on the  observations (recorded in one form or another) of folks who WERE there and -- in some instances -- filter it through the expertise of people who properly grasp things like physics, etc.   

The problem with scum like you is that you are so thoroughly biased, you adhere to your idiotic preconceived notions DESPITE the actual credible evidence; you fail to base your conclusions ON credible evidence and logic.  You are a Troofer and therefore impervious to reason and hostile to truth.  You suck the corn out of the shit of Satan as it comes out of his steaming anus in hell, you lousy excuse for a human being.


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Accomplishment:  He fully exposed you as the filthy fucking scumbag pussy liar you almost  always are.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

_liewabilty_ debwunked you he called you a _pussy drippings_..you have been _debwunked_


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> _liewabilty_ debwunked you he called you a _pussy drippings_..you have been _debwunked_



Id-eots is still debzzzzunkzing his own stupid self because id-eots makes up his own wordz at wandom becuz id-eots is a fwucking wetard!  

Newsflash for id-eots:  "debwunk" is still not a real word.  It's not interesting and nobody is gonna start following the imbecile "lead" of a lying pussy Troofer like you.  

Every time you use that non-word, people laugh AT you all the more.

Tell us all again how Flt 93 never crashed, id-eots.       That's always good for a laugh.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what _people _say or if _they_ might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what _people _say or if _they_ might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say



Says the scumbag lying Troofer pussy who (like a dutiful sheep) follows the lead of assholes like the crew over at PrisonPlanet.  

Sorry, asshopper, but  the truth is, you are a fucking retard and a liar.   You have no credibility because you say absolutely ridiculous things all the time and have no valid evidence to rely upon.  None.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what _people _say or if _they_ might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say
> ...



Liewabilty debwunked me he called me _asshopper_ and used the prison planet strawman...debwunking is so much easier than debunking


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


something that doesnt exist is always easier, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


(or is it you are sooooo fuxxing stoopid you still have not learned there are two main ways to commit the fallacy?)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


there is no need to ignore the stupidity you post
it shows you dont even understand the concept


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> 
> 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.
> 
> ...



hey jackass, why dont you get the part where it says an appeal to authority is valid if the person actually IS an authority!!!

from the link on the page YOU linked to. Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

*Legitimate Appeal to Authority*
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.




...and here's more shit to prove you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
*This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority *on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
*there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter*
therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, *the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.* If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority


While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular,* an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious*
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority<br><i>(argumentum ad verecundiam)</i>


An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true.
*The expert, of course, may not be expert,* but they are a touchstone that people use to avoid having their own expertise challenged.
You can also assert your own expertise. If the other person cannot challenge your credentials, then they cannot challenge your argument.
Appeal to Authority


*"Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy.* 'These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'"
(W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, 1980)
appeal to authority - definition and example of appeal to authority - logical fallacies


so jackass.... are you going to ignore this question again or will you finally answer it?

who is more qualified in a airline hijacking and crash than the FBI and the NTSB?


----------



## Liability (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



Mindlessly repeating yourself does not improve the absolutely invalid point you made before, asshopper.

Of course, in your case, mindlessly repeating yourself is entirely redundant.



You are such a total loser, even id-eots laughs at you.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> ...


i posted that link to the fucking moron
he clearly didnt read it


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation.  Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> 
> 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.
> 
> ...


more troofer paranoid projections


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> 
> 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.
> 
> ...



hey jackass.... you do know that the words "can be" are not the same as the word "is", right? 

read the link on the page your provided, moron.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> ...





You focus on "can be" and ignore:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim.  Ever.  How can you be such a sheetle?  You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


hey dipshit, tell us again how my phone has an airplane/flight mode


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 12, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're so awesome!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim.  Ever.  How can you be such a sheetle?  You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........



you really have trouble seeing the big picture. you focus on one little tiny area and no matter how wrong you are proven to be you try to backpedal and still claim you are right. even if you went there yourself on september 15th and tried to verify the amount of debris yourself you wouldnt be able to do it because you are too much of a jackass to be an expert at anything. we must rely on qualified experts to evaluate situations for us.

so answer the fucking question you have been ignoring for days.

WHO IS A BETTER EXPERT THAN THE FBI ASSISTED BY THE NTSB IN A HIJACKED AIRLINER CRASH?

a link on your own page that you keep quoting goes to this statement:

*Legitimate Appeal to Authority*
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim.  Ever.  How can you be such a sheetle?  You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........
> ...




Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1.  FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


(when you respond to that the discussion will move forward)


----------



## Fizz (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> 
> 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.
> 
> ...



and what form do non-fallcious appeals to authority take?

oh yeah. the same general form.

you are an idiot!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:
> ...



Your fallacy is:

FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered.  Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered.


They are not experts on aircraft investigations.  The NTSB is the expert government agency.  That is why (combined with the statement above) it is fallacious on both variations of the fallacy.

Your dishonesty reeks when you try to claim the "fbi and the ntsb" did an investigation.  In the case of Stack's terrorist attack comparison that would be true because the ntsb and fbi did investigations with respect to their expertise.  Stack's attack comparison was also ignored by you and your shitlicking pals.  Oh, and terrorism was suspected for twa flight 800.  Bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you are now claiming that the FBI and the NTSB did NO INVESTIGATION?!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i know


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty.  What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation.  It was the FBI's investigation.  It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman.  Grow the fuk up bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it is exactly what you've said
thats why everyone calls you a fucking idiot now


----------



## Fizz (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty.  What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation.  It was the FBI's investigation.  It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman.  Grow the fuk up bitch.



either the FBI and the NTSB did an investigation or they didnt. my contention is they did. the FBI and the NTSB were both there investigating. the FBI was the lead investigating agency. the NTSB assisted them. do you wish to dispute that? 

if not then shut the fuck up!! you are wasting bandwidth for something much more useful than silly rants..... like spam.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty.  What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation.  It was the FBI's investigation.  It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman.  Grow the fuk up bitch.
> ...



Sounds like you got it exactly right. End of discussion, The investigation was completed by the best people we had to do such an investigation. NEXT!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty.  What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation.  It was the FBI's investigation.  It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman.  Grow the fuk up bitch.
> ...




It was an fbi investigation and you are so fuxxing sad for trying to use this to deflect from everything else.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes you are off ignore.
Yes it was an FBI investigation as they were in charge because a crime had been committed. However they called in the NTSB to assist in their area of expertise. It is not difficult to understand. A detective is in charge of a homicide investigation and calls in a coroner to assist in his area of expertise. See how simple that is?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It was an fbi investigation and you are so fuxxing sad for trying to use this to deflect from everything else.



holy fuck you are a complete moron....

YOU are the one that is going one for pages and pages trying to say using the FBI statement was a fallacy of an appeal to authority.

then you come back and say it was an FBI investigation!!! 

so who is more qualified to make a statement about how much of the airplane was recovered THAN THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY DOING THE INVESTIGATION!!!  

this actually tops your cell phone claims!! what a fucking moron!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It was an fbi investigation and you are so fuxxing sad for trying to use this to deflect from everything else.
> ...


you mean how speed can cause you to lose a signal?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Dive---you had to use the "way back" machine for that one but it is a classic!!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It was an fbi investigation and you are so fuxxing sad for trying to use this to deflect from everything else.
> ...




You stoopid ****. You continue to ignore the facts there are two variations on the fallacy and the fact the fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  I've never seen such an insecure group of people as you bitches.  No wonder you never learn.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You are just as clueless and here is the proof.  When Stack left a suicide note online and purposefully crashed his plane into a federally owned building he committed the exact terrorism done on 9E.  Do you know what happened?  The NTSB did a full investigation while the FBI did their investigation.  
Http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100406-ntsb-report-austin-suicide-plane-crash

They did their own separate investigations with respect to their areas of expertise.  Even your coroner analogy shows why this was wrong for 9E. Does the detective do the autopsy with assistance from the coroner or does the coroner do the autopsy and file their own full report?  Before and after 9E the ntsb always did their own investigation with their own full report whether it was an accident or intentional crime.  Let's see if you have the courage to address the Stack terrorism comparison cause so far your octa buddies have run like little bitches.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

Washington, DC - August 11, 2006 - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week released full transcripts of the air traffic control recordings from the four flights hijacked on September 11, 2001, and meticulous Flight Path Studies for three of the flights, in response to a Freedom of Information request by the National Security Archive. The studies provide the most detailed technical information available to date related to the hijackings, and the transcripts of the aircraft-to-ground communications are the first complete government disclosure of each flight's air traffic control recordings. 

Government Releases Detailed Information on 9/11 Crashes


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf


In late 2001 and early 2002, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) filed reports detailing information of the four commandeered flights, based on a combination of air traffic control recordings and, in the case of United Flight 93, the plane's flight data recorder. However, these reports remained hidden from public view for years. Even today, the entries in the NTSB database for the 9/11/2001 crashes state:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket

The veil was lifted from the reports on August 11, 2006 when they were published by the National Security Archive on the George Washington University website, gwu.edu. The release consists of eight PDF documents listed on the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 196. 

9-11 Research: NTSB Reports




The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.
NTSB: 'We do not plan to issue reports on 9/11 flights' - Democratic Underground


S0 it appears that as has been stated the NTSB in the case of flight 93 did their investigation and turned over their findings to the FBI. Stack is a different case and not one I have studied. Nor do I see where what was done there is relevant to 2001.

Fact 1 : The FBI was in charge of the investigations on 911. (why is immaterial)

Fact 2 : The FBI called in various agencies to assist in their areas of expertise, NTSB is one of those. FDNY would be another, New york port authority would be yet another, And the list goes on.

Fact 3 : These agencies submitted their individual reports to the FBI.

Fact 4 : It's not rocket science.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You stoopid ****. You continue to ignore the facts there are two variations on the fallacy and the fact the fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  I've never seen such an insecure group of people as you bitches.  No wonder you never learn.



please tell us all who is more of an expert to release information about how much of the plane was recovered than the FBI who was assisted by the NTSB. you continue to ignore the question.

now call me names some more, continue to not answer the question and prove what a jackass you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You stoopid ****. You continue to ignore the facts there are two variations on the fallacy and the fact the fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  I've never seen such an insecure group of people as you bitches.  No wonder you never learn.
> ...



I've answered that 20 times you lying bitch.  The fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  The ntsb is the expert government agency on crash investigations.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Washington, DC - August 11, 2006 - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week released full transcripts of the air traffic control recordings from the four flights hijacked on September 11, 2001, and meticulous Flight Path Studies for three of the flights, in response to a Freedom of Information request by the National Security Archive. The studies provide the most detailed technical information available to date related to the hijackings, and the transcripts of the aircraft-to-ground communications are the first complete government disclosure of each flight's air traffic control recordings.
> 
> Government Releases Detailed Information on 9/11 Crashes
> 
> ...



I knew you would run like the little dishonest **** principles you live by.  How does Stack compare to 9E?  You fuxxing jackass.

9E:  planes flown into federal buildings for terrorism.

Stack:  flew his plane into a federally owned building for terrorism.

It doesn't matter how much the ntsb assisted the fbi.  It did not do its own full investigation like it usually does.  Look at twa flight 800....it was suspected terrorism and the fbi and ntsb did their own separate investigations just like with Stack.  Ignore that too you whiny punk.

Your own detective/coroner analogy backfired.  Does the detective grab a knife and do the autopsy with the assistance of the coroner?  No!  Why not?  They each have their own area of expertise just like the fbi and ntsb.  I look forward to laughing at your sad attempt to ignore all of this.  Bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Washington, DC - August 11, 2006 - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week released full transcripts of the air traffic control recordings from the four flights hijacked on September 11, 2001, and meticulous Flight Path Studies for three of the flights, in response to a Freedom of Information request by the National Security Archive. The studies provide the most detailed technical information available to date related to the hijackings, and the transcripts of the aircraft-to-ground communications are the first complete government disclosure of each flight's air traffic control recordings.
> ...


GAWD DAMN you are too fucking stupid


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?


its been posted already, go back and read
this time get your head out of Alex Jones ASS and read it

and btw, i never claimed to be a "debunker" just that YOUR bullshit has already been debunked


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

* * * *


saiweril said:


> Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?



 saiweril, another member of your crew, a person of sublime ignorance, has already asked your question. Try to keep up.

I personally did not investigate the crime scene.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't either.

So how much of the plane got or did not get recovered?  Well shit.  You don't know.  I don't know.  We weren't there.  Normally, what this means is that we have to rely on folks who WERE there.  So -- hmmmm -- who WAS there?  Why, I know!  The FBI was there!

Now, if you're suggesting (with no fucking actual basis in the known universe) that you are not willing to  accept the reports of the FBI, then nothing will ever convince you.  Your mind is inutterably closed -- and that's that.

But if you acknowledge that there's no GOOD reason to simple-mindedly reject, out of hand, the report of the FBI, then you have your answer!  

Here you go:  Reports from an authoritative investigatory body, the premiere investigatory body in the world, in fact -- advise us that the plane parts were recovered and constituted about 95% of the total mass of the plane.  

Share with us, then, your valid, rational, fair, open-minded basis to lead us to doubt that "account" from the FBI.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?





No they can't.   Get ready for a barrage of "it's been posted!" but no actual evidence.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?
> ...


another blind one that cant see the forest for the trees


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Do you debunkers think you can provide some evidence that supports your belief that most of Flight 93 had gone into the ground and was dug out?
> ...



Wrong again (as always), you dishonest troofer piece of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2204632-post415.html


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> saiweril said:
> ...




The Saudi government loves people like you who swallow whatever dick is put in your mouth as long as you can see it was delivered by the government.  Keep preaching your strawman Snitch Bitch.  One day you may realize asking for evidence is not an accusation of lying.  You only say that to try and distract from the fact you have no facts.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...


if the FBI and NTSB are not authorities on the investigation they conducted, then WHO is?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...




Rotfl! Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



Projecting your homoerotica again, panty stain?


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



_You_ just proved _mine_, panty stain!  You are a totally dishonest Troofer piece of shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You're awesome.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You cannot produce a single fuxxing fact proving 95% was recovered Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I've answered that 20 times you lying bitch.  The fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  The ntsb is the expert government agency on crash investigations.



and the FBI is the expert agency on hijacking cases and were the lead agency investigating all four hijackings on 9/11. they were assisted by the NTSB (something you keep ignoring). so tell me again who is more qualified to answer the question of how much of the plane was recovered?

or are you going to claim flight 93 wasnt hijacked?


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Better watch out, Dive.  That's at least the second time the needledick flyfucker has "come back" with that line.

Maybe he wants to engage in homoerotic activities with you, now.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i know
and your a fucking dishonest piece of shit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


cant you even cuss right?
its FUCKING, you dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've answered that 20 times you lying bitch.  The fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  The ntsb is the expert government agency on crash investigations.
> ...


but using the actual authority on the subject is somehow a fallacy in his bent mind


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


the dipshit cant even cuss right


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've answered that 20 times you lying bitch.  The fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations.  The ntsb is the expert government agency on crash investigations.
> ...




Rotfl! I've ignored the fact the ntsb assisted the fbi?  Look on the last page you stoopid fuk.

The fbi is not the expert agency on crash investigations. That is what you keep ignoring as well as the comparison to Stack's terrorist attack and you will keep ignoring it because you are a fuxxing classic loser.


----------



## Liability (Apr 13, 2010)

PussySTainAsshole said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The word is "fucking" not "fuxxing" you retard.

No need to edit it, especially when you have no qualms about posting words like "****," you retarded dripping period leaking twat.

Anyway, shit-head, I already *did* provide some facts.  That you, an established imbecile, don't see the contemporaneous accounting of the FBI as constituting "facts," doesn't change it whatsoever, you fucking lying Troofer period puddle.

And I note that YOU, being the dishonest pussy coward piece of shit that you always are, *failed* to provide ANY reason to doubt the account of the FBI.

Come on pussy:  what *evidence* do *you* have that the FBI report that 95% of the plane had been recovered is in ANY way erroneous or misleading?  

The word you're groping for at this very moment, you dishonest asswipe, is "none."


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you really are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussySTainAsshole said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Whassa matta Snitch Bitch?  You pissed cause the first time you heard you girlfriend have a real orgasm was when you caught her being unfaithful?


Is it you realizing you truly are a loser?

Did you get fired?

So whass up Snitch Bitch?  You still pissed you cannot produce one single fact 95% was recovered?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussySTainAsshole said:
> ...


ROFLMAO

yeah, quoting the lead investigative body is not a fact
LOL


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




How can you be so fuxxing stoopid?  How can you not understand the difference between a claim and a fact? You are such a waste of time....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more troofer projections
you are so fucking(the way it is spelled dipshit) stupid(also the correct spelling) for words

oh, come on and prove my phone has offline mode again
LOL


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i dont give a fuck about Stack. 

tell me again who is more qualified to release a statement about how much of the plane was recovered than the actual agency that was investigation the crash?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You don't give a fuck about the Stack comparison because it proves you wrong about the fbi and nstb doing their own investigations.

Saying the agency who was in charge of investigating the crash site is automatically qualified to be the best source is bullshit.  The expert government authority for crash site investigations is the ntsb.  Period.  If the irs was in charge of the dna testing would they be a qualified authority?

Do you even understand what the term "authority" means regarding the fallacy?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You don't give a fuck about the Stack comparison because it proves you wrong about the fbi and nstb doing their own investigations.
> 
> Saying the agency who was in charge of investigating the crash site is automatically qualified to be the best source is bullshit.  The expert government authority for crash site investigations is the ntsb.  Period.  If the irs was in charge of the dna testing would they be a qualified authority?
> 
> Do you even understand what the term "authority" means regarding the fallacy?



is the IRS involved in DNA testing at all, jackass? there is a long list of aircraft crash investigations the FBI has been involved in. not only that but they were also assisted by the NTSB for the flight 93 hijacking.

show me one legitimate source that says the 95% claim is incorrect. 

you keep trying to back pedal and there is nowhere to go. The lead investigating agency for 9/11 says 95% of the plane was recovered. you have shown absolutely no evidence that is not correct and not one expert that disputes it. you claim the FBI, the lead investigating agency, is not in a position to make such a claim. this is based on the fact that the NTSB also investigates airplane crashes yet the NTSB assisted the FBI. your entire argument is just silly.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You don't give a fuck about the Stack comparison because it proves you wrong about the fbi and nstb doing their own investigations.
> ...




Once again....do you understand what "authority" means regarding the fallacy?
I've not backpedalled one bit because my position has always been the same.  You are dodging because you are demanding something to be proven false when it has not even been proven true.

You keep ignoring the Stack comparison because he did exactly what the other terrorists did yet the fbi and ntsb did their own investigations, unlike 9E.

When you have a single fact to prove the 95% claim is true then provide it.  Until then you got nothing but an unsupported claim from an unqualified source.  (if the fbi was capable of doing a crash investigation they would not have needed assistance from the experts at ntsb.)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and the FBI got their info from the NTSB, dipshit


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

*Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.* 

Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. 
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... 

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. &#8230; 

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was *most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. &#8230; **As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy* 
*




Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former combat fighter pilot.  Aerospace engineer.*  Currently Captain at a major airline.  Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch.  Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber.  *Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.  *Also served as *Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer *and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.  Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals,* four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals*.  20-year Air Force career. 
Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07:  Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information: 

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.  And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11.  And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ... 

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that  would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.]  Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ... 

You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon.  So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area.  [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.]  But, you know, *that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ... *

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission.  There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder.  And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there.  [The film he refers to is Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ... 


*Lt. Col. David Gapp, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired Pilot and Qualified Aircraft Accident Investigator.  Served as President, Aircraft Accident Board.* Military aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon.  3,000+ total hours flown.  31 years of U.S. Air Force service.  One year as commercial pilot for Continental Airlines. Commercial aircraft flown: ATR-42. 


Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."




*Lt. Cdr. Bernard J. Smith, U.S. Nay (ret) &#8211; Retired carrier Naval Aviator and former aircraft accident investigator. *
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"From my several years experience as an aircraft accident investigator for the U.S.Navy, I am appalled at the basic principles of investigation being ignored; ie, premature destruction of evidence, reliable eye witness accounts ignored, etc. To allow the official version to be the final word in this planned event, as is evident from the AE9/11 investigation, would be a major disservice to the victims and the nation*."  AE911Truth 


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


GAWD DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are too fucking STUPID


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.*
> 
> Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
> Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...
> ...


were any of them there at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.*
> ...



what a retarded question how often do you think crash investigators wittiness the crashes they investigate ?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

I bet divedickhead never questioned how many fbi agents were in a field in shanksville when 93 crashed......more painfully obvious OCTA hypocrisy.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

Liability said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> saiweril said:
> ...


Read my question again, carefully.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Once again....do you understand what "authority" means regarding the fallacy?
> I've not backpedalled one bit because my position has always been the same.  You are dodging because you are demanding something to be proven false when it has not even been proven true.
> 
> You keep ignoring the Stack comparison because he did exactly what the other terrorists did yet the fbi and ntsb did their own investigations, unlike 9E.
> ...



you are saying the lead investigative agency is not an authority. got you. you are are a complete moron.

now you are claiming Stack hijacked a commercial airplane?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


ok dipshit, you took it too literal as usual
how many were ever involved in the entire 9/11 pentagon crash site?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I bet divedickhead never questioned how many fbi agents were in a field in shanksville when 93 crashed......more painfully obvious OCTA hypocrisy.


another stupid fucking moronic troofer


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> what a retarded question how often do you think crash investigators wittiness the crashes they investigate ?



where did he say they witnessed the crash? he asked if they went to the pentagon on 9/11 like the FBI did.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Rotfl.....back...back...backstroke!

You specifically asked if they were there ON 9E you dishonest stoopid ****......now you want to change it.....what a useless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what a retarded question how often do you think crash investigators wittiness the crashes they investigate ?
> ...




It's so cute when you try to help each other bail out of your stoopidity.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


talk about useless
tell us all again how my phone has flight or airplane mode and then prove it has an offline mode again
dipshit
fuck off and die dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


are you too fucking stupid to understand that "on 9/11" encompasses MORE than just when the plane crashed?

you know each day has 24 hours, right?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



no. whats really stupid is assuming that if someone is at the pentagon on 9/11 they were there when they plane crashed into the building.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.  *Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). 
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, *Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.  *"I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... 

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... 

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact.  Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... 

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. 

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.  

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... 

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." 

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> *Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.*


*

and how many aircraft crash investigations has she been a part of?

let's see if curvelight jumps all over your ass for his "fallacy of an appeal to authority" argument because this is a perfect example.*


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



what is stupid is disregarding the opinions of two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators that have examined the the investigation and found it to be seriously flawed


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> what is stupid is disregarding the opinions of two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators that have examined the the investigation and found it to be seriously flawed



any of them claim flight 93 didnt crash in PA?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Washington, DC - August 11, 2006 - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this week released full transcripts of the air traffic control recordings from the four flights hijacked on September 11, 2001, and meticulous Flight Path Studies for three of the flights, in response to a Freedom of Information request by the National Security Archive. The studies provide the most detailed technical information available to date related to the hijackings, and the transcripts of the aircraft-to-ground communications are the first complete government disclosure of each flight's air traffic control recordings.
> ...



That is what we are trying to tell you dumb ass. The NTSB made their report to the FBI just as the coroner would make his report to the police. I'm sorry but you don't make any sense in denying this and saying it's true at the same time. 

Now, I have not looked into the Stack case. I typed that slow so you would understand it. I will not comment on something i know nothing about. I am not you. Thank the Gods. And your infantile cussing does not help your credibility at all child.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



How many of these people were given unrestricted access to all the evidence gathered in the days following 9-11-01?


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



as presidents of air crash investigation boards that is not required to determine the investigative process and evidence presented is flawed and questionable a better question is why after all these years has no one else been allowed to examine the evidence any further and it remains classified under guard in iron moutain


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Well every single piece of paper i ever held in my hand that was classified (And I held many); were classified for a reason. Mostly for National security reasons. If there are any other reasons you would have to ask the FBI. In fact why don't you do that. Go ahead and call them up and tell them you want access to all those classified files.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

What possible logical reason would there be to keep air crash wreakage classified after all these years


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> What possible logical reason would there be to keep air crash wreakage classified after all these years



I haven't a clue. I no longer have a valid security clearance and I have no "need to know".

You'll still have to ask the FBI........


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> What possible logical reason would there be to keep air crash wreakage classified after all these years



the flight 93 wreckage is classified?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > What possible logical reason would there be to keep air crash wreakage classified after all these years
> ...



I'm sure there is still a lot of information found during the 911 investigations that is still classified. I have no idea what or why. Not certain I care to know.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



as far as i know the wreckage was released back to the airline. dont think that qualifies as classified.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> So planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?



Hey Twoofer, here's a few other solid ground crashes that were never reconstructed,

American Airlines 191
Payne Stewart's Lear 35
Uraguayan Air Force flight 571
Delta 191
United 232
Turkish Air 981
Air New Zealand 901
United 409
United 615
Pan Am 1104
American Airlines 965
Eastern Airlines 980

Are they all conspiracies being covered up by the government to lead us into war? Why else would they reconstruct flight 800, but not any of these?


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



the wreckage is held at iron mountain

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg&feature=related]YouTube - TOP Secret Government Facility (holds Flight 93 evidence)[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

rat in the hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?
> ...



I did not say there were none, did I...so how many of these crash investigations were called cover-ups or seriously flawed by two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and multiple military crash investigators ?


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > What possible logical reason would there be to keep air crash wreakage classified after all these years
> ...



pffft.. stfu... blowhard..like you ever would of had the clearance required..lmao


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


that doesnt actually say the plane is stored there
but it doesnt say what exactly is(9/11 related)


----------



## Fizz (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



no jackass.....

it says "charred evidence" from flight 93 is there. it doesnt say all the airplane wreckage is there.

this is an example of what charred evidence looks like.:





this is also exactly why i dont watch the fucking youtube videos you twoofers post most of the time. i need to search through 6 minutes of video to find out what the fuck you are talking about and it turns out it isnt even there!!

if you are going to post videos tell us where in the video to look and tell us what it says so people dont need to search through the whole fucking thing.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


yup, i watched it too
no where does it claim that the wreckage from the plane is there
another time a moronic fucktard troofer takes something to mean something it doesnt


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I worked in Communications Security (COMSEC), Yes at one time I held a Top Secret Clearance with several Compartmentalized attachments. I don't normally mention these things because I do not believe my career is as interesting as some people think theirs is or was.


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



*key word*


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



can you provide any other statement as to the whereabouts of flt 93 evidence ?


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

THE EVIDENCE YOU SPEAK OF _APPEARS_ TO BE HELD WITH THE FBI

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P72v8zryZAE]YouTube - Flight 93 Crash site evidence collected[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yes it is, any real clearance is followed with the Compartmentalized acronyms.

Mine was TS, COSMIC, ATOMAL, NATO, CRYPTO , and a few others I forget. Basically I would have had the clearance to authorize me to not only carry the Nuclear football but to place the contents into it.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 14, 2010)

eots said:


> can you provide any other statement as to the whereabouts of flt 93 evidence ?


FBI Completes Flight 93 Investigation - Pittsburgh News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > can you provide any other statement as to the whereabouts of flt 93 evidence ?
> ...


come on, you should know by now that anything the FBI says will not be accepted by these fucking morons

LOL


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 14, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...




Why do you love to embarrass yourself?  You listed some acronyms that are not clearances:


"Acronyms such as ATOMAL, CNWDI, COMSEC, COSMIC, CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, SAP, SCI, SIOP-ESI, SPECAT, SIOP-ESI, etc., are not clearances." 
Security Clearance Jobs - ClearanceJobs.com
security_clearance_faq.pdf

Oops.....


----------



## Fizz (Apr 14, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> come on, you should know by now that anything the FBI says will not be accepted by these fucking morons
> 
> LOL



it doesnt matter where it comes from. if it is anti-government they will accept it without question not matter how bad the source is. if it supports the government version it will be rejected no matter what the source.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > can you provide any other statement as to the whereabouts of flt 93 evidence ?
> ...




Lol.......so you still have no facts to support your claim.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why do you question a military acronym with a civilian site? 

I will not try to prove myself to you or any other idiot. I know what I had and what I have done. Others here in this forum also know what I say is true. Why because there is at least one person on here who held the same clearance and acronyms....

Now you go ahead and attempt to make this an issue (again). no one gives a shit what you think.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



just like you have no facts that to support the official version of events is not correct.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 14, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You try to dismiss it because the link is to a civilian site?  Lol!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You try to dismiss it because the link is to a civilian site?  Lol!



you try to dismiss evidence because it comes from the FBI? LOL!!! 

fucking hypocrite


----------



## eots (Apr 14, 2010)

fizz said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > you try to dismiss it because the link is to a civilian site?  Lol!
> ...



that and the fact that no less than two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and multiple military air accident investigators are so troubled by the investigation they have gone on public record to say so


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



so?

they knew most of the planes were hijacked even before they crashed. its not like finding the cause of the cash was rocket science.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...


and he fails to understand that being "troubled with the investigation" doesn't equal INSIDE JOB


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



they question the authenticity of the flight data for one..that implies cover-up..fraud


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...


liar


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

After I did my own analysis of it, *it's obvious* that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  *between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.*it would have been *impossible *essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ... 

*Lt. Col. Jeff Latas
President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.*




*Lt. Cdr. Bernard J. Smith, U.S. Nay (ret) &#8211; Retired carrier Naval Aviator and former aircraft accident investigator*. 
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"From my several years experience as an aircraft accident investigator for the U.S.Navy, *I am appalled at the basic principles of investigation being ignored*; ie, premature destruction of evidence, reliable eye witness accounts ignored, etc. *To allow the official version to be the final word in this planned event, as is evident from the AE9/11 investigation,* would be a major disservice to the victims and the nation." 

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, *it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. &#8230; *
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, *any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site*, it was most *doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. &#8230; *

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish *probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."   *




*Lt. Col. David Gapp, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired Pilot and Qualified Aircraft Accident Investigator.  Served as President, Aircraft Accident Board*. Military aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon.  3,000+ total hours flown.  31 years of U.S. Air Force service.  One year as commercial pilot for Continental Airlines. Commercial aircraft flown: ATR-42. 
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. *We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. *We do not offer theory or point blame. However, *we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't *


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> After I did my own analysis of it, *it's obvious* that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  *between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.*it would have been *impossible *essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
> 
> *Lt. Col. Jeff Latas
> President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.*
> ...



people asking for a new investigation isnt proof the facts found by previous investigations is not correct. people questioning things isnt proof of anything at all. 

have any evidence that the official version of events is incorrect yet?

have any evidence of an inside job yet?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.  *
> ...



I remember the good old days back when they didn't keep airplane crash wreckage from the public view...I remember when I was a kid, whenever a plane crashed, the local sheriff would actually set up elementary school field trips to the crash site so we could look at the carnage, contaminate evidence, pick up souveniers (sp?), etc...  

eots=garbage.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You try to dismiss it because the link is to a civilian site?  Lol!
> ...




When?  Surely you aren't referring to your stale 95% claim.  That is not evidence you dumfuk.  It's called a claim and asking for evidence of the claim isn't a dismissal.  Fuk you are sooper stoopid.  My link explained the acronyms and their purposes which a lot more than you've done.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...




Now that is hypocrisy because you've already claimed all the experts agree with the fbi.  We know they all don't so put on your tap shoes and blast the volume button...deflection is your best buddy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 15, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You can look up any crash investigation and get the full report for almost the past 20 years.  Dumbass.

Http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.asp


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

fizz said:


> rots said:
> 
> 
> > after i did my own analysis of it, *it's obvious* that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  *between the 9/11 commission and the flight data recorder information.*it would have been *impossible *essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like i say, that's an area that i think deserves explanation. ...
> ...



it is proof that people at the very top level of experience and expertise in air accident investigation are appalled at the investigation..and call the official story impossible and it is proof your beloved popular mechanics and their debwunker co-horts are either very inefficient or very selective in the _experts_ they choose to reference


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > people asking for a new investigation isnt proof the facts found by previous investigations is not correct. People questioning things isnt proof of anything at all.
> ...



fallacy of appeal to authority.

have a little chat with bentdick if you need to know what it means.


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



thats your blind acceptance of the 9/11 commission report and popular mechnics lol ,is it not


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...


actually, Dr Q is likely closer to correct on the failure point than the 9/11 commission report
any chain is only as strong as its weakest point
and the weakest point of the WTC was the floor trusses and the steel flange that connected them at the ends to both the perimeter wall and the steel core


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> thats your blind acceptance of the 9/11 commission report and popular mechnics lol ,is it not



you have ANY proof that either one is wrong? 

i keep waiting....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > thats your blind acceptance of the 9/11 commission report and popular mechnics lol ,is it not
> ...



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...




Hypocrite


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes, you are
glad to see you admitting it


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hypocrite


HAHAHAhahahahahaha!!!

when an actual authority makes a statement you call it "fallacy of an appeal to authority" in error.

when someone else actually does use the fallacy you call _ME_ a hypocrite. 

you are a jackass!!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hypocrite
> ...


i think he got confused and called himself that
lol


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hypocrite
> ...



You are clueless what "authority" means regarding the fallacy.  If eots (or anyone) cites an expert but does not provide evidence then the fallacy is committed.  Your fallacy is not based simply on the absence of evidence but also on the fact the fbi are not experts in the field of aircraft investigations.  The "authority" in the fallacy is speaking of experts and nothing else.  The people eots cited are authorities on the topic dumbass.  You don't have to be in the government to be an expert authority on the issue.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Your fallacy is not based simply on the absence of evidence but also on the fact the fbi are not experts in the field of aircraft investigations.



proof please.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Your fallacy is not based simply on the absence of evidence but also on the fact the fbi are not experts in the field of aircraft investigations.
> ...


dipshit, bentdick, keeps forgetting that the FBI was the LEAD investigative body in the crash, and they were assisted by the NTSB
they ARE the authority on the crash


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You fuxxing nuclear powered moron.  "Authority" does not have anything to do with a government sanctioned organization.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You are clueless what "authority" means regarding the fallacy.  If eots (or anyone) cites an expert but does not provide evidence then the fallacy is committed.  Your fallacy is not based simply on the absence of evidence but also on the fact the fbi are not experts in the field of aircraft investigations.  The "authority" in the fallacy is speaking of experts and nothing else.  The people eots cited are authorities on the topic dumbass.  You don't have to be in the government to be an expert authority on the issue.
> ...



It's been posted several times so this your tap dance and after 500 posts you have yet to post one single fact proving 95% was recovered.  You are so predictably pathetic you will respond by ignoring that and lying by saying the proof of what appeal to authority means hasn't been posted. Keep dancing bitch....


----------



## Liability (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




In truth and in reality (two concepts that cause you scumbag liars pain), it is you who has failed to demonstrate your contention.

Unlike you, you fucking idiot, we have consistently reported evidence.  We have shown images of recovered material (wheels still partly buried in the ground, charred papers of known passengers, tail sections, etc.) and we have provided the accounts of eye-witnesses -- in particular the FBI -- who performed a great deal OF the recovery.    We have also noted that the FBI is the premiere authority on evidence collection.*  And so, when they report the recovery of 95%, you lying asshole Troofer scumbag, there is very good support for their accounting.

By contrast, you stanky period puddle, _you_ have *failed* to offer *ANY* "evidence" whatsoever for your apparent contention that there is anything dubious about the report that 95% of the downed passenger jet has been recovered.

You, as always, remain a massive laughable fail.

______________________
* The fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is not what you claim it is, as has been clearly noted here several times, mostly for your benefit.  You can't even admit that, because you are, fundamentally, nothing but a liar and a pussy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You haven't provided a single fact proving 95% was recovered Snitch Bitch.  

Eta:  just noticed another strawman.  I never said the fbi claim is dubious or false. I've simply asked for evidence to back up that claim.  Why do Snitch Bitches like you lie so much?


----------



## Liability (Apr 16, 2010)

periodpuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



As I just patiently proved, your claim (no matter how often you repeat your lie) is false.  The evidence indeed *has* been presented -- consistently --   period puddle.




periodpuddle said:


> Eta:  just noticed another strawman.  I never said the fbi claim is dubious or false. I've simply asked for evidence to back up that claim.  * * * *



Ah so now you're back to that gambit?  How typically pathetic of you.

"I, the fabled _bent tight_, period puddle coward pussy, am not SAYING that 95% wasn't recovered.  All I'm doing is 'asking questions'."  

What a complete dissembling pussy you are.

As everyone can see quite clearly, your transparent pretense and dishonesty notwithstanding, pussy, you are not just asking questions.  You are -- by virtue of repeatedly asking that "question" in the way you so often have -- making an assertion.

You are such a transparent gutless dishonest pussy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> periodpuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



My position has never changed Snitch Bitch.  You know you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim so your only recourse is to lie about my position.


----------



## Liability (Apr 16, 2010)

PeriodPuddle said:


> * * * *
> 
> My position has never changed * * * *   You know you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim so your only recourse is to lie about my position.



I couldn't care less if your position has changed, liar.  Your position is retarded.

You PRETEND to "not be" making assertions via the transparent ploy of "only asking questions."    You gutless dickless ball-less weasel period puddle.

And what I know is that we already have offered evidence that 95% of the terrorist-downed jetliner was recovered.  YOU, because you are a biased, dishonest, uber-partisan hack, elect not to accept that evidence as evidence.  Ho hum.  It is a matter of no import what an asshole liar like you will or will not accept as evidence, period puddle.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



can you provide a photo of a tail section or wheel  from flt 93


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> PeriodPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



All you have provided is an unsupported claim from an agency not qualified to do aircraft crash investigations on their own.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


that's some MASSIVE projection you are doing
better watch out, you might hurt your back


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PeriodPuddle said:
> ...


the NTSB is not qualified?
since they worked WITH the FBI in the FBI's investigation


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Damn you are pathetic at trying to spin. Does your wheelchair need a battery charge bitch?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


careful, your gonna hurt your back with that MASSIVE projection you are doing
dumbfuck


----------



## Liability (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Why?  Because for the first time ever you have determined that you want to look at something with an open mind and honestly?

The images of the plane's sections are abundant, if you bother to look at all, id.  







The section I referred to as a wheel was (it appears) probably an engine part, instead.  (I had it confused with wreckage found at the Pentagon.  My bad.)  The other part may or may not be the "tail" section.  But any part of the plane's body suffices to prove the assertions I have made.  Recovery of those parts tends to support the FBI contention that 95% of the plane was recovered.  

There is, of course, also the portion of the fuselage:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And  the cockpit voice recorder: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So, all in all, id, I guess the question is:  other than correcting my mistakes (i.e., saying "wheel" when I should have referred to engine and "tail," instead of wing and/or fuselage), did you have a point here?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




ROTFL!  Only a dumass OCTA could try to equate to a couple of pics as equaling evidence that 95% was recovered.  You will go to the grave being pure bred Snitch Bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


dumbass, that wasnt what he said at all
but given your track record, you wouldnt be able to understand what he said from the git go


----------



## Liability (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





Only a totally dishonest illogical scumbag Troofer (which is redundant, I know) would *deny* that evidence that parts of that plane WERE recovered AT the sight of the crash *has* a bearing on the claim that 95% of the plane was recovered.

When I show images of SOME of the recovered plane parts that have been photographed and disseminated, and when *the expert eye-witnesses who conducted the investigation report that the total amount of the plane recovered came to roughly 95%,* then we have good reason to accept that estimate but not a hint of a good reason not to accept that estimate.   

Like fact and truth, logic escapes you entirely, you filthy lying scumbag "Troofer."


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





The FBI are not experts at air crash investigations you fuxxing Snitch Bitch. If they were they wouldn't have called the experts at the NSTB for help.

Glad to see you are now backpedalling like a pro Snitch Bitch.  First you claim the FBI's announcement is "in effect" a fact that 95% was recovered.  Now you are saying:

"Recovery of those parts tends to support the FBI contention that 95% of the plane was recovered."

So you switch from "in effect a fact" to merely a "contention." 

Do you have any idea what percentage of parts you have provided evidence for?  All you have posted are some pics and your dumass can't tell the difference between a fuxxing wheel and an engine! Lol....but you want to.....ohhhhh shit!  Never mind. It's just too fuxxing funny!


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



there are the same half dozen photos you debwunkers always post little Ollie also tried to claim there where hundreds  but all he poted was pictures of people standing around a hole clearly he couldn't find these hundreds of photos either a 6ft piece of fuselage is not a tail section liar-ability and an unidentified rusty piece of something is _nothing.._ *FAIL*


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



still waiting for who you think is a better authority than the FBI assisted by the NTSB. 

you have anything to say the 95% claim was incorrect?

didnt think so, moron.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




They won't support support the claims and just call everyone stoopid troofers who call them on it.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Holy fuk you are one useless cocksucking bitch.  Do you think pretending that hasn't been answered 20 times will help deflect every time you try to bail out one of your **** buddies?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


the claim is supported by the FBI and the NTSB, dipshit
name anyone MORE qualified to do so


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


WOW, how ironic for YOU to call ANYONE useless


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hey Ollie, it's spin because the NTSB never claimed 95% was recovered.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

I can produce a whole fucking official book of proof. Published by the government of the United States of America.

I am yet to see one shred of physical evidence showing that said book is incorrect.

Keep trying fools but burden of proof is on you.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

you mean the the failed 9/11 commision report that didint even mention wtc 7
Im sure you could lil Ollie ..Im sure you could


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I can produce a whole fucking official book of proof. Published by the government of the United States of America.
> 
> I am yet to see one shred of physical evidence showing that said book is incorrect.
> 
> Keep trying fools but burden of proof is on you.




You said there are dozens if not hundreds of pics of flt 93 wreckage.  Where are they?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The documents are cited extensively in the 9/11 Commission Report to establish key facts and basic timelines for each hijacked flight. The NTSB Web site references the documents but does not provide copies, claiming "the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI,* and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. *The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket." The documents were released in their entirety to the National Security Archive and were received directly from the NTSB. Government Releases Detailed Information on 9/11 Crashes


Awe shit there goes that theory shot all to fuck...... Got anything else?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I can produce a whole fucking official book of proof. Published by the government of the United States of America.
> ...



All over the web. You may look for yourself. or is it that you don't really want truth?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> you mean the the failed 9/11 commision report that didint even mention wtc 7
> Im sure you could lil Ollie ..Im sure you could



It was not the job of the 911Commission to decide why building 7 fell.

You have read the report right? Probably not.

From the preface of the 911 Commissions Report:

*Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.*


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



wtf are talking about we are talking about physical evidence not cockpit recordings and flt data..of course that has been released or two former presidents of the air crash investigation board could not of made the statement that the flt data was virtually impossible and did not correlate with crash site evidences and wittiness testimony


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

> government releases detailed information on 9/11 crashes



did you even look at the site Ollie or just the title ??


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you mean the the failed 9/11 commision report that didint even mention wtc 7
> ...




*Sep-11-2009 23:46 
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies*
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

Wapedia - Wiki: Criticism of the 9/11 Commission


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> you mean the the failed 9/11 commision report that didint even mention wtc 7
> Im sure you could lil Ollie ..Im sure you could



was WTC7 attacked by terrorists? 

fucking moron.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



proof please. you have evidence they didnt tell the FBI that 95% was recovered?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> wtf are talking about we are talking about physical evidence not cockpit recordings and flt data..of course that has been released or two former presidents of the air crash investigation board could not of made the statement that the flt data was virtually impossible and did not correlate with crash site evidences and wittiness testimony



cockpit voice recordings and flt data are physical evidence, moron.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

NO  a flt data recorder is physical evidence the data contained within is not..and regardless you disingenuous spinner...this is  not the physical evidence under discussing we were discussing the claimed hundreds of photos of aircraft parts recovered


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




What does that have to do with the fact the NTSB never stated 95% was recovered?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Rotfl!  You made the claim and you want others to look for the evidence?  No worries.  Every time I see you ask someone to support a claim I will quote your words:

"All over the web. You may look for yourself. or is it that you don't really want truth?"


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



too stupid to understand? let me type this slow for you:
any info from the NTSB gets sent to the FBI. the NTSB wouldnt be the one to decide what gets released.

find proof the NTSB never made the 95% claim to the FBI yet or should we all jsut assume you were talking out of your ass again?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



When will this case come to trial? Why is everything in the entire story only generalities? Not one specific fact from the 911CR was named as a lie. And from what I read in your link Farmer didn't name anything in his entire book, but stayed with the generalizations.

Sorry Can't buy generalizations as fact. not even from Farmer. Wrote a book and didn't  push for any criminal charges when he had the power to do so......

let's see from your link.....

In 2006,* The Washington Post reported*..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

Farmer never tells us what.

We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We do?

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 Which involvement would that be? Which evidence would that be?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The obvious proof the NTSB did not say 95% was recovered is that the claim from the NTSB doesn't exist.  You got any evidence supporting the claim from the fbi yet or are you still squirming like an amputated cockroach?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I was a Platoon Sergeant, one of my team leaders tells me that his team has completed their mission. I report to the Platoon leader that Alpha Team has completed their mission.
That is fact. The Sergeant worked for me, he reported to me, I reported based upon his report.

Now Where is your prove that 95% of the plane was not recovered? Maybe you should call United and ask them.......


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'd say you are one stoopid bitch but that would greatly overrate your intelligence.  If you claim 95% was recovered the burden of proof is on you to provide the facts you useless ****.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I claim that the FBI reported that 95% was recovered. You may call them a liar all you want. I'm certain they could care less what you think. And I have posted news reports of the FBI's claim. Not my problem that you don't want to believe them. But I would seek professional help if I had your problems.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The obvious proof the NTSB did not say 95% was recovered is that the claim from the NTSB doesn't exist.  You got any evidence supporting the claim from the fbi yet or are you still squirming like an amputated cockroach?



you claimed the NTSB never said 95% of the plane was recovered. how do you know what the NTSB said to the FBI? where is your proof they didnt say it? how do you know the claim doesnt exist? are you privy to all the communications from the NTSB to the FBI somehow? you are the one claiming they never said it. where is your proof? 

did you find any evidence the 95% claim is not correct yet?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



So the only fact you can provide is a claim from an unqualified agency.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 17, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The obvious proof the NTSB did not say 95% was recovered is that the claim from the NTSB doesn't exist.  You got any evidence supporting the claim from the fbi yet or are you still squirming like an amputated cockroach?
> ...




The proof the NTSB never made the statement is it doesn't exist.  Being the diligent, thorough, and fact driven sleuths you OCTAs prove to be, if the NTSB had made the claim you would be the first to know then share that info with the rest of us.  

You're a joke and a hypocrite of the first order.  Do you really think you are fooling anyone by trying to hide the fact you have no verifiable evidence 95% was recovered?  Your ass sucking octa pals will pat you on the back because they love dishonesty as much as you.  Grow up you fuxxing twat.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


prove they are unqualified and provide who WOULD be


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


how do you KNOW it doesnt exist?
do you have access to internal FBI info?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



If it exists then link it bitch....

The bottom line is you tried to spin and it failed as usual.  The fbi, who is not qualified to do air crash investigations, claimed they recovered 95% in less than 13 days and concluded no explosives were used.  Anyone with common sense knows that is bullshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, sure, because if it exists it MUST be on the internet and if it isnt on the internet it didnt happen
what a fucking dipshit you are
grow a functioning brain


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




So you have no evidence.....next time make sure you have it before making claims bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



bent tight can't even comprehend what a complete asswipe he is making of himself in this one.

He's not smart enough to realize how retarded he is.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


that can be plainly seen


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, the FBI has said it exists, do you have proof that calls them liars?
until then, shut the fuck up


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



After i had already posted over 2 dozen pics. Nice try dip shit.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


it wouldnt matter if you gave them 2000 photos
they dont give a fucking rats ass about the facts


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



No Ollie you posted the same 6 pictures everyone does the a couple dozen of people standing in a Field


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It would but you cant you can only post the same half dozen


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


no, it wouldn't you have already proven the facts dont mean shit to you
eat shit and die


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



no you prove that and you go do that ...ya little freak


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> It would but you cant you can only post the same half dozen



let me guess. you have trouble counting when you need to switch hands when you're stoned.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2010)

I don't know what your on but you just did exactly what  said. A bunch of pictures of a hole don't count as air craft parts or remains, either do passports..you posted 4 of the 6 photos showing anything that could possible be described as possibly and aircraft part


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its already proven, just look at your posts
anyone with a functioning brain can see you dont give a flying rats ass about the truth


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> I don't know what your on but you just did exactly what  said. A bunch of pictures of a hole don't count as air craft parts or remains, either do passports..you posted 4 of the 6 photos showing anything that could possible be described as possibly and aircraft part



so your explanation is the hole, the aircraft parts, the passports, the drivers license, the DNA from the passengers and crew just spontaneously and miraculously just appeared in some random field in PA with no plane crash happening?

what exactly are you arguing? the pictures i just posted were made in hollywood? seriosuly, what the fuck is your EXACT explanation?


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what your on but you just did exactly what  said. A bunch of pictures of a hole don't count as air craft parts or remains, either do passports..you posted 4 of the 6 photos showing anything that could possible be described as possibly and aircraft part
> ...



I am stating the fact that there are not thousands or even hundreds of pictures of recovered aircraft of parts there are the same half dozen photos ever time as far as any theories I have I belive it may of been shot down


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and what evidence is there to support it having been shot down


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



in the whole scheme of things what difference does it make if it was shot down?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


in the massive scope of the day, not much, other than the military having some minor victory instead of the massive failure they actually had
so yeah, i can see the military taking the hit they did to cover up for shooting it down

totally fucking nuts to think that would happen


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsmhnZeM6w]YouTube - Flight 93 Witnesses[/ame]

Eyewitnesses don't mention it being shot down.


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




If there were ONLY more pictures of the small sized bits and pieces of the destroyed jetliner, THAT would satisfy id-eots.

But since id-eots is not satisfied with the number of images, therefore United Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, PA on 9/11/2001 as part of the actions of the al qaeda terrorists.

id-eots has earned his moniker.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Ollie claimed there are dozens if not hundreds of pics yet he never supported that claim and you hypocrites not only didn't call him out but attack anyone who asks him to support his claim.  Damn Snitch Bitch, there is no limit to your hypocrisy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Stoopidity is your personal Olympic sport.  All you have is a claim with not one single fact to support it.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Then link or state the post # where you provided over two dozen pics of flt 93 wreckage bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and there it is again TPP
dumbfuck troofers are known as stupid fucks


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Gawd DAYUM but you are stupid.

Like your asshole buddy, id-eots, you seem to be laboring under the rather retarded delusion that the number of photos to which you have been made privy somehow corresponds to the issue of whether  United Flight 93 came down as a part of the actions of the al qaeda terrorists (and the efforts of the passengers to fight back) or as a result of the U.S. military reacting to the threat (after other hijacked jet liners had been crashed into the Twin Towers).  

And of course, your "thinking" is beyond just illogical and stupid, it is pathetically delusional.  A half dozen photos or a half million photos wouldn't change the answer to that underlying question, you lying, menstrual blood-dripping, panty-staining, pussy, Troofer, scumbag fuckface.

Once ANY photo or photos demonstrate that it *was* Flight 93 whose mangled remains were recovered in Shanksville, then the number of such photos is of no logical import.

Don't misunderstand.  Everyone and their dutch uncle realizes the ponderously stupid argument you are trying so ignorantly and dishonestly and stupidly to construct (i.e. _that the photos of the portions of the wreckage which are not being publicly disseminated would reveal evidence of a missile attack_).  But let's be clear, you filthy dishonest asstard.  You have NOTHING to support that wild-eyed rank speculation.  

Like many fucking filthy dishonest retards in whose shadows you so proudly stand, you are (in your typical cowardly suppressed-premise kind of way) contending that the absence of evidence somehow constitutes evidence of _your_ baseless paranoid treasonous speculations.  

Sorry, you pussy fuckface, but you're wrong.  Your handle on logic is weaker than your dedication to honesty, which is to say that you have no grip on it whatsoever.  You are pathetically illogical, completely delusional and you remain a dishonest pussy-puddle.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


no no no, if its NOT on the internet and linkable, it couldnt have happened
just ask any troofer moronic Id-eot

it snowed here yesterday, but i dont have a link for it so i guess it didnt really happen


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

MenstrualStain said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> The FBI are not experts at air crash investigations you fuxxing Snitch Bitch. If they were they wouldn't have called the experts at the NSTB for help.



You SAYING that mindless bullshit over and over doesn't make it any less false, ass-licker.  The FBI is the premier investigatory body in the world and that INCLUDES many prior cases involving investigation of airliner crashes, you lying fuckface.  And OF COURSE they WOULD still call in the NSTB, you moron.  Unlike you, they are not so arrogant as to refrain from seeking the assistance of appropriate experts, douche-nozzle.



MenstrualStain said:


> Glad to see you are now backpedalling like a pro Snitch Bitch.  First you claim the FBI's announcement is "in effect" a fact that 95% was recovered.  Now you are saying:
> 
> "Recovery of those parts tends to support the FBI contention that 95% of the plane was recovered."
> 
> So you switch from "in effect a fact" to merely a "contention."



 Man are you fucktarded.  What a joy it is to see you wallowing in your own shit.  Listen up anus breath, the FBI is the entity which concluded and reported that 95% of the crashed jet liner had been recovered.  You can parse language all day long from now until the end of time, pussy-puddle, but you can't get around what they said.  



MenstrualStain said:


> Do you have any idea what percentage of parts you have provided evidence for?



Yes.  95%.



MenstrualStain said:


> All you have posted are some pics and your dumass can't tell the difference between a fuxxing wheel and an engine! Lol....but you want to.....ohhhhh shit!  Never mind. It's just too fuxxing funny!



Actually, I made a mistake and have no problem acknowledging as much.  It was a wheel from the Pentagon crash I had in mind, and I confused it with the engine in the hole in Shanksville, you dishonest asshole.   But your premise is wrong (i.e., you asstard, you are lying again).   It is NOT TRUE that "all I have posted" is some pics.  I DID, of course, along with others, post some pictures.  Collectively, in fact, we have re-posted many pictures.  

But, along with those images, I have also posted the FBI report that 95% of the plane has been recovered and, unlike you, I have resorted to actual logic (something which _you_ have no ability to employ).

*There remains NO logical reason to doubt the FBI report that 95% of the plane's wreckage has been recovered.*  And it is absolutely true that nothing (nothing!) you have ever posted constitutes a valid reason to rationally doubt the FBI report, panty stain.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




I stopped reading when I saw again you put words in my mouth.  I never said the number of pics has anything to do with.....anything.  What I did say is:

Ollie claimed there are dozens if not hundreds of pics yet he never supported that claim and you hypocrites not only didn't call him out but attack anyone who asks him to support his claim.  Damn Snitch Bitch, there is no limit to your hypocrisy.

Go ahead and lie some more Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You stopped reading when you realized what a fool you've made of yourself, pussy stain.

The fact is, you took-up for your brother in paranoid delusional imbecility, the scumbag id-eots.  His id-eotic contention DOES boil down to a quibble about how many images have been posted.  Of course, he, like you, is busy shifting his idiotic position each step along the way.

The FACT is, you cowardly lying pussy-drip, that you aren't even worth debating with. 

Stake a claim you spineless dishonest coward.  So far, you "challenge" all claims by the FBI that 95% of the wreckage has been recovered, but you simultaneously deny that you are making any claims.  No no.  Not you.  You are just "asking questions."    You truly are a cowardly evasive pussy.

Either the plane came down as a result of the actions of terrorists (possibly combined with the reaction of the passengers)  OR it came down as a result of being TAKEN down by OUR side (a missile strike) to prevent it from being used against the White House or Congress, etc.  In EITHER CASE, you fucking scumbag pussy liar, the amount of the craft *recovered* after it went down in Shanksville is irrelevant.

Face facts, fuck face.  What you and that other pussy lying piece of shit scumbag, id-eots, are suggesting is that it 'may have been a missile strike' and that if you were permitted to see the rest of the images you might divine some 'proof' that it was a missile strike that brought down Flight 93.  I doubt it.  With the Troofer propensity for seeing evidence of concrete in the Twin Tower cores (while offering images of just steel), it's not like anything you fucking morons "conclude" will be even marginally persuasive anyway.

But let's take it one step further, you prissy little puke.  Let's pretend (just for the sake of the argument) that it had been a missile strike which brought down Flt. 93.  What of it?  What would THAT now establish?   Would it absolve al qaeda?  Would it somehow further the incredibly vile speculation of fucking scumbag Troofers that 9/11 was an "inside job?"

The combined images of the wreckage of Flt. 93 together with the contention of the FBI that the recovered parts amounted to 95% of that craft suggests to *rational* people (thus excluding all you Troofer assholes) that it (a) WAS Flt. 93 that went down in Shanksville and (b) that 95% of the craft has been recovered.  At a minimum, nothing you assholes point to (or even could point to) is evidence to the contrary.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Lol....Snitch Bitch is on Emo overload.


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

Pussy-Drippings said:


> Lol....Snitch Bitch is on Emo overload.





Always the compulsive liar, Pussy-Drippings always makes that ^ tired dishonest claim whenever he's been bitch-slapped by my rejoinders.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Lol....Snitch Bitch is on Emo overload.



hahaha... you got your ass handed to you.

i think this is the first time i seen you run away with your tail between your legs.

ooops. sorry. thats a mistake. its not the first. i forgot. it happens every time you open your mouth.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Lol...you put out a strawman then pat yourself on the back for your own fantasies.......fuxxing Snitch Bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Lol...you put out a strawman then pat yourself on the back for your own fantasies.......fuxxing Snitch Bitch.


come on, dipshit, at least learn how to CUSS right

its "FUCKING"


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

Menstrual-mess said:


> Lol...you put out a strawman then pat yourself on the back for your own fantasies.......fuxxing Snitch Bitch.



Pussy-puddle,

Mouthing off using terms of logic and rhetoric doesn't establish that you grasp what the terms mean, idiot.

Since I offered not even one speck of a straw-man argument, fuck face, you are only highlighting your ignorance (again) and your fundamental and endless dishonesty.

And for a scumbag like you who has no problem using the word "****," it is more than strange, it is downright hysterical, that you find it necessary to self-edit the word "fucking."

You are a truly stupid lying piece of shit.  I enjoy your posts since they provide further fodder to expose the bullshit philosophy of you dishonest scumbag Troofers.  

_Menstrual mess_, you may be (are) a fucking jerk-off [ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ], but you are also a diseased lying panty-stain.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol....Snitch Bitch is on Emo overload.
> ...




The whole thread is ridiculous.  You still don't have one single fact supporting your claim but you and your fuxxing whiny buddies ignore that and do nothing but make more false claims.


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

MENSTRUAL MESS  said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The facts -- which you deny -- have been posted.  Your denial doesn't make them go away.

You are the liar here, pussy puddle, and the word is "fucking" not "fuxxing."  "Fuxxing" isn't even a word, you babbling fucking retard.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The whole thread is ridiculous.  You still don't have one single fact supporting your claim but you and your fuxxing whiny buddies ignore that and do nothing but make more false claims.



here is what a lying sack of shit you are.

THE FBI SAYS 95% OF THE PLANE WAS RECOVERED.  <<--- that is a fact.

now tell me again how i have no facts to support my claim.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The whole thread is ridiculous.  You still don't have one single fact supporting your claim but you and your fuxxing whiny buddies ignore that and do nothing but make more false claims.
> ...



Rotfl!  Pure dumfuk!  What you have is a claim.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wrong again
dipshit
stated by the FBI and backed up by the NTSB it becomes a FACT


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Keep trying to spin you fuxxing stoopid bitch.  All you have is a claim by the fbi.  It's hilarious you try to throw in the "backed up by the NTSB" bullshit.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



how fucking dumb are you?

did the FBI say 95% was recovered?
yes. they did. its a fact they said it.

so now tell me again how i have no facts to back up my claim!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You. Are. So. Fuxxing. Stoopid.  

Yes it is a fact the fbi CLAIMED to recover 95%.  I never denied the fbi made that claim.  You have no facts to support that claim.


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

MENSTRUAL MESS said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





You, being the gutless pussy you are, ducked it last time, but the question really shouldn't be ducked in your typically pussy fashion.  So, let's try it again, menstrual-mess:  *all testimony (under oath) by all witnesses at all trials would qualify {under your daffynition} as mere "claims."* 

If I see you run a red light and strike a pedestrian crossing in  the crosswalk with the light, when I testify at your trial, you CAN question my bias (the fact that I consider you a gutless lying pussy *is* a bias, after all) and you can question my accuracy or my honesty.  But the fact that your dinged car has traces of the pedestrian's blood on it does tend to corroborate a good deal of my testimony as does the fact of his injury at that location as noted by the EMTs who came to his aid.  

Thus, you calling my testimony a mere "claim" would NOT undermine the fact that I can attest to what I saw.  And in this case, it would be a "fact" regardless of the fact that you don't like it.  [In a very technical sense, it is not a fact until the jury makes a finding of fact derived from all of the evidence, but then it does become legally a "fact."]

Similarly, you fucking retard, when the United Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11/2001, bits and pieces of that wrecked craft DID later get recovered FROM that very spot (and surrounding area).  Contemporaneous photographs do establish as much.  The FBI (i.e., the eyewitnesses) did report that about 95% of the wrecked craft got recovered.  Their estimate can be attacked as the product of bias (but you have no evidence demonstrating any actual bias).  You can, if you feel the need, question their honesty or accuracy, but you have NOTHING to which you can point to make the questioning legitimately based.  

In short, there is no valid, logical, coherent reason to DOUBT that FBI estimate that it was 95% of the craft that got recovered.  If you have a good reason to contend that their estimate that the amount of the plane that got recovered is equal to ~ 95%, then feel free to demonstrate it.  But you won't  any more now than you ever have before, because you can't.

In the end, you can try to hide behind your dishonest pretense that you are "only asking questions," but your credibility is so shot, _menstrual mess_, that your pretense fools nobody.  And what that all comes down to is simple:  *there remains NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY RATIONAL reason to doubt the FBI report that they had recovered 95% of Flight 93's wreckage.*

Prove me wrong, _menstrual mess_.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You. Are. So. Fuxxing. Stoopid.
> 
> Yes it is a fact the fbi CLAIMED to recover 95%.  I never denied the fbi made that claim.  You have no facts to support that claim.



you said "You still don't have one single fact supporting your claim". you just admitted you lied and its a fact the FBI claimed 95% was recovered.

once again you are caught lying you piece of shit!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You. Are. So. Fuxxing. Stoopid.
> ...




Your claim is 95% of flight 93 was recovered.  You don't have a single fact supporting that claim.  All you have is a claim by the fbi you dumfuk.  You really are too stoopid to understand the basics.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

Liability said:


> MENSTRUAL MESS said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I'm guessing the Snitch Bitch does not have one single fuxxing fact in there to support the fbi's claim.  I'm betting the Snitch Bitch is still relying on the premise of prove a negative....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


the FACT is the FBI ESTABLISHED the fact by being the investigative body(with assistance by the NTSB) in the crash of flight 93
that makes it a FACT in the case, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




So it's true because the fbi says it's true.......lol.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


where is your EVIDENCE that it isnt true?
and since you are making the claim that the FBI is lying, it is up to you to prove it


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Quote the post where I said the fbi is lying.  You can't because I never did so once again when you are faced with the inability to provide a single fact to support the fbi's claim you lie about what others say.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


when you say a fact presented by the FBI isnt a fact, you are saying they lied
are you REALLY that fucking stupid that you dont understand that?


----------



## Liability (Apr 18, 2010)

MenstrualLeakage said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MENSTRUAL MESS said:
> ...



There is no guesswork involved to know that *you* are being a cowardly pussy evader now that you're exposed, _menstrual mess_.

I have (repeatedly now) posted the evidence, asshole.

You are the scumbag liar attempting (in your own waffling pussy way) to deny the assertion.  

Since I have backed up what I have said by citing the images and the report of the eye-witnesses, it is YOU, you dickless little maggot, who *does* now assume a burden. 

I realize this offends you.  Too bad.  That's the way things work, ya cockless Troofer shit.   

If you don't care to assume your burden, that's fine.  Then you shouldn't be offering denials of the original assertion.  

You have no balls, no integrity, no facts and no honor.

You poor befuddled little diseased eunuch weasel.

Is there ANYTHING in the known universe to which you can point to even reasonably dispute the eye-witness report of the FBI that 95% of United Flight 93 was recovered after the 9/11/2001 crash?  

Don't fret, _menstrual mess_, nobody ever assumed you had anything to back up your spineless bullshit.  Everyone here knows you are a gutless liar.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He's a fucking idiot. Never wants to take a stand as long as he can disagree without claiming that he disagrees. A true fucking Pussy.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Your claim is 95% of flight 93 was recovered.  You don't have a single fact supporting that claim.  All you have is a claim by the fbi you dumfuk.  You really are too stoopid to understand the basics.



my fact to support my claim that 95% was recovered is the FACT that the FBI stated 95% of the plane was recovered.

you want to explain again how i have no facts to support my claim?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim is 95% of flight 93 was recovered.  You don't have a single fact supporting that claim.  All you have is a claim by the fbi you dumfuk.  You really are too stoopid to understand the basics.
> ...



*CandyCorn Now Presents:

Curvelight:  A Play in One Act*​
_Yeah but Fizz...you didn't see it yourself so how can you be sure?  Just like Africa...the only proof we really have that it exists are pictures from NASA which of course is a federal agency and since the Feds lied to us once....they're obviously lying now.  So Africa doesn't exist until you actually see it.  Snitchbitch fukkuah

Just like South America, Russia, Mexico, Canada, and Antarctica.  

Unless you see it with your own eyes and touch hands, how can you be sure?  Every single syllable in every single federal report is inadmissable because they lied before; and obviously, they are lying now.

In fact, how can you be sure it was the same wreckage as what was found on 9/11 unless you were there when it crashed...accompanied the wreckage to where it is being kept....and have stayed with it for over 8 years now.  Thes government guys are everywhere and they would have replaced it all the moment you turned your back.  

Any thing less than that is no proof whatsoever._


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you left out have a link to it on the internet, cause if it isnt on the internet, it didnt happen


----------



## candycorn (Apr 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





*CandyCorn Now Presents:

Curvelight:  A Play in One Act:  ACT 2*​
DiveConJob...

_You fukking iddyot....The Internet was invented by the Government
The government lied once so they are lying now.
So everithing on the Internet is capable of being a lie...unless I post it of course._

*fin*​


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The fbi presented a fact 95% was recovered because they made that statement?  Rotfl!  You are beyond ridiculous.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualLeakage said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




So you can't show where I said the fbi is lying.  Do you think going on Emo Overload again accomplishes anything?  It just shows what a pure Snitch Bitch you are.  Cry some more Snitch Bitch...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim is 95% of flight 93 was recovered.  You don't have a single fact supporting that claim.  All you have is a claim by the fbi you dumfuk.  You really are too stoopid to understand the basics.
> ...



It is a fact the fbi CLAIMED to have 95% recovered.  There isn't a single fact proving that claim is true you dumfuk.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



NASA is the only way we know Africa exists?  Lol.....keep reaching dumass.....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're the whiny **** who claimed there are dozens if not hundreds of pics of flight 93 wreckage yet you've never proven that claim.  I believe one of your responses to a request for that evidence was to tell others to look on the web.  Another response was to say you've already posted two dozen pics yet you never provided a link or post number.  

It's quite amusing to watch you bitches try to bail each other out every time you can't provide facts to support your claims.  It's more sad than amusing actually.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualLeakage said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





*CandyCorn Now Presents:

Curvelight:  A Play in One Act:  ACT 3*​
_Liarability...  Look dorkbuttfukkahcunt; there is no way to know anything unless you see it yourself.  Whoever is informing you of something is setting themselves up as authority.  Can you understand that rabiddogliarcuntfukkaidyot?  

They all could be lying.  I have never been to Africa so I know it's not there.  The pictures?  Could be from Chicago.  The maps--all based on NASA (i.e. GOVERNMENT) photographs and observations made by navies--(i.e. GOVERNMENT).  

Unless you mail me all 95% of the wreckage to my house or the Wendy's where I work, I won't believe it because I don't believe authority figures. I only believe those who are subjugated to me and since I haven't found anybody who is....well you know.

Please send it with boxes that have uncancelled stamps on them so I can bend it back.  

I deal in lard snitchwichfukcuntsucka_


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

It's clear you ***** are saturated in hypocrisy.  When you make claims you don't back them and when asked to do so your only responses are strawmen and ad homs.  What a bunch of whiny losers.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Over 600 posts in this thread you want the pics go back and look for them they were posted in this thread. And that is why I previously said to look for yourself, because i had already posted links to over 2 dozen pics. 
Glad you are amused because your stupidity is better than most clown acts.

And can you please tell us, do you believe the FBI when they said that 95% of Flight 93 had been recovered? A simple yes or no will do.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It's clear you ***** are saturated in hypocrisy.  When you make claims you don't back them and when asked to do so your only responses are strawmen and ad homs.  What a bunch of whiny losers.



Yeah it's just so much easier not to take a firm stand on a subject......dickhead.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It is a fact the fbi CLAIMED to have 95% recovered.  There isn't a single fact proving that claim is true you dumfuk.



hahahaha!! what a moron!!!!

back pedal some more, jackass. you accused *me* of not having one fact to back up *MY* claim. i pointed out its a fact the FBI says 95% was recovered.

you got caught lying again!!



CurveLight said:


> *Your* claim is 95% of flight 93 was recovered.  You don't have a single fact supporting that claim.  All you have is a claim by the fbi you dumfuk.  You really are too stoopid to understand the basics.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It is a fact the fbi CLAIMED to have 95% recovered.  There isn't a single fact proving that claim is true you dumfuk.
> ...




You are so fuxxing stoopid.  All you have is a claim by the fbi.  There are no facts to support that claim you dumfuk.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




So once again when you can't provide the evidence to support your claim you whine like a bitch.  It's simple you fuxxing freak.  Just post the evidence.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It's clear you ***** are saturated in hypocrisy.  When you make claims you don't back them and when asked to do so your only responses are strawmen and ad homs.  What a bunch of whiny losers.
> ...



You summed him and all twoofers up in one sentence.  The "dickhead" blast was accurate too.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You are so fuxxing stoopid.  All you have is a claim by the fbi.  There are no facts to support that claim you dumfuk.



this is what a lying fucking moronic twoofer you are.

you claimed there were no facts to support* MY *claim. you lied. end of story.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You are so fuxxing stoopid.  All you have is a claim by the fbi.  There are no facts to support that claim you dumfuk.
> ...





Your claim is the same as the fbi's claim.....95% recovered but you don't have a single fact to back it up.  Keep dancing twat.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


WOW you ARE that fucking stupid

you cant have it both ways, either what they said is a fact or its a lie
so your back to calling the FBI liars


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


so, the FBI lied
wow, you just cant get the truth from dipshits like you'


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


so which is it, dipshit, did the FBI lie or not?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no jackass. my claim is not the same as the FBI claim. the FBI was the lead investigator. i was not. to back up my claim is the FACT the FBI said 95% was recovered.

so why dont you lie again and say i have no facts to back up my claim. 

while you are at why dont you explain how FDRs cant record more than 25 hours again. that was a good lie too.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You're a fuxxing whackjob.  You're claiming 95% was recovered based only on the fbi claiming 95% was recovered.  When you get some facts...hell....just one fact to back up that claim then let us know.  Until then keep trying to deflect like the bitch you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I never said the fbi lied but it's not surprising to see ***** like you lie about what others say to try and deflect from admitting you don't have a single fact supporting the fbi's claim.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Do you have any evidence the fbi lied or did you just say the fbi lied because you're such a stoopid ****?


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

THIS JUST IN!

_bent tight_, the pussy puddle menstrual mess, is fuxxing stoopid!

We now return you to his usual idiotic mindless dishonest blather.

Carry on menstrual mess.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> THIS JUST IN!
> 
> _bent tight_, the pussy puddle menstrual mess, is fuxxing stoopid!
> 
> ...



Since the Snitch Bitch has no facts to prove 95% was recovered he'll continue on these mindless insipid attempts at ad homs.

When any of you useless ***** get any verifiable evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered then please post it.  Until then......


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

MentrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > THIS JUST IN!
> ...



The rejection, by the dishonest _pussy puddle_, of the facts which have been repeatedly presented amounts to no valid complaint at all.

Moreover, I have to admit, I laffed out loud when the dickless MenstrualMess complains about _ad hominems_ in the VERY same post in which it uses phrases like "useless *****."  

MenstrualMess is leaking!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, either the FBI report is a FACT or it is a LIE, you cant have it any other way


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


UH, WTF???
it YOU saying the FBI lied, dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


or how all cell phones have airplane mode, or that you can drive fast enough to outrun your cell phone signal

this guy is beyond stupid
LOL


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



do you realize how fucking stupid you are?

to paraphrase what you are saying:
_"you're claiming 95% was recovered based only on the FACT that the FBI claimed 95% was recovered. therefore, you have no facts."_


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


circular reasoning


just more proof he is a total dipshit


----------



## candycorn (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



That was going to be act #4


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

I cannot believe this stupid fuck. 

1. I have posted in this thread well over 2 dozen photos from the flight 93 crash site. Because he doesn't want to look back for them they were never posted......DUH

2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation made a statement that says 95% of flight 93 was recovered. And to Bentdick this means that there is no proof. But , wait a minute, this doesn't mean that the FBI is lying. It only means that we on this board have no proof that they told the truth.

3, Bentdick refuses to once again be a man (or woman) and take a positive stand on this issue.

4. *Is anyone surprised?*


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I cannot believe this stupid fuck.
> 
> 1. I have posted in this thread well over 2 dozen photos from the flight 93 crash site. Because he doesn't want to look back for them they were never posted......DUH
> 
> ...



other than the usual 6...all the rest are just people standing in a feild...*is anyone surprised*


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




I never said the fbi lied....but you did.  Want me to link the post where you said it?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> other than the usual 6...all the rest are just people standing in a feild...*is anyone surprised*



find any proof flight 93 didnt crash in PA yet? 

even if there was only one single solitary piece of evidence (your choice of flight data recorders found, witnesses, DNA, etc.) there would still be more evidence it crashed in PA than it didnt.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I cannot believe this stupid fuck.
> 
> 1. I have posted in this thread well over 2 dozen photos from the flight 93 crash site. Because he doesn't want to look back for them they were never posted......DUH
> 
> ...




You claimed there are dozens if not hundreds of pics of flight 93 wreckage.  I've patiently asked at least 4 times where they are and all you've done is whine like the little **** you love to be.  You must be the only retiree with a bright pink ID card.  

One last time.  Where are those dozens if not hundreds of pics?  When you fail to link them again **** don't be surprised when you get called out for being the cowardly bitch you love to be.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wrong, dipshit, i ASKED YOU IF THEY LIED

example: So, the FBI lied


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

google is your friend.

flight 93 wreckage - Google Search


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.


1  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200060-1.jpg

2  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200061-1.jpg

3  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200062-1.jpg

4  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200063-1.jpg

5  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200064-1.jpg

6  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200065-1.jpg

7  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200066-1.jpg

8  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200068-1.jpg

9  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200069-1.jpg

10  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_diagram_small.jpg

11  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae1_small.jpg

12  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae2_small.jpg

13  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae3.jpg

14  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae4.jpg

15. http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc1_small.jpg

16  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc2_small.jpg

17 http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_about_small.jpg

18  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rj.jpg

19  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa1.jpg

20  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa2.jpg

21  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa3.jpg

22  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa4.jpg

23  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa5.jpg

24  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-epa6.jpg

25  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris-pitt5.jpg

26  http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/misc-epa4.jpg

27  http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/docs/epa/EPA11.jpg

28  http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

29  http://www.ooze.com/finger/assets/images/Fingerstatue.jpg


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot believe this stupid fuck.
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Wow!  That's now twice you are saying the fbi lied!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.
> 
> 
> 1  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200060-1.jpg
> ...




Lol...the first 3 are the most common ones then you've got a bunch of pure garbage.  A barn, a cloud of smoke, a couple of holes, some pics of ID's, and that's it?  So basically even with your best effort you can't back up your claim there are dozens if not hundreds of pics of flight 93 wreckage.  Thanks for proving yourself wrong again you fuxxing remf ****.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it is astounding that anyone can be so ignorant as you


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



No, asshole.  That's still zero times _he's_ said it.  The first time was a question asked *of* you.

The latter time was an example to prove [even to a fucking lying retard like you] that it was a question.

You are so thoroughly exposed as a liar now, PussyPuddle, that you no longer care that we all see you as the lying menstrual drippings you are.


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.
> 
> 
> 1  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200060-1.jpg
> ...



OLLIE!  #29 was terrific.  A perfect tribute to a lying fuck like benttwat.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


what do you expect from a dishonest dipshit troofer moron


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.
> 
> 
> 1  http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200060-1.jpg
> ...



no engines.. no landing gear.. no tail section.. no luggage ..no seats.. no body parts ?????


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.
> ...



Liar.

An engine (or part thereof) was the thing being dug out of the hole.  Remember when you thought you had scored a huge debating point by pointing out my mistake when I had mistakenly referred to it as a wheel?  






This proves you know you are lying when you lie, you filthy fucking Troofer scumbag liar.

Lots of body parts were found, by the way, asstard.  Unless, of course, they didn't exist because you didn't see the photographic images, you filthy lying illogical troofer scumbag pussy.



> "The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five [search] sectors." &#8211;Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, quoted in Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes," p. 262.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...g+out+of+hole&hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1


Oh, and by the way, isn't the tire part of the landing gear?  I always kinda thought it was:


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

> * * * *
> 
> Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.
> 
> ...


 Google Image Result for http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93engine.jpg

And yet, even now, there are lowlife diseased filthy scumbag maggot-fuckers, like id-eots, who refuse to even acknowledge eye-witness accounts.


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

claims of remains and personal effects are not crash site photos...they are simply claims


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> claims of remains and personal effects are not crash site photos...they are simply claims



I realize that you are a pussy retarded lying douche bag, and all, but still:

no.

They are not mere "claims," you moron.  They are eye-witness accounts.

Eye-witness accounts may not be photographic evidence, but they do amount to evidence, stupid.

What the fuck makes a scumbag ghoul like you imagine that you have any entitlement to photographic evidence of mangled bits and pieces of the remains of human beings lost in a terrorist attack, anyway, ya filthy shithead?


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

a tire is not landing gear ..its a tire  and is it a 757 tire ..who identified this piece
as a 757 engine ??


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > claims of remains and personal effects are not crash site photos...they are simply claims
> ...




they had no problem posting pictures of Body parts of pentagon staff killed on 9/11...because they were actually there


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> are tire is not landing gear ..its a tire  and is it a 757 tire ..who identified this piece
> as a 757 engine ??



"are tire"  WTF?

Do you speak English?

I realize a retarded fucktard like you speaks fluent babble with an incoherent lisp, but you must try to communicate with others in a language they can understand.  None of us speak your scumbag dialect of  Retard-ese.

No.  Asshole.  It's a bicycle tire.     You fucking moron.  It appears  that in your zeal to be a scumbag maggot fucker you overlooked "Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. *It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet.*" which I quoted and linked in an earlier post, shitforbrains.

And that's not rust on the engine, idiot.  It's dirt.  That comes from being in the dirt.  As for it being the engine of the downed jetliner, scumbag, the question is retarded (as are you).  DO you imagine that the jet just happened to crash on a spot where (for truly unknown reasons) some other jet engine part happened to have been buried?  

You moron, try to educate yourself, at least a tiny little bit:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12969.html


----------



## eots (Apr 19, 2010)

so who identified this part as a 757 engine and why are there no photos of bodies or body parts like the pentagon ?


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



"They" did post a couple of gruesome images of badly burned human beings, in conjunction with a criminal trial, but not body *parts* of plane crash victims.  Posting images to satisfy your ghoulish desires is simply not warranted.  There was nobody left to TRY of the bastards who hijacked Flight 93, you scumbag.  

Again, we all already know that there were human beings on the flight, jackass.  And we know they ended up dead, you puke.   And we also know from eye-witness accounts, including the official recounting of the investigation  by the local coroner, that it was only body parts which they were able to recover.  No purpose is therefore served by posting photographic proof of those facts.  Nobody gives a crap if *you* believe it or not, since you are just a ghoulish fucking scumbag freak.


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> so who identified this part as a 757 engine and why are there no photos of bodies or body parts like the pentagon ?



So, (a) who gives a fuck?

and (b) already answered.

Your "questions" are irrelevant.

You are a degenerate puke.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

So basically you dumfuks still don't have a single fact to support the fbi's claim that 95% was recovered.  Not surprised.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So basically you dumfuks still don't have a single fact to support the fbi's claim that 95% was recovered.  Not surprised.


more TPP

what a shock


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > are tire is not landing gear ..its a tire  and is it a 757 tire ..who identified this piece
> ...




Rotfl!  It was a big tire!  It must have came from flight 93 because that was the only vehicle in existence in the entire world that......had a big tire.  Lol!  Fuxxing priceless!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> no engines.. no landing gear.. no tail section.. no luggage ..no seats.. no body parts ?????



because we all know that the only parts of an airplane are engines, landing gear, tail section and seats and they ALWAYS remain intact.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

eots said:


> liar..that is a rusty unidentified piece of something



prove its rusty.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > liar..that is a rusty unidentified piece of something
> ...




You've never proven 95% was recovered and you never will you lying ****.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Rotfl!  It was a big tire!  It must have came from flight 93 because that was the only vehicle in existence in the entire world that......had a big tire.  Lol!  Fuxxing priceless!



fortunately our first responders have something you seriously lack....

common sense.

a guy shows up at an airplane crash site to put out a fire and finds pieces of the plane burning. one of the pieces is a tire. he notices its a big tire and on fire and comes to the logical conclusion that........ it .... came... from.... a ....... big...... plane.....

now what is your logical conclusion you would come up with if you were called to the site of an airplane crash and saw burning debris including a big tire?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Rotfl!  It was a big tire!  It must have came from flight 93 because that was the only vehicle in existence in the entire world that......had a big tire.  Lol!  Fuxxing priceless!
> ...




Why is it you don't question a first responder when they say something you like but if a first responder says something you don't like you automatically claim that person was obviously wrong?  Oh thass right.....it's cause you swim in hypocrisy.

You've never proven 95% was recovered and you never will you lying ****


----------



## Fizz (Apr 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Why is it you don't question a first responder when they say something you like but if a first responder says something you don't like you automatically claim that person was obviously wrong?  Oh thass right.....it's cause you swim in hypocrisy.
> 
> You've never proven 95% was recovered and you never will you lying ****



why is it when a first responder says they heard an explosion you twoofers say its proof of controlled demolition? its isnt necessarily the first responders i question. its more that you fucking twoofers draw illogical conclusions from what they say.

i have provided proof that 95% was recovered, a statement by the FBI saying so. you dont like it. tough shit for you. it doesnt mean i didnt provide proof, jackass!!


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



PussyPuddle, you fucking moron, you just won the asshole of the millenium award.

Let's think (I realize that a total fucking imbecile like you *can't* think, but try to follow along, anyway, you scumbag retard):

A large passenger jet crashes, nose first, at a 40 degree angle travelling at around 500 mph into the ground in Shanksville PA.  First responders see a debris field consisting mostly of very small pieces of the former jet aircraft but including very large burning tire adjacent to a charred tree in the immediate vicinity of the crash site.

The tire is in all likelihood:

(a) from a bicycle.
(b) from a unicycle.
(c) the tread from a surplus army tank circa World War II.
(d) the spare tire on a Model A Ford.
(e) the right rear tire from your Yugo.
(g) the wheel of an ancient sailing ship.
(h) a Frisbee.
(i) a block of dry ice.
(j) a tire from the wreckage of the jet aircraft burning because the jet exploded and burned upon impact.
(k) nobody who wasn't there can ever possibly answer this "trick" question.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And just for the whiney little children who cannot look up pictures on the Internet. Even though we know that id-eots and bentdick will claim these are not what they are. I have spent way too much time on these simpletons. Now go on and tell us how these are not pictures of debris from flight 93.
> ...



Thank you, I thought so. He is too stupid to even see the debris on a barn roof. Almost a pity.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 19, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Ya...Thats why in all the camping guides ...they say to bring along some extra aluminum in case ya want to start a fire way out in the woods after a violent plane crash!....


----------



## Liability (Apr 19, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



No stupid.  That's for the marshmallows.  Pay attention.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it you don't question a first responder when they say something you like but if a first responder says something you don't like you automatically claim that person was obviously wrong?  Oh thass right.....it's cause you swim in hypocrisy.
> ...



You provided a claim 95% was recovered.  You've provided no facts you dumfuk.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




So you can't back up your claims....again.  No problem old timer.....I never expected you to do so anyways.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


what a fucking dipshit
he cited the FACT that the FBI(working with the NTSB) said they recovered 95%
THAT is a FACT
the FBI DID say it


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



What was mysterious about:

You provided a claim 95% was recovered.

You be one stoopid bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



its a FACT the fbi says 95% was recovered. squirm some more little boy and tell me how i have no facts to back up my claim.

fucking moronic twoofer.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What was mysterious about:

You provided a claim 95% was recovered.

You be one stoopid bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*CLAIM*:  relevant portion of definition = 2b: "an assertion open to challenge <a claim of authenticity>" Claim - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So tell us, PussyPuddle, what SPECIFICALLY distinguishes a "fact" from a "claim" about a fact, in your lexicon?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Thank you for proving my point Snitch Bitch!

"an assertion open to challenge.."


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



Only a complete imbecile (thus explaining why you are the one) would consider my refutation of your mindless position to be some kind of vindication of your mindless position.

*Any* contention is open to challenge, you fucking retard asshole.

You deliberately (like the pussy you always are) EVADED the last question, I note.  No surprise.  So, to highlight your abject cowardice, I'll just pose it again for your benefit:  

So tell us, PussyPuddle, what SPECIFICALLY distinguishes a "fact" from a "claim" about a fact, in your lexicon?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2010)

*snitch bitch!!!?? Wtf???*


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2010)

Why Liability gotta be the "Snitch Bitch"?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Why Liability gotta be the "Snitch Bitch"?



Cause he runs to staff like a Snitch Bitch every chance he gets......


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2010)

Ya all know what happens to "snitch Bitches"?

I'd work on my grip if I was you....so ya don't drop the soap in your shower.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 20, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Ya all know what happens to "snitch Bitches"?
> 
> I'd work on my grip if I was you....so ya don't drop the soap in your shower.



Thanks for letting us in on what you do in your spare time.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Why Liability gotta be the "Snitch Bitch"?
> ...



Now there's ^ something you see every day.  PussyPuddle, the pussy liar, lying some more.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Not surprising you don't know the diff.

A claims lacks verification.

A fact can be independently verified.

If a calendar expert says today is Tuesday by our calendar you don't need to rely on believing him or not because you can independently verify his claim.  Thus it is no longer simply a claim but a verifiable fact.

(I really hope you aren't stoopid enough to respond with...."But how does anyone know what day of the week it is for a fact?"  I hope....but you have proven to be that stoopid Snitch Bitch.)


----------



## candycorn (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Hey...at least he finally took a stand on something.  Thats a first for him.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...




Totally as expected, your abiding ignorance is now on full display, PussyPuddle.  Thanks for playing.

Facts *can* be verified.  Happily, you got a portion of it right, so far!  

Now, tell us some of the ways in which facts can be verified, you fucking moron.



{For those keeping score at home, the fun part of the ensuing portion of today's PussyPuddle desperate effort to avoid getting pinned down will be largely in the realm of how urgently and irrationally he tries to avoid acknowledging that *facts can be verified by the accounts of eye-witnesses*!}


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


i'm still waiting for him to say who would be more qualified to answer the question on the crash than the lead investigative body


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Holy fuk Snitch Bitch.  Do you think.....maybe.....just maybe......there is a reason why it is called eyewitness testimony and not eyewitness fact?  Lol.....

All this to simply avoid admitting the obvious....you don't have a single fact supporting the fbi's claim.  What a Snitch Bitch!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...




Thass been answered a few times you dumfuk.......you're so desperate you're repeating the same fallacies hoping to accomplish something but all you've proven is you're too fuxxing arrogant and ignorant to discuss this or any other issue that doesn't bring gallows of laughter from what you say.....keep whining.....


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



Holy Shithead, Batman, you're RIGHT!  _bent tight_ *is* the stupidest fucking dishonest pussy of all time! 

You ducked the question again, pussy, just as we all knew you would, MenstrualMess.

Now, then, MenstrualMess, how does one go about confirming the eye-witness testimony of an eye-witness when there were no cameras around or any other way of physically recording the events described by the eye-witness?

Believe it or not, you lying cowardly dripping diseased twat, we often *do* accept eye-witness accounts to make factual determinations.

Run away and hide from the things you can't handle some more, you dick-less, spine-less, ball-less, gut-less dishonest stanky pussy!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Damn Snitch Bitch you are a bigger whiner than divedik....and that's not an easy bitch to beat.

After all your crying you're back at square one....you still don't have a single fact proving the fbi's claim.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> After all your crying you're back at square one....you still don't have a single fact proving the fbi's claim.



i see you changed your statement. before it was "you dont have a single fact to back up YOUR claim" (referring to me) and now its "you dont have a single fact to back up the FBI claim".

once again you have been proven wrong and you backpedal as fast as you can!! 

your arguments are retarded and you lack the intelligence to see the big picture. 

flight 93 crashed in PA. got any evidence that isnt true?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > After all your crying you're back at square one....you still don't have a single fact proving the fbi's claim.
> ...


lets see him prove my phone has an OFFLINE mode again
LOL


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > After all your crying you're back at square one....you still don't have a single fact proving the fbi's claim.
> ...



More attempted deflections?  You still haven't provided any facts supporting the claim 95% was recovered.  Go ahead and make an ass of yourself by saying it's a fact the fbi claimed 95% was recovered.........dumfuk.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2010)

Actually, what is amazing is that bentdick still won't answer the simple basic yes or no question.


The FBI claimed that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

Did the FBI Lie?

How about it bentdick, yes or no?


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...




Wow, PussyPuddle, that was your biggest repetition of your always dishonest claim, yet!

(A), as you knew when you just lied, I haven't whined at all.  Refuting your bullshit isn't whining you always dishonest douche.    and (B)  your persistence in IGNORING all the facts is not even marginally commendable.  Your ceaseless dedication to dishonesty is one of your more sordid characteristics.  The FBI's claim has been supported on a factual level in numerous ways.  And the fact that there is not one single valid reason to doubt it also serves to support it.

In short, you remain entirely wrong and fully dishonest, MenstrualMess.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually, what is amazing is that bentdick still won't answer the simple basic yes or no question.
> 
> 
> The FBI claimed that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.
> ...


it can only be one of two things, either they lied, or it is a fact
but dipshit will never actually answer the question


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, what is amazing is that bentdick still won't answer the simple basic yes or no question.
> ...



That's the fallacy of a false dilemma you dumfuk.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


how the fuck do you get that?
either what the FBI said is the truth, and thus a fact, or they lied
which is it


and i KNEW you would pussy out and not answer the question


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Snitch Bitch Emo alert....again.  All your whining cannot change that even after hundreds of posts not one of you dumbass cocksucking crybabies has produced a single fact supporting the claim in post #2.  Keep whining......


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Learn what the fallacy means you dumfuk.  My days of tutoring you dumasses are over.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



A simple yes or no Bentdick. that's all we are asking for. 

Is that too difficult for you?

The FBI stated that 95% of flight 93 had been recovered. Did they lie?

YES or NO?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> A simple yes or no Bentdick. that's all we are asking for.
> 
> Is that too difficult for you?
> 
> ...



he is too much of a pussy to come out and say he thinks the FBI lied. its just like he was too much of a pussy to admit he was a twoofer for months.

its obvious what he believes.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > A simple yes or no Bentdick. that's all we are asking for.
> ...



I know I just want her to actually say it one time.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


that pussy will never take a stand


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


YOU are the one that needs to learn, dipshit
cause that ISNT a fallacy


Fallacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

learn something, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > A simple yes or no Bentdick. that's all we are asking for.
> ...




700+ posts and you still can't provide any facts supporting the claim in post number.......2.  You're a **** of a joke.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).  

2. Claim Y is false.

3. Therefore claim X is true.
Http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

You're probably too stoopid to plug in your specific false dilemma but at least now you know it is a fallacy you fuxxing nuclear idiot.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You don't know what I believe and you don't give a fuk what I believe.  Unless I say what you want me to say you will ignore what I believe so why play the charade?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 95% of it was recovered.
> 
> CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001



There is post #2 curvey, which your diminished menatl capacity causes you to claim has not been answered.
from the article;
"SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that *95 percent of the plane was recovered. "*

The FBI stated 95% of the plane was recovered. The only proof related to post two that is required is if you think it is a lie.

I believe the FBI. The article stating they made an announcement that 95% of the plane was found is enough for me, and most reasonably sane loyal Americans as well.


Curvey, straight out, do you have the balls to state that you believe the FBI lied in thier announcement?

If so, please provide some reason, including any links to articles that dispute the FBI announcement.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


how the FUCK could both yes and no be true or false
either the FBI lied or they didnt
their is no 3rd option, dipshit, therefore it is NOT a false dilemma
and btw, why do you bring up false dilemma after calling it a fallacy and were PROVEN wrong once again
you suck you are a fucking moronic idiot


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2010)

maybe the FBI agents in question just _misspoke_ like when bush said he watched the first plane hit the tower on 9/11 before he saw the seconed one hit


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > A simple yes or no Bentdick. that's all we are asking for.
> ...



so do you think anyone in the FBI has ever been guilty of giving false testimony or or providing false forensic test results ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



you think muslims ever hijacked an airplane before?

fucking moron and your stupid shit innuendos. if you believe he lied then just come out and say it, pussy.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


hey bentdick, now here^^^^^^ is a false dilemma


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." 


Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations." 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."
> 
> 
> Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


bentdick, here^^^^ is a fallacious appeal to authority


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."
> ...



 ^^^here is a moron receptively and inappropriately posting _fallacious appeal to authority _as a response


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


nope, you DID exactly what i said


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

_nope_...you are a fool...one has an investigation is to determine truth,facts asking for answers and asking questions ,it does not mean you have predtrmined the results as you try to project


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> _nope_...you are a fool...one has an investigation is to determine truth,facts asking for answers and asking questions ,it does not mean you have predtrmined the results as you try to project


wanna try that in English this time

dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Okay.  So it's not probable you are too fuxxing stoopid to plug in your specific false dilemma.....it's a proven fact.  Just because you are too dumb to see a third option that does not mean there is not a third option you sooper moronic bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 95% of it was recovered.
> ...




By your claims here it means all those family members and first responders who demand a new investigation are not sane.  Nice job.

Also, our government was structured specifically around the idea government is not to be trusted.  If the government makes a claim it is our duty as Americans to demand evidence.  Pfft....that explains why you dumbasses pretending to be Americans don't get it.....

Asking for evidence is not an accusation of lying.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> _nope_...you are a fool...one has an investigation is to determine truth,facts asking for answers and asking questions ,it does not mean you have predtrmined the results as you try to project



so go investigate. quit whining on the internet about it and actually go do something. posting on message boards isnt going to get anything done.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



NO PussyPuddle, this is just another example you lying again.  

No surprise there.  It appears that you are incapable of honesty or utterly unwilling to engage in honesty.

Once again, refuting your bullshit isn't whining -- although it does lead to you endlessly lying and whining.  That's really not the same thing, though.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Simply more deflection on your part curvey, it's dumbasses like you that make all the people that have questions about the investigation into the events of 911 look like morons.
The FBI made this announcement, and that in itself is evidence. What reasons do you have to think anything to the contrary? Numbers of 'questioners' is not evidence. 

Have any kind of cognicant argument, anything, anything at all besides insults and emotional appeals to peer groups?


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> * * * *
> 
> Asking for evidence is not an accusation of lying.



There are many examples of a citizen WANTING to see proof or evidence but not having the satisfaction of getting that particular itch scratched.

The FBI say 95% of the craft was recovered.  For whatever reason or reasons you "doubt" the veracity of the reporting by the FBI on that topic.

And?

We know the craft existed.  We know that the crew and passengers (including the terrorists) were on board.  We know the flight went down.  We have damn good proof that it went down in Shanksville, PA.  We know that none of the crew or passengers was seen alive thereafter, but that some body parts were recovered and that DNA analysis identified all the non-terrorists.  We saw identifiable plane wreckage in the smoking hole and some of the surrounding area of the crash site along with some human remains and remnants of personal effects.  We have seen photographic evidence of a good deal of the wreckage from fuselage to burned tire to some wing section to seat belt fragments, etc.,  (including a large dumpster containing many very small bits and pieces).

In that context, the FBI announced that 95% of the craft had been recovered.

On what basis is that put into doubt, other than your own personal dissatisfaction with whatever they say?

And what difference would it make, in the end, if it was 90% or 81.3% instead of 95% anyway?  In other words, why do you "ask" your "questions?"  Is there some rational point to whatever you are "just asking?"


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




A claim is not evidence.....that is why it is called a claim sooper einstein.  You're also repeating the fallacy of demanding a negative be proven when you don't have any facts in the affirmative.  But this thread could go te thousands posts and you punks still wouldn't admit you don't have any facts to support the fbi's claim.  You're stoopid like that.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The FBI announcement of the findings of their investigation is a fact in the affirmative.

The 'evidence', or even reason to doubt it is the proof required to deem it a fallacy.


So far you have nothing.  I am not even asking for anything more than a logic based valid opinion. So far you have not offered even that.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


HOLY SHIT
how can the FBI be both telling the truth AND lying at the same time?????
there IS no third option to that question


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> A claim is not evidence.....that is why it is called a claim sooper einstein.  You're also repeating the fallacy of demanding a negative be proven when you don't have any facts in the affirmative.  But this thread could go te thousands posts and you punks still wouldn't admit you don't have any facts to support the fbi's claim.  You're stoopid like that.



this is the internet, jackass. all you are going to get here is claims. you know why?
BECAUSE YOU CANT POST FUCKING WRECKAGE ON A MESSAGE BOARD!!! 

i'll tell you what. you figure out a way to attach actual airplane parts to posts and i will attach 95% percent of flight 93 right after you get it up and running. 

there is a fact in the affirmative. there is the FACT that the FBI said 95% was recovered. you have ANY FACTS that isnt true?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Oh boy.  The fbi's announcement is a claim.  Period.  Yes it is a fact they made the claim but announcing the claim does nothing to support the claim.  Either you jackasses are truly on the darkest side of stoopid or you're unbelievably dishonest.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Ok, I will accept baby steps. 
The "claim" made bythe FBi was made by an offical agency with the full backing and authority of the government of the USA. Their "claim" was made after they conducted their investigation of the site of the crash outside Shanksville, according to the news report.

You obviously disagree with their findings. 

Do you plan on sharing why you feel that way with us?

The only dishonesty here is that you seem to expect everyone else to disagree with the FBI, just because they are the FBI. 
The fact is, I believe the FBI BECAUSE they are the FBI.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


and what would the FBI have gained by making a false claim?
they could have said 50% was recovered
it would have been just as valid as saying 95% had


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Let's refer to the FBI announcement that 95% of the wrecked craft had been recovered as "claim."

A claim can be accurate or inaccurate.   It can be honest or dishonest.

What is it that YOU believe would be required to convert the "claim" into a "fact?"

And, you have refused to answer the obvious question, "what difference does it make?"

IF they had "claimed" 50% (as Dive noted a little while ago) would you be denying that their claim was accurate.

Based solely on the portions of the wreckage of which you have seen photographic images, what approximate percentage of the aircraft would you minimally estimate had been recovered?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Don't ask me...I'm still trying to figure out how to start an alluminum fire...


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > _nope_...you are a fool...one has an investigation is to determine truth,facts asking for answers and asking questions ,it does not mean you have predtrmined the results as you try to project
> ...



it that were entirely true post on message boards would not be met with such full time opposition from you and yours


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



there is no "me and mine"

there is me telling you that your fucking stupid.

there is other people telling you that your fucking stupid.

its not a big fucking conspiracy, asshole. its that you are fucking stupid!!


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Don't ask me...I'm still trying to figure out how to start an alluminum fire...



Nobody was asking you anything. 

And nobody said anything about starting fires with aluminum, either.  [I realize you misunderstood what I did write, but that's pretty much your problem.]

Try to keep up, Smugly.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



why do you spend your time debwunking that which you believe has no purpose or effect...thats stupid


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Don't ask me...I'm still trying to figure out how to start an alluminum fire...
> ...



  Why the mean sprit counselor?  I'm just a humble soul tryin to figure out where 100,000 lbs of aluminum went?...silly me


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No.  *You* are stupid.

And there's no such word as "debwunking," either, you dishonest scumbag retard.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Don't ask me...I'm still trying to figure out how to start an alluminum fire...


talk to some of the British sailors on the HMS Sheffield


HMS Sheffield (D80) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



THAT's what you were trying to say?

Part of the problem, then, is that you have major problems posting a coherent thought.

You are asking (I'll go ahead and read a bit between the lines since you are a bit too incoherent to frame your questions intelligibly) "what happened" to the aluminum skin of the downed jet liner?

PART of it was on display in some of the images posted, of course.

Much of it fragmented upon impact into tiny pieces.  Some of it probably did vaporize.

It appears that a good deal of the recovered wreckage got returned to United Airlines.

Why does it matter?  (I believe I know what you suspect, and that's fine; but maybe you could stop playing silly games and just go ahead and state your claim.)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


because it confuses dipshits like you

and no one debwunks anything, dipshit, it isnt a WORD


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


not to mention the fact that the 100,000 LB  claim is not valid in the sense that the aircrafts total weight might have been that much, but not ALL of it was aluminum


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




It's not about agreeing or disagreeing.  Why are so many fearful and hostile to such a simple request?  Or do you think any government agency has the right to make a claim but not provide evidence for said claim?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



because its slightly more politically correct than poking a retard with a stick and slightly more entertaining.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



An empty 757 weighs 142,000 pounds dumfuk.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> An empty 757 weighs 142,000 pounds dumfuk.



proof please.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > An empty 757 weighs 142,000 pounds dumfuk.
> ...




Soon as you provide facts that support the claim made over 700 posts ago bitch.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



See... That's what I am talking about.   Words like "vaporized"....

You do know I have been a liscenced pilot for almost 33 years...  I wonder how many of you "experts" have at least that much background in fllight?

I'll just jump in...late as you point out but maybe I can raise a legitimate question or two.  

You have stated the plane was going 500 plus MPHs...How do you know this?  If I recall..there was this passenger take over that was unsuccessful..but to what degree?  If they breached the cockpit and kiled the terrorist then they surely pulled back on the throttles.  Doing so would change the speed dramatically wether they pulled out of a stall or not...with power cut back or off there is a basic law of physics ..a terminal velocity..  of approximately 120 mph maximum.  You do know this...Right?

An aircraft does not maintain momentum like an automobile doing fifty and you take your foot off the gas pedal.  If the power was reduced the drag would act immediately on the airplane.  

I know that one of "the" black boxes was recovered.  Is there any reliable information of the speed of impact?  Or are you just assuming that the passengers broke into the cockpit and made no attempt to reduce power?

I conceed that the plane was going at least 120 mph.  I seriously doubt it was going much faster and certainly as it was likely someone could get thier hands on the throttles the aircraft was not going as fast as it possibly could in level controlled flight.  You may not appreciate me chiming in but as smart as you have shown to be what say you on my points?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i did already. you missed it, dumbfuck?

so you are saying you have no proof. we should just believe you that it weighed 142,000 pounds empty?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




What proof did you post to support the fbi's claim 95% was recovered?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


then why the fuck are you dipshit troofers claiming it was a "100,000 lb airplane" then
now whos the dumbfuck

and, see the bolded, dipshit?
i never made the claim it WAS 100,000 lbs


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

LOL and dumbfuck is wrong too

the total weight of a 757 is 255,00 lbs


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



 looks like they will just ignore this one


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



700 posts ago, you lying sack of shit, the question was about how much was recovered not your stupid little "support the fbi's claim" bullshit. the proof i posted was the fact the FBI said 95% was recovered. you have anything that refutes that yet, you fucking moron?

see if you can keep that straight in your extremely small amount of gray matter.

now where is your proof that flight 93 weighed 142,000 pounds emtpy, dipshit? or should we all just assume this is just another one of your fucking lies you pulled out of your ass?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The bane of those that don't really know what they talk about is that they don't even know what questions to debate.  It just breaks down to personality conflics and factual comparison runs a very distant place.  They seek importance more than an impotant point of resolution.  There really are idiots to be identified..they just can't believe what they won't believe and nary a one has the expertise to make a legitimate call on any of these issues.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents 

Sept 23, 2006 - We have the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact). If that was the case, it would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft. 
United 93 (Shanksville, PA) @ pilotsfor911truth.org


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



the cockpit voice recorder shows that the HIJACKER put the plane into the ground intentionally. there was a struggle to get into the cockpit but as far as i know its not clear if they ever made it through the door. assuming they had time to pull back throttles is presuming too much, i think. 

here's the actual FDR report if you want to look through it and get the airspeed. its too complicated for little 'ole me....
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents
> 
> Sept 23, 2006 - We have the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact). If that was the case, it would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.
> United 93 (Shanksville, PA) @ pilotsfor911truth.org



i think the actual chip inside the FDR was damaged in the crash and the last usable data they got was 1600ft above the ground.

so i dont know where they got pitch and angle of attack at impact if thats true. maybe they are assuming the data ended with the crash and that may not be correct.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

eots said:


> National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents
> 
> Sept 23, 2006 - We have the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact). If that was the case, it would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.
> United 93 (Shanksville, PA) @ pilotsfor911truth.org





And most eye witnesses claim it was a near 90 degree dive.

What to believe.........????


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> the total weight of a 757 is 255,00 lbs



thats a maximum take off weight. he said empty.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > the total weight of a 757 is 255,00 lbs
> ...


well, thats what Boeing said

Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 757 Facts
just going by their facts page

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_300tech.html

max take off weight is 272500 lbs


damn that internet and actual facts 
from an actual SOURCE too
LOL


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



From what I could find out this morning only the flight data box was recovered.  Where did you get that the cockpit recorder was recovered?

I looked through the data you provided via United Airlines and honestly most of the graphs are coded and one would need a key to decypher them.  There were clear indications that the functions were nominal in most cases but I missed the evidense that the motors wereracing out of control as would be expected in a full power dive with the suggested 500 plus airspeed.  To be honest I could not isolate airspeed in the data.  A tleast there was no info stream suggesting a rapid rise at the end of the flight.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Both boxes from flight 93 were recovered.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents
> ...



I believe we should try to determine the reason for these and other discrepancies between flight data, wittiness testimony and forensic evidence in any proper investigation into the events of 9/11


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents
> ...



If it meant defending your position you'd cite a box of Fruit Loops over God.

Do you have any idea how absurd it is to jump on the eyewitness bandwagon over FDR data?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Dude.....please stick to the ad homs.  I told you before whenever you actually try to debate you reveal scary levels of stoopidity.  I said empty weight.  Not take off weight.  Not max take off weight.  Dumfuk.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Would that be like ignoring the 15-6 in favor of looking at a video?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



There are actually three important weights in aviation.  Weight at take off can exceed allowed landing weight thus the need to dump fuel when a plane needs to land immediatly after take off in some situations.  It would be just as easy to have a show of hands for tea baggers and just toss the braindead weight off the plne.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Dude.....please stick to the ad homs.  I told you before whenever you actually try to debate you reveal scary levels of stoopidity.  I said empty weight.  Not take off weight.  Not max take off weight.  Dumfuk.



and where is your proof??


still waiting...


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What hostility? Your the only one that has been hostile. I should dig out that classic quote from you where you challenge someone to point out where you called them a name.  That is all you have done here.


I am telling you that the FBI performed an investigation, and the investigation stands on it's own. The investigation stands as the evidence of their announcement that they had completed the investigation and what they found.

What request did you make? The only request I have seen from you in this conversation has been that I disagree with the FBI's announcement that they were finished with their investigation and their findings simply because they are the evil government in the form of the FBI.

I ask again, why do you object to what the FBI announced they found during their investigation. What makes you believe they are lying?

Quite simple really.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and how long before the crash was the last recoverable data?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


and my source proves you WRONG
and i never made the claim on the weight to begin with, dipshit
but responded to claims by your dipshit brothers


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



At least i take a stand and everyone knows where i am coming from.

Once again bentdick, did the FBI lie when the said that 95% of flight 93 had been recovered? Simple yes or no question.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.....please stick to the ad homs.  I told you before whenever you actually try to debate you reveal scary levels of stoopidity.  I said empty weight.  Not take off weight.  Not max take off weight.  Dumfuk.
> ...


i posted proof to back my claim


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It's just amazing to watch curvey being deflected by minutia every time. Plane wieghts, cell phones, anything at all. 
amusing as well


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Quote the empty weight from your source.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You think questioning where the airframe of a 757 went is "minutia?"  Rotfl!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no, the minutia is displayed in post 813, for one.

You do realize that every time you fall for someone asking about cell phones or whether the plane weighed 225000 pounds or 255000 pounds that your just being gamed don't you?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


for which version?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> An empty 757 weighs 142,000 pounds dumfuk.



still waiting for your proof of this claim...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Thass right bitch....dance.  You're so stoopid you tried to diss huggy's post by saying the plane's weight "might" have been 100,000 at take off......dumfuk....it's over twice that weight so your "might have" is code for you are fuxxing clueless.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Still waiting for that yes or no on whether the FBI lied about the 95% recovered........


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > An empty 757 weighs 142,000 pounds dumfuk.
> ...




Lol.....hypocrite.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



yawn


Yes or no,  Bitch!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Excuse me girls.... but am I missing something here?  What difference does it make what the planes weight was anyway?  Haven't you folks ever heard of Newton?  A BB falls just as fast as an elephant.  Seriously!!!!  120 mph is about it...period!  Unless the plane was pointed earthward with POWER it can't fall any faster than a friggin que ball.  It makes NO difference how much it weighs.  In fact being an airplane because of the cubic feet vs the mass it is hollow and built of light materials it will ALWAYS fall slower than any solid object.  Unless someone can prove that the engines were providing thrust as the plane was falling...and I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it was falling(which would blow out the jets) so it was not going anything close to 500 mph.  By the way..to vaporise the aluminum it would have to be going 20-30 thousand MPH...like the space shuttle that did infact vaporize.  Impact does not cause ANY vaporization at speeds less than several thousand MPH.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



still waiting


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



whats the fucking problem? i provided proof to back up my claim 95% was recovered bu citing the FBI.

WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING PROOF?

"lol" all you want because we are all laughing at you, jackass!!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

curvey is either unable or afraid to answer post #807. 


What a shocker!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Excuse me girls.... but am I missing something here?  What difference does it make what the planes weight was anyway?  Haven't you folks ever heard of Newton?  A BB falls just as fast as an elephant.  Seriously!!!!  120 mph is about it...period!  Unless the plane was pointed earthward with POWER it can't fall any faster than a friggin que ball.  It makes NO difference how much it weighs.  In fact being an airplane because of the cubic feet vs the mass it is hollow and built of light materials it will ALWAYS fall slower than any solid object.  Unless someone can prove that the engines were providing thrust as the plane was falling...and I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it was falling(which would blow out the jets) so it was not going anything close to 500 mph.  By the way..to vaporise the aluminum it would have to be going 20-30 thousand MPH...like the space shuttle that did infact vaporize.  Impact does not cause ANY vaporization at speeds less than several thousand MPH.



I believe the plane was still under thrust, I have heard from supposed experts everything from 200 MPH to 600 MPH, I would believe it is somewhere near the middle of those ranges. Of course that would be using common sense. As far as vaporized? NO. The FBI reported that 95 % of the plane had been recovered.  Even though certain people refuse to accept that as fact.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me girls.... but am I missing something here?  What difference does it make what the planes weight was anyway?  Haven't you folks ever heard of Newton?  A BB falls just as fast as an elephant.  Seriously!!!!  120 mph is about it...period!  Unless the plane was pointed earthward with POWER it can't fall any faster than a friggin que ball.  It makes NO difference how much it weighs.  In fact being an airplane because of the cubic feet vs the mass it is hollow and built of light materials it will ALWAYS fall slower than any solid object.  Unless someone can prove that the engines were providing thrust as the plane was falling...and I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it was falling(which would blow out the jets) so it was not going anything close to 500 mph.  By the way..to vaporise the aluminum it would have to be going 20-30 thousand MPH...like the space shuttle that did infact vaporize.  Impact does not cause ANY vaporization at speeds less than several thousand MPH.
> ...



Yeah, the fact is curvey always gets excited about minutia like the weight of a plane, when it makes absolutely no difference. Curvey gets stuck on cell phones and other things that don't matter when he is unwilling to discuss the topic at hand.

In one thread not long ago he went on for 3 days and 4 pages in 2 threads about the difference between a cell phone with 'airplane mode' and one with 'offline mode'.

The only one on here that I know disputes newton's observations about gravity is christophera, who claims an objects "density" (i think he means Specific gravity) determines how fast an object falls. When I asked him if a ball made from 200 grams of aluminum would fall at the same speed as 200 grams of unfolded aluminum foil, he disappeared.

But as Ollie says, the FBI says they recovered 95% of the plane in Shanksville. There are those, including curvelight, that dispute that.

Yet curvey can't seem to tell us why.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


again, dipshit, i never made the claim of it BEING 100,000 lbs to begin with


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.



Where does the FBI  investigation in Shanksville defy the laws of physics?

sincere question.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.


hey, i see trees



now curvy will ask what kind of trees they are



btw, the question to dipshit curvy was if the FBI lied or not, will YOU answer that question?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.



And I guess we could file most of your comments with that useless crap?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





I've never disputed the fbi's claim.  All I've done is ask for facts to support that claim.  

Why is when a troofer cites a legitimate authority you OCTAs 
demand 438 independent sources and the author's stomach contents before you even think about addressing the info?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.
> ...



you CLAIM you see trees. it isnt a FACT that you see trees. you are not a botanist and therefore not an authority.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Why is when a troofer cites a legitimate authority you OCTAs
> demand 438 independent sources and the author's stomach contents before you even think about addressing the info?



why is it you twoofers only question the government's evidence but never question the evidence of other twoofers?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said...you guys are insufferable.  Half are on one side of the forest and see "liberals"...the other half is on the opposite side of the forrest and see "Righties".  Neither one of you goofs see TREES!!!!!  It doesn't matter what a report says if the report defies the laws of physics and comon sense.   You all find it shocking that the government lies!   Shocking!  Trust me...the reasons are way above your paygrade and always will be..  it has nothing to do with eleced officials   They get replaced ...some sooner than others   The folks that pay the lobbiests and need tranquility to make money run the show.  All this other crap...he said...she said is useless crap.
> ...



Sincere answer.  As a pilot..  The numbers and the evidense is crazy.   I have no Idea how this shit was pulled off.  There is nothing I can or want to do about it.    As a pilot...shanksville and the pentagon stink to high heavens.  Its not about what "I believe"...it is about what I know.  Show me a crator filled with a couple hundred thousand pounds of aluminum pieces and I'll shut up.  The vaporization theory is straight out of the twiight zone.  How a 167 foot wide plane can dissappear into a twenty foot wide hole in a wood frame building with a facia of fake stone is just rediculous.  I don't have the patience to go after this fraud like you guys but..like I sad...as a pilot..and a guy that works with metal almost every day....we have been tricked big time.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


i have yet to see a troofer cite a legit authority


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Do you believe that the FBI lied? Yes or fucking No. Simple little question.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


somehow, to dipshit curvy, there is a 3rd answer to that question


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The FBI performed an investigation. They likely issued a report. I doubt the FBI is going to give you or me access to their official investigation. I do not know if you can get access to a summary or not.
They absolutely issued an 'announcement' that said they found 95% of the plane.

That is the proof, the FBI investigation and their announcement.

If you are not 'disputing' the FBI, then what "proof" are you expecting?

As an aside, I have yet to see you, curvelight, aka, curvey, aka, clownlight, 
aka C.U. Rvelight, offer any evidence, from any authority, legitimate or otherwise. I keep asking for it, but in over a year of engaging you in discussion, I do not recall one instance where you have offered anything except arguments and personal attacks.

And another thing; How can you be so sure that everyone can be divided into one group or the other? Why is it that you insist on seeing everything through a two sided prism?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



so many errors.... where to start?????

how about the pentagon walls were blast re-enforced and not a "wood frame building"? how about how big of a hole would you expect a 20 foot wide fuselage to make?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Who told you that lie?  I've seen the pictures...dozens of them.  Blast reiforced?  You are on acidI'n ot going to endlessly debate your BS.  You wouldn't recognise "blast reinforced" if you derove into it on your tricycle


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I am not a pilot-hell I don't even enjoy flying. I do appreciate that you hold an opinion that something is amiss and appreciate your answer. 
I do not know what the FBI found by weight in Shanksville. They say they found 95%, so i would guess that means 95% by weight as well as volume. I hadn't heard about the plane in shanksville being vaporized.
I do remember seeing the question about the plane that hit the pentagon addressed on the popular mechanics debunking. 

Maybe when you have more time, you could elaborate more on your opinion. 
To tell you the truth, your posts today have been more legitimate discussion on 911 than I have seen on here in weeks.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I think the twoofers have gotten more off of their game lately.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I must stress that I really do not care nearly as much about the potential lies as many here.  I have seen so much personally in my life that cannot be reconciled that I learned long ago that trying to unravel some things is like entering a black hole.

Does the government lie all of the time?  No.  Do they(the FBI and CIA and NSA) lie and operate outside the permission of our elected officials?  Yes they do when they feel it serves the purposes they are really working to achieve.  That is not to say they do not work for us...some of you just do not understand who"us" is.

Anyway..I'm gonna hang out with Jeny over at the Magical Music thread,,,see ya...


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Who told you that lie?  I've seen the pictures...dozens of them.  Blast reiforced?  You are on acidI'n ot going to endlessly debate your BS.  You wouldn't recognise "blast reinforced" if you derove into it on your tricycle



ok jackass..... let's start at the beginning then....

let's see your proof it was built out of wood. 


_The study gives most of the credit to the *engineers who went beyond required standards 60 years ago,* when they designed and built the structure as a document warehouse. The Pentagon has served as the nation's military headquarters since the end of World War II.

*The Pentagon was built of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and the floors consisted of a slab, beam and girder system supported on spiral-steel-reinforced columns.*_

and......

_Recent safety modifications under the Pentagon Renovation Program also included blast-resistant windows, which helped limit casualties and saved lives, according to the report.

Mike Sullivan, acting director of the Pentagon Renovation Program, said the construction and safety measures used at the Pentagon are significant to building professionals and the public.

The engineers' report "explains what structural features and mechanisms contributed to the Pentagon's resiliency and how these features and mechanisms performed during the impact and ensuing fire," he said. "The report further underscores the usefulness and applicability of these systems in future building designs and other structures in which resistance to progressive collapse is critical."_ CNN.com - Forest of columns kept Pentagon standing - Jan. 24, 2003

so what ya got?? or do you just admit to being an idiot?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Because we all know the light poles removed the wings, engines, and tail section so that only the fuselage hit........what a fuxxing reetawrd.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Who told you that lie?  I've seen the pictures...dozens of them.  Blast reiforced?  You are on acidI'n ot going to endlessly debate your BS.  You wouldn't recognise "blast reinforced" if you derove into it on your tricycle
> ...




You just proved your own claim wrong dumfuk.  Those aren't "blast reinforced" walls.  You don't even know what they are.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




Where do you come up with wood framed walls and stucco?  Sounds like a prisonplanet experiment.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Why is when a troofer cites a legitimate authority you OCTAs
> ...




Lol.....like how I just challenged Huggy's claim on a wood structure?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Like I said, your lack of intelligence does not mandate only two options.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You just proved your own claim wrong dumfuk.  Those aren't "blast reinforced" walls.  You don't even know what they are.



you going to claim the pentagon was made out of wood now? 
my quote above was to prove it was not built out of wood *when built 60 years ago*, jackass.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are BASTARD people and I hate your ASS faces!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


then answer the fucking question, dipshit
you are showing YOUR lack of intellect


----------



## Fizz (Apr 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



yeah, after i called you on the carpet for not doing it.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Mr. PussyPuddle, mistress of all things deflection,

The plane was not empty.

Since the plane was not empty at take off nor upon impact, its "empty" weight is irrelevant.

In fact, except when calculating the force of impact (where actual weight and speed would make a very important difference), the weight of the craft is pretty much irrelevant from jump street.

Time to change your MaxiPad, PussyPuddle.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




No....I asked huggy that before I even saw your post.  Hell, I've been pos repped by octas for challenging other troofers but you have the right to lie and make an ass of yourself


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You just proved your own claim wrong dumfuk.  Those aren't "blast reinforced" walls.  You don't even know what they are.
> ...



Already pointed out huggy was wrong to claim they were wooden so pay attention.

In post 841 you claimed the walls were "blast reinforced."  you proved your own claim wrong.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 22, 2010)

Original design:

The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events. 

The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:

    * Exterior walls reinforced with steel
    * Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
    * Blast-resistant windows installed
    * Fire sprinklers installed
    * Automatic fire doors installed
    * Building operations and control center created

9-11 Research: Pentagon Renovation


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Original design:
> 
> The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.
> 
> ...




Was that supposed to help bail fizz out of another bullshit claim?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Was that supposed to help bail fizz out of another bullshit claim?



what claim is bullshit?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

Huggy was partially correct about the wood frame as that was how it was first built.  The terrorists however, used careful planning to avoid hitting any of the 4 original walls and went straight for the only newly completed remodeled wall.  

Http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Huggy was partially correct about the wood frame as that was how it was first built.  The terrorists however, used careful planning to avoid hitting any of the 4 original walls and went straight for the only newly completed remodeled wall.
> 
> Http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html



Most people never get a good close up look at a 757.  From afar the wings and engines appear small and flimsy.  They are not.   Terral has hundreds of pictures of the pentagon attack ...I suggest you petition him for photos.  If you want easy access from just memory ...think back to the towers and visualize the holes made in the sides of the buildings.  Those exterior walls had huge vertical collums yet the holes made were the entire width of the airplanes.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Huggy was partially correct about the wood frame as that was how it was first built.  The terrorists however, used careful planning to avoid hitting any of the 4 original walls and went straight for the only newly completed remodeled wall.
> 
> Http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html



HAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!!!

you have proof the terrorists carefully planned to hit that particular wall?!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Huggy was partially correct about the wood frame as that was how it was first built.  The terrorists however, used careful planning to avoid hitting any of the 4 original walls and went straight for the only newly completed remodeled wall.
> ...



I'm somewhat familiar with their size and weight so I know they aren't the paper napkins they get sold as regarding 9E.  One of the weird technical aspects is wind shear pulled out light poles but left the lawn fully in tact.  From what I've read about the decoded flight data, the plane would have been too high to hit the first floors of the pentagon which coincides with the physical evidence of the unblemished lawn.  (aside from the explosion of course). Having driven by the pent many times I do understand how difficult it would have been to maneuver a 757 with such precision that fast that low to the ground.

As for wind shear, how close would a 757 have to be to knock down light poles?  I've never seen any evidence there was physical contact between the plane and the poles.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Huggy was partially correct about the wood frame as that was how it was first built.  The terrorists however, used careful planning to avoid hitting any of the 4 original walls and went straight for the only newly completed remodeled wall.
> ...



That was a joke dumfuk.  It was a sarcastic way of pointing out the irony of this big plan by the terrorists....then hitting the part of the pentagon that would cause the least amount of damage and loss of life.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You kid!                                                                             [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sjneEsI3M]YouTube - Goodfellass[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 22, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Great movie.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




You are a pilot of significant experience (assuming, as I am willing to do for now that you are being honest).  Your experience as a pilot does not qualify you as a physicist.

I wasn't in Shanksville, PA on 9/11/2001.  I have no personal first hand information as to the speed of the craft.  

The fact that the passengers fought back does not mean that they reclaimed control of the plane's cockpit.  It is at least equally likely that the craft was still under thrust as it went down which would make the speed greater than that of free fall.

Show me evidence to support your mere belief that anybody other than one of the terrorist pieces of shit had control of the craft at or just before impact.

The information I have as to the speed is based on estimates I have read.  The basis for those estimates?  I am not privy to the information.  But I see little reason to doubt it in light of the physical wreckage at the crash site.

Finally, as to your quibble about the word "vaporized," I am content that aluminum and aluminum alloys do burn, melt and do, in part become vaporized in the process.  For although I am not a pilot, nor a physicist nor a scientist of any kind, I (like you) know how to look some things up.  Here's an entry in a web-site you might find of some interest, for example: 





> Aluminum is actually a very reactive and flammable metal,
> but it is normally protected by an inert coating of aluminum oxide.
> Dissolving the oxide, though, exposes a fresh aluminum surface, which reacts
> vigorously with air and water.


 Aluminum Combustion </head>

Just spit-balling (really) but it occurs to me as a layman in this realm of science that a crash that breaks the plane (and it's aluminum alloy "skin" into maybe a billion pieces COULD (in theory) "expose the fresh aluminum surface" of the "skin" sufficiently to permit the aluminum to react exothermically with the air.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

At 500 mph, a military jet hitting solid concrete wall (akin to those protecting nuclear power plants) "atomizes."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8]YouTube - F4 Phantom Vs. Wall[/ame]

*So why should we believe that a passenger jet, quite probably under full throttle, crashing into the reclaimed mining surface at the Shanksville PA crash site not have a likelihood of breaking the craft up into very small pieces*?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> At 500 mph, a military jet hitting solid concrete wall (akin to those protecting nuclear power plants) "atomizes."
> 
> YouTube - F4 Phantom Vs. Wall
> 
> *So why should we believe that a passenger jet, quite probably under full throttle, crashing into the reclaimed mining surface at the Shanksville PA crash site not have a likelihood of breaking the craft up into very small pieces*?




Rotfl......comparing an f4 to a 757......shit Snitch Bitch....that ranks up there with candyass claiming nasa is the only way we know africa exists.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > At 500 mph, a military jet hitting solid concrete wall (akin to those protecting nuclear power plants) "atomizes."
> ...



Don't fret, PussyPuddle

Nobody expected a retard like you to get the point or a liar like you to acknowledge it even if you were smart enough to get it.

Get back to biting your toenails, asshole.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > At 500 mph, a military jet hitting solid concrete wall (akin to those protecting nuclear power plants) "atomizes."
> ...



yeah, you would expect a military plane to be built to withstand a certain degree of damage in a conflict. on the other hand you wouldnt expect a 757 to be able to withstand any of that type of damage.

you are right, the comparison of an over engineered F4 where survivability is an importance to a 757 where light weight is an importance isnt exactly valid. one would expect the F4 to withstand damage much better than a 757.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




It's just too fuxxing funny you dumbasses are so desperate you're trying to make the comparison.  Post the dimensions of each next to each other fukwads.  Do you think the f4 is made out of kevlar and reinforced steel? Lol!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Rotfl!  Go ahead Snitch Bitch.....keep whining and reaching.....you're the Rosie O'Donnell of the OCTAs.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



See there you go again counselor...the doubting Thomas..  This thread just begs some sense of sensibility.   Take the airport in Bimini....  There is a huge pile of planes just off the runway...maybe a couple of dozen aircraft..  "unfortunate smugglers that freaked out...or who knows what..   They all crashed..   No evidence of vaporization.  Seeing those plane wreakages doesn't make me a physisit..true.  Some glimpse of what happens to planes that aquire accute toxic concrete poisening...Uh...Ya  ... I think so..


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It's just too fuxxing funny you dumbasses are so desperate you're trying to make the comparison.  Post the dimensions of each next to each other fukwads.  Do you think the f4 is made out of kevlar and reinforced steel? Lol!



and the outside dimensions will have what effect on the experiment, mr physicist??


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It's just too fuxxing funny you dumbasses are so desperate you're trying to make the comparison.  Post the dimensions of each next to each other fukwads.  Do you think the f4 is made out of kevlar and reinforced steel? Lol!
> ...



I didn't say anything about "outside" dimensions you dishonest bitch.   Keep dancing....


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



MenstrualMess already holds the title of fully dishonest and tragically retarded.  Now to that litany of accomplishments, we can add the most irrational slinger of irrelevant ad hominem efforts.  LOL! 

There's not a speck of sense in the "whining" comment, since (again) exposing that PussyPuddle's dishonesty and stupidity isn't whining.  It's just amusing.  There was no "reaching."  The fact that MenstrualMess is too stupid to grasp the analogy is entirely on it.

The Rosie O'Donnell reference is even dumber yet.  No coherence in that one at all. 

And of course, resort to the always meaningless acronyms only underscores that the lying needle dick fly fucker is a full fledged idiot scumbag Troofer, not some  random moronic asshole merely "asking questions."


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Your "analogy" Snitch Bitch is as stoopid as Rosie saying fire can't melt steel.

Why don't you explain how this is a valid analogy?  We all know you can't so you'll keep on whining......


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7E8dC2g_XA]YouTube - JAMES TAYLOR - GETTING TO KNOW YOU[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> YouTube - JAMES TAYLOR - GETTING TO KNOW YOU



This thread is so gay with all the she said..she said  bitchslppin and ticling that I have a good mind to take you by your kitty ears and celebrity cocaine filled noses an throw ya in the HOMO CAGE over in "The List"...


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



I already did, ass-sucker.  That you are far too retarded to keep up is again entirely on you.

Change your tampon, MenstrualMess.  You are leaking all over the place, you skanky piece of shit.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - JAMES TAYLOR - GETTING TO KNOW YOU
> ...



You really should keep your obvious homoerotic urges and projections over in your own thread, Smugly.

Thanks.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You didn't even come close to qualifying it Snitch Bitch so keep whining.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



I came far more than close.  I succeeded.  Nobody expects a lying hack like you to admit it, however; so there's no need for you to get your soiled panties in a knot.

And again, pointing out your ceaseless dishonesty and stupidity is not even marginally akin to "whining."     I'd urge you to stop lying but that (for you) would be like telling you to stop breathing.

We can all see that you are incapable of honesty.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



State the post # Snitch Bitch...naw....you'll keep on whining....


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

*LIARABILITY A FULL SPECTRUM ANALYSIS*
liarability is a repressed homosexual with a a great disdain for women .. his insults mostly revolve around homosexual acts and woman and in particular their vagina's and menstrual cycles...he is a strange individual with insecurities around woman and loathing of his own confused sexuality


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



It would be impossible to "keep on whining" since as you know, I haven't whined at all, PussyPuddle.

Your lies are boring and, as always with you, very unpersuasive.

I will do better than merely post the post number, PussyPuddle, you lying sack of menstrual blood leaking onto your skirt.  I will just quote the post.  





Liability said:


> At 500 mph, a military jet hitting solid concrete wall (akin to those protecting nuclear power plants) "atomizes."
> 
> YouTube - F4 Phantom Vs. Wall
> 
> *So why should we believe that a passenger jet, quite probably under full throttle, crashing into the reclaimed mining surface at the Shanksville PA crash site not have a likelihood of breaking the craft up into very small pieces*?



The point, as I rationally noted in that post, was that if a military jet traveling at 500 mph into a concrete wall (akin to the ones used to protect nuclear reactors) essentially "atomizes" on impact, then why is it so difficult for you Troofer pussies to grasp the notion that a passenger jet flying under full throttle (which some believe it was) into reclaimed strip mining ground might, at least, break apart into lots of pieces?

You see, MenstrualMess, despite your feeble efforts to distort what I did say, the purpose of the analogy was not to suggest a one on one correlation.  It was just another way of trying to get at least one of you incredibly loathsome liars to admit that you could be wrong.  [It is truly ineffective of you to be so obvious in your stupid lies when they are so easily rebuffed by the RECORD of what _*was*_ said, you retard.  ]

Intelligent people can easily grasp the meaning of what I posted.  Honest ones wouldn't try to attribute to me something I never did suggest.  But you, we all see, are neither intelligent nor honest.

You are a Troofer.  All Troofers eat the corn out of the shit of syphilitic Troofers.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i'm sorry for presuming. what dimensions where you talking about? the width of the pilots seat? 

fucking moron!!


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> *LIARABILITY A FULL SPECTRUM ANALYSIS*
> liarability is a repressed homosexual with a a great disdain for women .. his insults mostly revolve around homosexual acts and woman and in particular their vagina's and menstrual cycles...he is a strange individual with insecurities around woman and loathing of his own confused sexuality



id-eots is *projecting* again.

Fearful and dismayed by his massive homosexual inclinations, id-eots persists in lashing out.  



As for the references to menstrual blood, you are mistaken (or lying).  It doesn't matter.  I was given a directive to stop making any references to female genitalia  (like when pussies like you call others a "****," for example).  Naturally, upon being given that "directive" from a mere member with no particular authority or right to give such directives to anybody, I promised I would ramp up the use of such language.

As promised, I then got a neg rep for it.   I laughed and have done it all the more since then.

You, by the way, often call others "fag" or "faggot."  This means, as per your junior grade psychobabble analysis, that you are a flaming homosexual.

Good for you, girl.  Come out of your closet.  I couldn't give a crap what your sexual preference is.  

Straight or gay, you are a fucked up imbecile and a sack of shit liar, either way.


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *LIARABILITY A FULL SPECTRUM ANALYSIS*
> ...



I call others faggot all the time ??? ..why ya gotta lie like that ?


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Did I say "all the time?"   No.

So, why do YOU have to lie like that?

But I note you cannot deny that you DO refer to others as "fags."

You are fundamentally dishonest.

You are tragically flawed scumbag caricature of a human being.

But enough about your less offensive aspects . . .


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

the only time I ever used the word fag was with this clip that points out the mentality of your kind

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEbsgEsjy9s]YouTube - The Fag Bomb[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




ROTFL!!!!!   Thass it?  That is what you consider a successfully qualified analogy?  You have an unconfirmed speed, no comparative analysis of volume and types of materials, no comparison for the angle of impact, no comparison for surface of impact, etc.....and.....you are trying to compare a two seater jet to a commercial airliner with over 200 seats!  Holy shit Snitch Bitch.....you've unearthed new levels of complete stoopidity!

You ***** have absolutely no valid explanation for your "vaporized" theory so you jump on anything, regardless of how fuxxing stoopid, just so you can try and say you know what happened.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

Just wondering, how we went from 95% recovered to vaporized?

By the way Bentdick, did the FBI lie about that statement?  A simple yes or no would be fine....


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

did agents from the FBI do a proper investigation of the crash is the real question


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apz60ugBRx4]YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI WHISTLEBLOWER GAGGED BY JUSTICE DPT.!![/ame]




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB1UcIbT-h4]YouTube - Former FBI Whistleblower Dr. Frederic Whitehurst Tells All on The Alex Jones Show 2/5[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58&feature=related]YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part I[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEddVpRj7o&feature=related]YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part II[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Just wondering, how we went from 95% recovered to vaporized?
> 
> By the way Bentdick, did the FBI lie about that statement?  A simple yes or no would be fine....



You OCTAs are the ones coming up with the contradictory and laughable explanations.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

RancidTwatLeakage said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



You are indeed deeply and tragically retarded.  You yourself, asshole, just noted that the speed at which the craft was traveling at impact was undetermined.  Thus, for all you know (or can know) it was under full throttle.  This presents at least one rational explanation for why the craft got destroyed as it did into so many tiny pieces.

*[EDIT:  In the next post, I provide very high quality evidence that the plane WAS traveling at more than 500 mph at the time of impact.]*

You, by the way, for all your transparently fraudulent posturing (yeah yeah, sure; you're "just asking questions," you fucking lying jerk-off), you have yet to offer ANY evidence along the lines you are presently bellyaching about.

And I have already offered some evidence (it's science so of course you could never acknowledge any part of it) that aluminum can vaporize, dickweed.

And the word is still not "fuxxing."  You've yet to explain how a scumbag pussy like you can use the word "****" but pearl clutch over the proper spelling of the word "fucking," you stupid leaky twat.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

The speed estimates come from the NTSB review of the recovered FDR from Flight 93.

They indicate, in relevant part (meaning at the time of the crash), the following:


> * * * * From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11.



http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

Agenda-driven, dishonest, scumbag Troofers will, of course, focus on the fact that there is some discrepancy as to the moment of the crash (10:06 EDT vs 10:03 EDT) or on other trivialities, but rational people will conclude that the plane *was* traveling at a truly high rate of speed, not just at free fall speeds.  The passenger effort to _*fight back*_ may have prevented a larger tragedy, but it couldn't prevent the al qaeda bastards from at least taking the plane down.


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2010)

but wittinesses and the crash site say a 90 degree angle ?



Flight Data Recorder Analysis 

January 5, 2008 - We now have the additional Flight Data Recorder information in full which we obtained May 2007. We have analyzed this newly obtained csv file data (excel spread sheet) and animation provided by the National Transportation Safety Board thoroughly in our new documentary recently released, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three - Flight Of United 93.  The associated press release can be viewed here. 

National Transportation Safety Board PDF Documents 

Sept 23, 2006 - We have the pdf's for UA93 FDR via NTSB. I noticed the FDR shows UA93 at 40 degrees pitch down and -5 degrees Angle of Attack at impact (FDR shows -15 as level throughout flight, -20 at impact). If that was the case, it* would seem UA93 would be making a long ditch along the flight path while impacting the ground and spreading wreckage at close to a 35 degree flight path. The pictures of UAL93 impact crater shows a vertical, straight down crater (~90 degrees vertical), not a 35 degree impact creating a long ditch*. Remember, the ground here is reported to be very soft.  


Also interesting to note, GPWS, "Sink Rate", and "Pull Up" was not activated at any time during approach to impact according to the Flight Data Recorder pdf.

United 93 (Shanksville, PA) @ pilotsfor911truth.org


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> but wittinesses and the crash site say a 90 degree angle ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL.

"Val" couldn't possibly be mistaken about where she thought the flight came in from?  Not even when based on SOUND?



You are too funny.

And you think a plane crash coming in at over 550 mph at an angle of about 40 degrees into soft dirt of a reclaimed strip mine would have to leave a gaping ditch and not plow right the fuck on in?

Your grasp of physics is even weaker than your dedication to honesty.

You are still just an assclown, id-eots.

Also, for future reference, when QUOTING a piece, just providing a linkie is insufficient.  One should make an effort to put a quote box or at least quotation marks around the quoted excerpts, assbreath.

Finally, with the terrorists still trying to fend off the rebelling passengers, and yanking hard on the controls to shake them loose (which we know happened, asshole) why the FUCK would anybody not expect to see no effort to come out of the dive, you moron?

You are dumber than a box of shit.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 23, 2010)

eots said:


> did agents from the FBI do a proper investigation of the crash is the real question



yep. we know why it crashed.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering, how we went from 95% recovered to vaporized?
> ...



I guess we'll have to take that as "I don't know, stop asking me simple questions, my brain hurts"


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> The speed estimates come from the NTSB review of the recovered FDR from Flight 93.
> 
> They indicate, in relevant part (meaning at the time of the crash), the following:
> 
> ...




Congrats on posting a link to support your claim about speed Snitch Bitch.  Now that you've established speed how about explaining how you can compare a two seater fighter jet to a 757 with over 200 seats?   (this oughta be good for some laughs.....the Snitch Bitch will call me names and stab himself with a shrimp fork.....anything to avoid addressing facts he can't handle)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You really are obsessed....repeatedly asking in threads....using the neg rep button etc.  If you think I'm so stoopid why do you care so much about what I think?   The answer is simple: you don't care what I think.  Your obsession is about control and not dialogue.  You OCTAs control each other with socialist style precision so when you interact with people you cannot control it drives you absofuxxinglutely insane.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Ollie still layin heavy on the neg rep button?  Pathetic.  Hey!  Ollie!  The neg button is for worthless bitches.  If some body has the stamina to hang in a thread this gay with all the back bytin and vitriol...they deserve a friggin medal.  You are friggin lucky someone gives you this much attention


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It's simple, this bentdick has avoided taking a direct stand for as long as I've seen her name. I ask a simple yes or no question and the bitch refuses to answer it. A valid yes or no question. When she refuses and I have rep available She gets negged for being a worthless bitch. And I don't thing I've used the neg rep more than 10 times. mostly for bentdick and always for stupidity. She'll probably get more negs today sometime.

And the question? The FBI stated that 95% of flight 93 was recovered. Did they lie?


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The speed estimates come from the NTSB review of the recovered FDR from Flight 93.
> ...



Since, as you knew when you "asked" that "question," AGAIN, I have already answered it, it appears that even your "questions" are merely demonstrations of your fundamental dishonesty, PussyPuddle.

Why are scumbag lying Troofer pussies like you so vehemently opposed to honesty?  Does truth cause you physical pain or sumpin'?  

I don't care that you either don't buy the analogy or that you are too retarded to grasp it in the first place.  Either way, you again establish that you have zero to offer.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Dude....you should see the comments....it's funny as hell they think throwing in jabs in a one way fashion gives them some type of advantage.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



PussyPuddle, you lie about everything.  So why would anybody take seriously anything you say to your present Knight in shining Armor, Huggy?  

P.S.  Your panty-liner has failed.  Go change your knickers and your skirt, bitch.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Allow me....Ya they friggin lie.  95%???   How the fuck is anyone going to prove or disprove THAT?  On personal experience they lie.  I was caught withy a stolen plane a few years ago but because I seduced one of thier female special agents while in possesion of the plane they changed the information in thier case so they could lose and spare thier dumb tramp having to testify why she was fucking the accused.  True story.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




(this oughta be good for some laughs.....the Snitch Bitch will call me names and stab himself with a shrimp fork.....anything to avoid addressing facts he can't handle)


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



Zzz.  You are not even man enough to admit that you did ask the question before and that it was answered.

Is that a menstrual hemorrhage you are suffering from?   Go get thee to thine gynecologist, bitch.   Seriously, you are a walking biohazard.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



We believe you.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Like I said...it's all about control.  You can't provide a single fact supporting the fbi's claim so you try to deflect by creating false dilemmas. As for your neg button usage....I'll give you an opportunity to edit your number before I prove how many times you've used it on me.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You've never even begin attempting to explain how you can compare a two seater fighter jet to a fuxxing 757 with over two hundred seats.  All you did was state the stoopid analogy then say anyone who disagrees is just too dumb to get.  Without a doubt it is one of the most laughable comparisons in the history of 9E debates.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Prove anything you like. I don't really keep track, nor do i actually care.  But I do know that  I will continue to use it because as long as you refuse to answer questions and take a stand. You should have no positive reputation, except as someone who refuses to actually take a stand. In other words a little mommies girl.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

PussPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



As you knew when you just reiterated your lie, I have in fact already explained the comparison.  That you, being a determined liar, choose to ignore it provides no shelter for you from which you can hide from the fact that your fundamental dishonesty is on full display.

"Fucking" is spelled with a c and a k not with two x's, you moron.  Idiots like you have no problem using the word "****" (and you spell it properly with no hesitation), but the word "fuck" upsets your disturbed sensibilities.  

You REALLY need to get a maxi-pad.  Maybe a visit to the ER.  You're gonna bleed to death, MenstrualMess.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Listen up dweebs!  That there are the words of a straight up humanitarian.  IDo ya feel the caring and the love?


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussPuddle said:
> ...



Huggy, Huggy, Huggy.  YOU, lad, are obviously PussyPuddle's Knight in Shining Armor!  And really, that's special!  

You are maybe the one guy who can make his vagina moist even when he's not in the middle of a heavy day during his unusually prolonged menstrual periods.

He'd melt for you and spend time with you in your Homo Cage if only you'd mop up the mess for him and cuddle him when you take him to the ER.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2010)

That's not how the HUGGSTER rolls!  My scene is mean...clean and gr$$n..  gangsta ...diamond in the back... sunroof top and booo...   not so much the pooo...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWptXUblA4E]YouTube - Roll With It - Steve Winwood[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You've never attempted to explain it but that's okay....you've provided excellent material for FSTDT!

Thank you also for demonstrating your need to control others.....how many fuxxing times can you whine about something so petty Snitch Bitch?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussPuddle said:
> ...


i dont know, how many times did you fuss about being wrong about my phones modes?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

eots said:


> *LIARABILITY A FULL SPECTRUM ANALYSIS*
> liarability is a repressed homosexual with a a great disdain for women .. his insults mostly revolve around homosexual acts and woman and in particular their vagina's and menstrual cycles...he is a strange individual with insecurities around woman and loathing of his own confused sexuality




In looking at Snitch Bitch's post just above it appears Eots was dead on.  Thanks Snitch Bitch for proving his analysis correct.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




That was all about showing even when you are proven flat out wrong you and your octa **** fuxxing pals are too fuxxing arrogant to admit when you are wrong...and you are still proving that......


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Posted by Olliebitch:

"And I don't thing I've used the neg rep more than 10 times."

You've given me 7 neg reps in the past 7 days alone but you don't think you've used it more than ten times?  Rotfl!  What a divey ****!

I do take stands on the issues but the problem is if you don't like my position you beg for deflection.  This thread is a perfect example.  In post #2 there is a claim and not one of you fuxxing girly men have ever posted a single fact supporting that claim so you try to distract with silly questions and whining.  

Remember, not more than ten times.....lol!  Bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Tsk tsk.  More dishonesty (obvious, plodding and frequently refuted dishonesty, but such things never stop the scumbag MenstrualMess from just lying all the more).

As he knows fully well, the evidence in support has been repeatedly shown.

If he wants concrete evidence of the exact percentage (95% as per the FBI), then he's shit out of luck.  But that's different than saying that no evidence has been shown.

By the way, another couple of things the lying scumbag pussy panty stained Troofer shithead ducks are direct answers to the simple questions:

(a) what difference does it make if the 95% is "proved" to that failed-panty-liner's personal satisfaction?

and (b) what percentage of the downed airliner would MenstrualMess concede has been recovered?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Link one fact that supports the fbi's claim that 95% was recovered Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



Been there; done that, PussyPuddle, as you already knew when you "asked" the same stupid "question" yet again.

Now try answering a question or two instead of cowering like the fucking pansy you always are.  

(a) what difference does it make if the 95% is "proved" to that failed-panty-liner's personal satisfaction?

and (b) what percentage of the downed airliner would MenstrualMess concede has been recovered?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


except to MOST people, the ones with fully functional brains, you proved me right, my phone does NOT have the modes you claimed
it has an offline mode


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...


i'm considering changing providers for my cell service, and am thinking about getting an HTC HD2, tell me what modes that phone has


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Thank you for proving once again Snitch Bitch you can't provide a single fact proving the fbi's claim.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Awe only 7 times.... Lucky you. So how do you know that I have ever negged anyone else? Though I do believe i sent eots a present once or twice. Now that you have begun whining about rep, how about an honest answer. Did the FBI lie? They made a statement, you want proof, the proof is that they made the statement. Did they lie?

You see if you think they lied then the burdon of proof is on you. And since you cannot prove they lied you refuse to take a yes or no stand on the question.

I say they told us the truth. They had nothing to gain from lying. What do you say? Just a  simple they led or they didn't lie.........Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



All I did was point out you use the neg rep button a lot more that you want to admit to.

You say the fbi's claim is true so the burden of proof to support that is on you.  Do you have any facts to support that claim?  Of course not.  If you did you would have posted it by now.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I don't need to prove that the investigating authority made a true statement. I believe them. Do you?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


can you give a solid reason that the FBI would lie about the facts they uncovered in the investigation they were the LEAD INVESTIGATION BODY for?
given the fact that they had the assistance of the NTSB.
and would it have made a single bit of difference if they had only recovered 50% of the plane?
or even 25%?
wouldn't 25% be enough to say that plane had crashed at the location?


see, this is the typical MINUTIA that moronic troofers focus on
they ignore the MASSIVE evidence and make claims that are beyond rational belief


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You love hypocrisy.  If someone claims they lied then you would demand proof to back it up but if a shitball like you claims their statement is true then you don't have to provide any evidence to back it up.  Damn you are sad.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Keep proving you are obsessed with deflection when you can't provide facts to support a claim.  It's amusing in a post turtle fashion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No dumbass, that's the way the world works. You say your name is Dave, and if I believe you then I wouldn't look any further. But if someone else had told me your name was Bob and then you told me your name was Bill.....Well then I would question someone.

However since the authority told us what I believe to be factual and true, why would I then try to prove it?

 Since you won't take a firm stand and want proof that their statement is true then we can only guess that you believe they are lying about it. So yes please provide us with any proof you may have that they lied.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, i'm the one that deflects
LOL
what was all that bullshit about my phone then?
why even bother to fucking look it up, eh dipshit
you are PATHETIC


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I never said they lied.  Your attempts to deflect are futile.  The burden of proof is on those who make the claim and you know this but you are a sniveling **** so you create fantasies where you try and squirm out of supporting a claim.  Keep whining bitch because we both know you don't have the integrity to just straight up admit you cannot provide any evidence supporting the fbi's claim.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




All of your whining doesn't hide your inability to provide evidence you dumfuk.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


still waiting for YOU to for the first fucking time


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

Funny shit.  You can *ALWAYS* count on the Divecon to turn a thread into an endless mindless trip into a black hole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suoK_5yR0Og]YouTube - dog chasing tail & catchin it![/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Funny shit.  You can *ALWAYS* count on the Divecon to turn a thread into an endless mindless trip into a black hole.
> 
> YouTube - dog chasing tail & catchin it!


hey fucktard, this thread was a blackhole when the first troofer asshole like you posted in it


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Funny shit.  You can *ALWAYS* count on the Divecon to turn a thread into an endless mindless trip into a black hole.
> ...



I may be a fucktard but I'm not a stupid fucktard!And...I'm not a troofer whatever the fuck THAT is.  I don't give a flying fuck about conspirtracies.  Most of what seems to draw YOUR attention is all about having useless pissing matches over crap that is impossible to verify independantly.  I have a pretty well rounded field of experience in the sciences regarding some of the occurances of 9/11.  Your attempt at bullying your way through an argument with insults and sidestepping  is commendable if only in it's mindless endurance.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


LOL
'you have claimed expertise in SOO many areas it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to take any claim you make seriously
must be wonderful in your online persona world


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



In a way you have been right all along...not in the truthfulness or the factual aspects of what I've shared about "me".. but that it is really no big deal.  Succeeding in living ones dreams and fantasies is really about commiting yourself to the task at hand...and thats about it.  Why you hate it when someone else has an exciting or maybe even a wastefull and ego centrical and selfish existance is beyond me.  If you can believe even half of what I claimed as true life experiences..you gotta admitt...I had some fuckin big time fun.  I pity you and hate whoever killed your joy in living.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



I think divey is stuck in a wheelchair constantly marinading in his own shit so his only comfort in the world is to make fun of others even when it makes no sense.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I think divey is stuck in a wheelchair constantly marinading in his own shit so his only comfort in the world is to make fun of others even when it makes no sense.



nothing like making fun of the physically handicapped.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ya it is kinda sad.  There is some evidence of a decent person there but his jealousy streak is disturbing.  I don't know what he expected on the internet but eventually you get to see slices of enough lives that even the stories of old pirates and smugglers will eventually surface.  Me I'd maybe take em with a grin of salt but at least try to keep up and enjoy the stories..  If only for the amusement.  Sorry divecon...there are people out here that have lived more interesting lives than you or me...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I think divey is stuck in a wheelchair constantly marinading in his own shit so his only comfort in the world is to make fun of others even when it makes no sense.
> ...



Nothing like lying to score points.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



its all right there for anyone to see. its not a lie.


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



*I an way you have been right all along*  Well said.

LOL.

(WTF is this guy babbling about?)


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




If you truly believe DiveCon is disabled, you made fun of the handicapped. Just like Fizz said.

If you don't believe that, then you just lied.

Hows it feel to paint yourself in a corner on that one?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


i make fun of the severely mentally handicapped, AKA troofers


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > I think divey is stuck in a wheelchair constantly marinading in his own shit so his only comfort in the world is to make fun of others even when it makes no sense.
> ...




Good point.  As RadiomanATL just correctly noted,

*EITHER* _MenstrualMess_ thinks Divey is handicapped, in which case the fucking PussyPuddle *is* making fun of a person's physical disability (confirming that _PussyPuddle_ is a scumbag lowlife piece of shit)

*OR* MenstrualMess *lied* when he made the reference to Divey being in a wheelchair in the first place (confirming that _PussyPuddle_ is hostile to truth).


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



OK guilty as charged counciler ..I'm lazy and I don't bother with spell check...sue me...


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



that would be wonderful if the spelling was the only problem.


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





Lord knows that *I* have never fucked up by failing to edit a post before hitting the submit button!


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



That's also true.

In fact, spelling errors and poor grammar are not the only problems.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Holy fuk you are stoopid!  I didn't make fun of him for being in a wheelchair.  I offered an explanation of why he constantly trolls.  Being in a wheelchair doesn't give him a justifiable excuse for his endlessly trolling.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Nope. You fail. 


Now, about that alternate theory for 9/11. Been able to come up with one yet?


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





You clearly DID make fun of him for allegedly being in a wheelchair.  Such wonderful, rich humor too.  All about how a person confined to a wheelchair might sit in his own excrement.  Real knee slapper material, you fucking lying lowlife.

And he doesn't troll, you filthy deliberate liar.  He responds to the lies of the asshole dishonest scumbag Troofers, like you.  You just don't care for the fact that all of your bullshit is always exposed.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Holy fuk you are stoopid!  I didn't make fun of him for being in a wheelchair.  I offered an explanation of why he constantly trolls.  Being in a wheelchair doesn't give him a justifiable excuse for his endlessly trolling.



you certainly did make fun of handicapped people. anyone can simply scroll up and see it.

but back to the topic...

where is your alternate theory for 9/11? (or are you going to agree that the official version is correct?)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Holy fuk you are stoopid!  I didn't make fun of him for being in a wheelchair.  I offered an explanation of why he constantly trolls.  Being in a wheelchair doesn't give him a justifiable excuse for his endlessly trolling.
> ...


now he will go off on a tangent about a false dilemma or a logical fallacy


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



. . . plus, we will learn that in his _valued_ opinion {  }, I am a "snitch bitch," and that you, and I and a whole bunch of people who reject his Troofer bullshit are all "fuxxing stoopid" and "*****."  

He may be shallow, with a severely limited repertoire, but at least he's utterly and always unpersuasive.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


you left out more fun than a barrel of monkeys

LOL


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Monkeys are not always as much "fun" as you might have been told..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy2ufaUpV4g]YouTube - monkey attack on man in car[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

So is anyone going to provide any facts to support the claim in post #2 or have you decided to never support it and pray to hell nobody will notice?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You asswipes ignore facts you don't like and make claims you never support.  Yes, you are and always will be a Snitch Bitch and it pisses you off so much you spend a lot of time editing my posts when you quote them......as if that somehow means you aren't a Snitch Bitch. Lol


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXWbMu4PtpE]YouTube - Spin Doctors - Little Miss Can't Be Wrong[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




PussyPuddle,

Just face facts, stupid.  I called it.  And I called it because you are totally lacking in originality or honesty.

I am of course not a snitch much less a snitch bitch.  That's just the stupid name _you_ try to use for me, PussyPuddle, because you are one of the ultimate pussies in life who can't tolerate the notion of accepting personal responsibility.

Now, as to the issue of "ignoring facts," that's all *you've* done for dozens and dozens of pages.  It is another sterling example of how much of a complete pussy you are.  And with every post, you constantly prove and re-prove it, you Troofer asshole.  

Hurry back with more of your meaningless whining blather.  We all could use another good laugh, you hapless  gay puke.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


wait, isn't the basic premise of being a troofer wanting to snitch on a perceived cover up?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

So OCTAs still refuse to provide any facts to support the claim in post #2.  Don't worry....nobody expects you guys to admit you don't have any facts to support it either.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 95% of it was recovered.
> 
> CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001


bentdick refuses to admit the proof is included in this post


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 95% of it was recovered.
> ...



Exactly, that is why I stopped responding to the poor stupid bastard. Post 2 contained it's own proof, and when i figured out how futile it was to argue with curvey i just let him have his delusions. of course i am laughing at him the whole time.

he is like the Black Knight guarding the bridge in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Even though he is defeated, by having his arms, then his legs chopped off, he still insists on challenging the knights of the round table.

Curvey is like a cross between that black knight and baghdad bob.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So OCTAs still refuse to provide any facts to support the claim in post #2.  Don't worry....nobody expects you guys to admit you don't have any facts to support it either.



Flex your muscles a little and pull your fingers out of your ears.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was the lead investigating agency.

They made a statement.

If YOU believe that their statement is false then it is up to you to disprove it.

Those who trust that the investigating lead agency told the truth have no reason to prove their report is true.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


nice analogy


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 95% of it was recovered.
> ...



Hey dumbass, where is the proof supporting the fbi's claim?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Where is the proof supporting the fbi's claim?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



why do we need proof to support the FBI's claim? they are the lead investigative agency. they are in the perfect position to know exactly how much was recovered. are you claiming they are lying?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So you don't have any facts to support the fbi's claim?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



nope. you have anything to refute them?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



If you think they lied, simply ask them for the proof. Since they didn't offer anything besides their statement. Go ahead and ask them.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting you don't have any facts to support a claim.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



see, this is where you fucked up.

you said i had nothing to support MY CLAIM in post number two. obviously i did. i had the FBI. now do you want to call the FBI a bunch of liars?

i didnt think so.

you are too much of a pussy. so now that we established that 95% of the plane was recovered what else do you want to whine and cry about?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


the claim made in post #2 was that the FBI said it
that is proof they did'
you are a fucking idiot
the proof for that is every post you make


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The claim I'm talking about in post 2 is the fbi's claim they recovered 95% you sooper stoopid ****.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ask the FBI, dipshit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




One more time:

The FBI was the lead investigating agency.

They made a statement.

Since most of the sane world believes them no one has asked them fro proof that it is true.

Since you think they lied about it, prove that they lied. 

Or just shut the fuck up because you are only digging deeper.


----------



## eots (Apr 26, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi3TSTs27Ho&feature=related]YouTube - 9 11 Prior Knowledge Intelligence Failures FBI Agent Coleen Rowley Whisteleblower 6 4 2004 CNN[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Lying bitch.  You guys are so empty on integrity you lie as easily as you breathe.  Quote the post where I said I think they lied you stoopid fuck.  You can't so all you will do is whine.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ya..by all means shut up.  Cuz these fuckwits are friggin gods of the high thought proccess.

I wouldn't trust these guys to investigate the cause of an ingrown hair.  Why?...  because they are appologists...ass licking morons.  Nary a one is an independant thinker.  Not bad people..just not equipped to study any subject without running it through thier hack political filters.  Carry on free thinkers...never let these pathetic bully boys break your stride!!!!  It may be that these dweebs are right in the end but it won't be because they added to the knowledge.  The only ties the have to truth is dumb luck.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Ya..by all means shut up.  Cuz these fuckwits are friggin gods of the high thought proccess.
> 
> I wouldn't trust these guys to investigate the cause of an ingrown hair.  Why?...  because they are appologists...ass licking morons.  Nary a one is an independant thinker.  Not bad people..just not equipped to study any subject without running it through thier hack political filters.  Carry on free thinkers...never let these pathetic bully boys break your stride!!!!  It may be that these dweebs are right in the end but it won't be because they added to the knowledge.  The only ties the have to truth is dumb luck.



ok tough guy....

what facts do you have that the info was wrong? show me ONE.

until then, shut the fuck up about your "free thinking" bullshit and start using LOGIC.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Ya..by all means shut up.  Cuz these fuckwits are friggin gods of the high thought proccess.
> ...




Tough guy?  Shut the fuck up?  Mixed message...no comprende'


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Ya..by all means shut up.  Cuz these fuckwits are friggin gods of the high thought proccess.
> ...



Here ya go again....demanding someone prove a negative because you can't provide a single fact supporting the fbi's claim.....as you already admitted.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Tough guy?  Shut the fuck up?  Mixed message...no comprende'



kasi ikaw gago, talaga!! 

_understand, just a little, "no comprende", its a riddl_e - Wall of Voodoo


----------



## Fizz (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here ya go again....demanding someone prove a negative because you can't provide a single fact supporting the fbi's claim.....as you already admitted.


\

i'm not asking you to prove a negative. i am asking for any facts that refute or contradict the claim. got any? didnt think so.

so we can go with one fact or zero. which do you think is more likely to be correct? (fucking moron!!)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You bitch about huggy not being constructive but you straight up lie about the issue by claiming nobody has given a reason to ask for facts supporting the fbi's claim.  

It's a great example of hypocrisy:

1.  Fbi said 95% of 93 recovered.  

(OCTAs give applause)

2.  Fbi said there was no evidence of a phone call between olson and his wife.

(OCTAs ignore the fbi's statement and say it doesn't matter)


You guys are like a bottom rung ghetto fox news.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go again....demanding someone prove a negative because you can't provide a single fact supporting the fbi's claim.....as you already admitted.
> ...



You forgot to eat your Wheaties.  Asking for a refutation is asking for a negative genius.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



asking for evidence isnt asking you to prove anything. its asking what you have. you have nothing. 

you have any evidence on how much of flight 93 was recovered other than the FBI statement?

i'm getting on an airplane now for a really long flight so take your time searching for any evidence that gives us a reason to doubt the FBI statement.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're a special kind of stoopid fuck.  I said "the claim in post 2."  That means the fbi's claim you dumfuk.  Then you....lol......ROTFL.....try to say it is been "established" the fbi recovered 95% based solely on the fbi making that claim.  You're too fuxxing pathetic.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> .try to say it is been "established" the fbi recovered 95% based solely on the fbi making that claim.  You're too fuxxing pathetic.



so are you going to be a man and claim the FBI lied? or are you going to go with the only evidence available??


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Posted by fizzbitch:

"i am asking for any facts that refute or contradict the claim."

You're stoopidity is lethal.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're a special kind of stoopid fuck.  I said "the claim in post 2."  That means the fbi's claim you dumfuk.  Then you....lol......ROTFL.....try to say it is been "established" the fbi recovered 95% based solely on the fbi making that claim.  You're too fuxxing pathetic..
> ...



Why does someone have to claim the fbi lied in order to be a man?  Lol....dumbass.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > .try to say it is been "established" the fbi recovered 95% based solely on the fbi making that claim.  You're too fuxxing pathetic.
> ...



curvey, what reasons do you have to disbelieve the FBI's claim that 95% of the plane was recovered?

Its not hard.


If you disbelieve it just because the FBI said it, then there is your reason. If you have some kind of outside source for your disbelief, that would be nice to see too. If not, then just say that you hold that opinion.


None of us on this message board have to ability to 'solve' any of this. If anyone here had 'indisputable proof' one way or the other, we wouldn't be here would we?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I didn't ask for indisputable proof.  I asked for any facts to support the fbi's claim.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Well there is the rub. 
Some, myself included, take the FBI at their word until there is reason to believe otherwise. We take the FBI statement as enough 'facts'.
Then there are some, it appears that includes you, that doubt it simply because the FBI said it. To that group, the FBi statement is not a fact.

That doesn't have to be an impasse though. There can still be discussion.

As I stated in another post, and another thread, believing the islamofascist 'narrative' over the USA government appears to be what is happening with those that choose this line of reasoning.

The islamofascist narrative is being proven wrong by former islamofascists themselves.
Is there a reason that an american citizen that continues to believe it, and propagate the narrative should not be considered a useful tool of al qaida at the very least, and possibly a treasonous agent of the enemy?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




You don't have any facts.  You have a claim by the fbi.  Period.  How do you go from asking for evidence of an FBI claim to treason?  Do you know all Citizens have a duty to demand the government provides facts for claims?  Do you realize it transcends believing or not believing?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The part in bold applies.

When the FBI makes a statement, somewhere they have the facts to back it up. When a citizen insists otherwise, it is an indication they disbelieve their government(thats ok BTW). But it also indicates, in this case, that that person has swallowed the islamofascist narrative, and has become a tool for al qaida.

you have no facts, just opinions based on emotions. That is ok too, just admit it.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Lol.....there is no such thing as "islamofascism" you dumfuk.  You can't combine contradictory terms.


No facts?  I have the fact you have no evidence to support the fbi's claim.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Several disagree with your dumbass statement ;
"there is no such thing as "islamofascism"
some get to the point where after trying to discuss something with you, and finding you are too lacking mentally to have a discussion, simply give up on you.

Several experts use the term, even CBS had a report last night and used the term. they had a guy who used to be al qaida and reformed, and he used the term dumbass.

there is no such thing as "islamofascism"


hahahahahahahah this proves your too stupid to engage in a discussion. the name calling for no reason that comes afterwards just proves your a mindless tool that has only the name calling to fall back on, as your mental capacity only allows you to understand cartoons and youtube videos promoting "the narrative.

I proved agent chri$$y to be a "truther for profit". I proved 911insidenutsack to simply be a USA hating tresonous low life.

Now it looks as though I have, once again, proven you to be mentally deficient and lacking in any kind of social skills.

Complain and whine all you want curvey, don't expect anything less than ridicule from me. i find you entertaining enough to watch, but have given up trying to engage in reasonable conversation with you, dumbass!


From;

Extra: What Is The Narrative? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
Ex Extremist Fights Jihadist Ideology - 60 Minutes - CBS News

""How many of you believe it is U.S. policy to be at war with Islam and to destroy Islam?" Stahl asked.

About a third of them believed it.

When a student got up to ask her a question about the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center, Stahl got a feel for how much we can talk past each other.

"So you're telling me that al Qaeda didn't do 9/11? Is that what you're saying?" Stahl asked.

"Yeah," the student replied. "We all know that al Qaeda was created by the CIA."

He was saying it was the CIA that told Osama bin Laden to attack on 9/11.

"Now we attacked our own Pentagon and the World Trade Center to have a justification to go into Afghanistan? Do you really believe that?" Stahl asked.

"Yeah, yeah, I do," the student said.

They believe we attacked ourselves so we could go to Afghanistan and kill Muslims. "What I&#8217;m sensing is that there is an enormous amount of anti-Americanism. Am I right?" Stahl asked.

"Give us one single reason to love America and we will forget about the rest of the millions of reasons to hate America," the student replied.

After a statement like that, you begin to question whether even a former extremist can uproot the idea in places like Peshawar that the West is out to destroy Islam. "

There is more, here is a video of a former extremist who is working to spread the truth to counteract the lies he spread for years.


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




There is such a thing as Islamofascism, dipshit.  Your denial is of zero value.  The terms are hardly "contradictory."  You are merely quibbling because you fail to grasp the point (again).  

By contrast, there actually IS no such word as "fuxxing,"  PussyPuddle.  But that doesn't stop a stupid MenstrualMess like you from trying to employ it AS a "word," for some truly moronic "reason."


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




That's what you get when you rely on the msm for your education.  The term is bullshit because you can't have a system of rule where the State and God reign supreme simultaneously.  While you're scratching your nasty scalp on that one, think about this:  you completely ignored the facts I do have....the first of which is you don't have a single fact to support the fbi's claim.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

clownlite lives up to his name once again, and proves his dumbassery by his insults and his inability to admit that once again, clownlite has been PWNED!!!

Somebody help me count the times in just this thread.........


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> clownlite lives up to his name once again, and proves his dumbassery by his insults and his inability to admit that once again, clownlite has been PWNED!!!
> 
> Somebody help me count the times in just this thread.........



Every time you cannot respond you ignore the info and raise your cotton candy victory flag.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > clownlite lives up to his name once again, and proves his dumbassery by his insults and his inability to admit that once again, clownlite has been PWNED!!!
> ...



You NEVER respionded DUMBASS!!!

Thaqt's how you got PWNED!





Maybe I should start a poll in another thread and let the "public" decide.
How do you think that would go?
last time you were in one of my polls, the "public" voted you a "wanna be twoofer". 

The thing is, you are really such a dumbass you don't even recognize your inability to engage logic or have a conversation.

Like I said, DUMBASS, all you deserve is ridicule.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

I also remind the DUMBASS that when put to a vote by the "public", it was overwhelmingly approved to change your name to "Baghdad Bob".


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Maybe post #1019 only shows up on my screen and not yours?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



There it is DUMBASS, post 1019. This is the another one where you refuse to actully engage in any discussion, just attack the source.

I call that method 3 in the DUMBASS bag of tricks.

Since POST #2, you have dodged, avoided and attacked instaed of engaginmg in actual discussion.

I know why, its because you don't have the mental capicity to do so, that clownlite, is why your a DUMBASS!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



And this post proves you have mastered "DUMBASSERY" and are now trying to master "ASSHATERY"!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Oh fuk you are on the dark side of stoopidville.  Let me break it down for you:

Part 1
"The term is bullshit because you can't have a system of rule where the State and God reign supreme simultaneously."

Religious extremists who want a theocracy are not seeking Fascism.   Why?  It's inherently impossible.  Why?  Fascism was created by Mussolini and what he said was "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State."  A Fascist government recognizes the State as the supreme ruler.  A Theocratic government recognizes God as the supreme ruler.  Hence, there cannot be a system of rule where God and the State both rule supreme.  It can only be one or the other.  

Before we invaded Iraq it had a secular dictatorship. Now it is an Islamic Theocracy.  Do you get that you dumb ****?  You bitch about Islamic extremists but blindly supported a policy that.....created an Islamic Theocracy.




Part 2
"While you're scratching your nasty scalp on that one, think about this:  you completely ignored the facts I do have....the first of which is you don't have a single fact to support the fbi's claim."

That is responding to you saying I have no facts.  The first fact I have is you have not one single fact supporting the fbi's claim.  

Do you get it yet sooper brain?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



your further uninteligable and unrelated ramblings, AND your refusal to address the question repeatedly asked of you specifically proves once again you have mastered "DUMBASSERY" and are continuing advanced studies in the field of "ASSHATTERY"

The FBI is it's own support for the claim they make, I trust them like most rational americans do.

I have no idea why your talking about religion, other than to prove your progress into advanced ASSHATTERY.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

Just want to take this opportunity to congratulate clownlite on his graduation from "DUMBASSERY" and his continued study into advanced "ASSHATTERY".

You go curvey, we all support you on this one.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




You should have a handicap sign next to your name to let others know you are seriously mentally challenged.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

Here is your problem;


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

curvey are you a fishing man?
You should come up and fish sometime, it would be fun and I promise to watch you like a hawk so you don't do some DUMBASS ASSHAT thing and drown yourself in the lake.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 26, 2010)

I almost want to give up. Bentdick just refuses to understand.

If I make a statement it is not up to Joe Blow to prove my statement is true.

But if you disagree with my statement then it is up to you to show that it is untrue.


Why is that so difficult to understand?

So once again the FBI makes a statement that 95% of flight 93 had been recovered.

I will not attempt to prove they are correct because I believe them to be correct.

Now who is it that wants proof? Someone who must think  they are not telling the truth....

Bentdick must truly have only half a brain.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 26, 2010)

and another thing.......here is a post by curvey in another thread, see how he actually engages in discussion in this one?
Juvenile, maybe. But still he can do it, unless of course it means admitting he hates his country;

"CurveLight  CurveLight is online now
Registered User
Member #21303

CurveLight could be city mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by chanel View Post
Quote:
The families of three boys who died almost five years ago in the trunk of a car parked in one of their yards as Camden police searched for them have settled lawsuits against the city.

The families of 11-year-old Anibal Cruz, 6-year-old Daniel Agosto and 5-year-old Jesstin Pagan agreed to accept a total of $2.25 million.

The city was searched after the boys vanished June 22, 2005. But no one checked the trunk of the Toyota Camry parked in the Cruz family's yard. Officials found one officer looked quickly in the main part of the car, then moved on.

Toyota agreed last year to pay the family of each boy $100,000.

The latest settlements were made last month and first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Settlements Reached In Case Of 3 Who Died In Trunk - New Jersey 101.5 FM

The kids were the in the parents' car in the parents' yard. Because the police did not look there - the city is liable? The parents did not look there either.

Horrible, horrible tragedy but I don't get how the police or Toyota are responsible.

Comments?
_Not all 3 kids were from the same family.

I think toyota should sue the toyota owner for not following the User Manual for vehicle inspection and bad publicity and the City should sue the families for lost revenue from future taxpayers by letting their kids die.

Sick sarcasm but it's no less asinine than parents getting paid 7 figures for their failure to know where their kids were.

Too bad Michael Jackson died. He probably could have found them if the City announced it was legal to pick up boys who weren't with their parents.
(okay.....tacky as fuck....but what do you expect when I have no idea how to respond to such a fuxxing mess?)"_


I offer this as proof that clownlite's advanced ASSHAT studies are progressing faster than anyone imagined. He is going to make "TOTAL ASSHAT" very soon at this rate.

You go curvey, we all support you!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I almost want to give up. Bentdick just refuses to understand.
> 
> If I make a statement it is not up to Joe Blow to prove my statement is true.
> 
> ...




False dilemma.  Again.  It doesn't matter if you believe them or not.  I'm saying where is the evidence to back it up?  I don't believe nor disbelieve them because it is impossible to form an opinion when there is no evidence.  Nationalists like you are ruled by emotion so you have no reasoning skills.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> and another thing.......here is a post by curvey in another thread, see how he actually engages in discussion in this one?
> Juvenile, maybe. But still he can do it, unless of course it means admitting he hates his country;
> 
> "CurveLight  CurveLight is online now
> ...



It's pretty sick you're so obsessed with me you are following everywhere I post on here.  Get a life.


----------



## Terral (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> ...Why is that so difficult to understand?
> 
> So once again the FBI makes a statement that 95% of flight 93 had been recovered.
> 
> I will not attempt to prove they are correct because I believe them to be correct ...



What a moron! Everyone can clearly see by the Official Govt evidence (my Flight 93 Topic) ...






... that all we have in the Shanksville photographs is AN EMPTY HOLE!!! Okay hotshot, point out your crashed 100-ton Jetliner!! The *corrupt FBI *(my Topic) helped orchestrate the inside-job attacks and subsequent cover-up operation! The FAA knows full well that the Pentagon was first attacked at *9:32 AM* (my Topic) and NOT at the Official Cover Story LIE time of 9:38 AM! If anybody has a question about this *obvious Inside Job* (my Topic), ask a real 911Truther on *the appropriate Topic* (pick one). 

GL,

Terral


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Terral said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is that so difficult to understand?
> ...




So the whole fbi is in on it?  You're about ten years behind schedule.  The fbi released the info on bush's signing statement that said to not ho after al qaeda.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 27, 2010)

Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 27, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?



no
his only redeeming quality is his ability to avoid stating an opinion.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

Terral said:


> ... that all we have in the Shanksville photographs is AN EMPTY HOLE!!!



in order to be an empty hole doesnt the hole actually have to be empty, you lying piece of shit?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?



There isn't an issue I've discussed where I haven't taken a stand.  Your whining doesn't remove that fact.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > ... that all we have in the Shanksville photographs is AN EMPTY HOLE!!!
> ...




Good job!  The thing that looks likes a broken coffee machine surely explains the 757!  Err....okay....not really.  The hole is not 100% empty but it sure as hell doesn't look like a 757 crashed there either.  Did all 200+ seats magically disappear?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?
> ...



Your stalking lead you to quote a post where I clearly gave an opinion so even when you post evidence that contradicts your own claims you're too fuxxing stoopid to see it.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?
> ...



Good! Then please restate your opinion as to whether the FBI lied when they said they recovered 95% of the plane in Shanksville. If you stated an opinion on that previously, i can't seem to find it anywhere. All i see is a DUMBASS dodgeing, deflecting, insulting and projecting.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Looks like a television I got pissed off at once...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You believe them so why does my opinion matter?  My position on this is to ask for what evidence exists to support their claim?  That's not an accusation they lied dumbass.  People like you cannot comprehend logic 101.  It's always stoopid to form a conclusion without facts.


----------



## Liability (Apr 27, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow.  Impressive.  A flat out (obvious) lie and another deflection combined in one stupid, pussy post.

_Bent Tight,_ old girl, you still got nuthin' and it still shows.


----------



## Liability (Apr 27, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?



Nah.

At least not on anything substantive.  It's far too much of a flaming pussy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?
> ...




Someone forgot to send out the memo saying your petty whining is supposed to have meaning.  It has none.  All it does is show you're a crybaby Snitch Bitch that is so stoopid you try to compare an F4 to a 757.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



you're right... the F4 should hold up much better than a 757.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




It's one of the dumbest fuxxing comparisons....ever...on any issue.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Did Curvelight ever take a stand on anything yet?




Nope, not a thing.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, if you had a functioning brain, you would understand the comparison
since you dont, you never will understand


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




It's my functioning that got me to go:

"hmmm...not very valid to try and compare a two seater plane to a two hundred seater plane for crash debris."

It's like a troofer trying to compare a barbie house to the towers to prove explosives were used.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


the jet fighter was only to show what happens to a plane at high speed when hitting concrete, but you are too fucking stupid to understand that analogy


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





So why are you punks scared of comparing other 757 cashes?  Here's a pic of a 757 that crashed into a mountain.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: American 965

After looking at the pic it's understandable why you avoid such comparisons........


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Shut up.  You don't understand how the physics of evaporation works.  Planes with terrorists in them blow up into little tiny bits that are more likely to evaporate into thin air.  Planes with law abiding passengers in them are surrounded with good fairies when they crash.  The good fairies work thier little wings like crazy creating a more crash friendly environment to keep as many of the parts of the plane reconizable for identification purposes.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

I anticipate some idiots to respond with something like:

"Duh! They should have smelled burnt earth!"

For those who don't know jet fuel has an extremely distinct and highly pervasive odor and that is why the first responders gave that reaction.  I'm also guessing OCTAs don't have the first clue about how much jet fuel would have been in 93 at the time of the crash.  In an empty field jet fuel should have been the strongest odor, especially that much from a 757.

The other noteworthy item is......ummmm.....we'll wait.  This one will be hard enough for OCTAs to grasp.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Lol......and watch Snitch Bitch ignore it because I have a typo.......


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



why? you got a better one? (thats a simple yes or no question. let's see if you evade that one too!!)


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....
> 
> "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
> Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html
> ...



Interesting point about the smell of fuel.  In a sandy soil like the one in the photo most of the fuel would be absorbed and unburnable.  This is an easy question to verify.  Just take some lighter fluid like you might use in your barbeque and dump a fair volume into a metal bucket filled with sand.  Light it off ...if you can..it should be hard to even get it lit.  OK so you finally get it lit and it burns for a minute or two.  take a sniff...  dig up a litttle of the sand and sniff.  No smell of fuel at the site.  IMPOSSIBLE!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



"The aircraft crashed while on approach to Cali due to crew/system error. The crew entered a fix into the navigational computer, and the aircraft began to turn the wrong way. At night, in the dark, the crew* initiated a climb*, but *failed to retract the spoilers.* The aircraft *stalled* and hit a mountain."


Hmmm, and you don't see the difference between this and Flying into the ground at full throttle?

OK....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




"How do you put your foot in your mouth on the internet?"

"I don't know.  Ask Fizz, he managed both feet up to his kneecaps."

(see #1057)


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I hate to be the spoiling sport there sport but as a pilot ...let me share with ya that a plane in a stall or about to stall ... the* first *thing a pilot does is full throttle. Allways..no exceptions..  It may of hit in a stall configuration but you can bet your bippy it was going as fast as it could.  

I have seen no evidense that the Shanksville plane was under full throttle.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What part of* initiated a climb* and* turn the wrong *way is so difficult to see? This plane did not slam into the ground. And Flight 93 obviously did or it wouldn't have broke up the way it did.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


its the "full throttle" comment that he is fixated on
and while i agree with you that the plane was doing a near nose dive directly into the ground, i have not heard or seen anything that says the plane was at "full throttle"


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....
> ...


would first responders in a rual area like shanksville, actually have the experience to know what jet juel would have smelled like on the ground?
and i highly doubt that the sand would have absorbed that much fuel, you can burn alcohol out of sand to dry it out


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



True, however If I were a religious extremist dead set on crashing an Airplane and killing myself and everyone on board, I'm pretty sure I would be at full throttle.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....



FUCKING LIAR

"The jet fuel smell was really strong, and it was eerily quiet. It was really unnerving and surreal." 
Courage after the crash: Flight 93 ... - Google Books


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're such an amateur.  Did you see the word "stalled" and go "Yippee! I found an escape hatch so I don't have to make a comparison!"

Let's go back to your two seater plane comparisons.....that makes so much more sense.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



There you go Ollie straying off the path...  Alcohol evaporates at room temp.. it isn't the liquid that catches fire..it is the fumes.  Jet fuel does not evaporate at room temp or even close to it.  Your comparison is bogus.  Wrong as wrong can be.  Most of the jet fuel would have been absorbed and not evaporated into combustable fuel for a fire.  The residual jet fuel ..after the fire burned out would have not been subtle.  The stench of unburned jet fuel would have been overwelming.  The air in the immediate vicinity would probably not been breathable for several days.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....
> 
> "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."
> Http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html
> ...


hey dipshit, that was the REPORTER saying he didnt smell jet fuel
not a first responder


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Good point!  Flight 93 hit the ground over a mine.  Flight 965 hit the much softer terrain of a.......mountain.

Amateur.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


well, it turns out bentdick lied


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


holy shit
the mountain would have been harder than landfill, dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


that doesnt mean it wouldnt have burned


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Lol!  Dude!  Stick to ad homs!  You're actually trying to discredit the first responders because the crash site was in a rural area? Rotfl!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh...it's the famous OCTA Ball.  (like a crystal ball)

You peered into the Ball and clearly saw who was controlling the throttle.  That's neato!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



"It" meaning all or even most?  Can't buy that.  If it was a 757 obviously there would have been a source of ignition caused by the crash.  But still almost all of the fuel would have splashed directly into the earth making it shy of oxygen.  Hey ...if you are curious go buy some briquette lighter fluid which is almost identical to jet fuel and try my previosly explained experiment.  I gaurantee that there will be plenty of fluid saturated sand after the fire dies out.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

i dont know what you guys are still arguing about. the original claim that first responders couldnt smell jet fuel is a lie.

Courage after the crash: Flight 93 ... - Google Books


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something interesting.....the first responders couldn't smell jet fuel.....
> ...



You're absolutely correct!  It was the reporter!  That was my mistake, but how does it change the fact he was at the crash scene and couldn't smell jet fuel?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

Bill Baker, Shanksville Volunteer Firemen:

"At that time we didn't know it was in the hole, The jet fuel smell was really strong and it was eerily quiet. It was really unnerving and surreal."


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


since the first reponders say they smelled it, the reporter didnt know what he was talking about


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> i dont know what you guys are still arguing about. the original claim that first responders couldnt smell jet fuel is a lie.
> 
> Courage after the crash: Flight 93 ... - Google Books



Why? Because a psychiatrist put out a book?

More importantly, I didn't claim nobody who ever went there didn't smell jet fuel.  I linked a story of two people who were among the first to arrive on scene and they pointed out no odor of jet fuel.  It was my mistake to call them "first responders" but it doesn't change the fact they were among first on the scene.

You probably don't know PDEP took several soil samples and couldn't find any contamination.  That's more of those hard facts bitches like you run from.....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bill Baker, Shanksville Volunteer Firemen:
> 
> "At that time we didn't know it was in the hole, The jet fuel smell was really strong and it was eerily quiet. It was really unnerving and surreal."



Got a link? (don't say it's from the book Fizz linked or you'll be really embarrassed.)


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i dont know what you guys are still arguing about. the original claim that first responders couldnt smell jet fuel is a lie.
> ...



you got caught lying. you said first responders couldnt smell jet fuel. you made a blanket statement and it was a lie.

end of story.

now try and backpedal all you want. once again you have been proven to be a liar.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Baker, Shanksville Volunteer Firemen:
> ...



It was quoted in the same book. And no, I am not embarrassed, I stand up for what I believe, unlike some people.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




But what happened to your:

"Would first responders in a rural area know what jet fuel would smell like?"

BULLSHIT!

Lol....it's hilarious to see you do a 180 degree turn so fast!  A minute ago, according to you, their credibility was in question.....dance divebitch dance!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> But what happened to your:
> 
> "Would first responders in a rural area know what jet fuel would smell like?"
> 
> ...



but what happened to your first responders didnt smell jet fuel?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it was a QUESTION, DIPSHIT
i didnt do a troofer thing and claim they WOULDNT KNOW


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > But what happened to your:
> ...


and he likes to form his bullshit into question form and NEVER actually make a statement, yet he fails to see a question


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I already admitted I made a mistake with the article I linked but they were still first people on the scene.  So now you want to try and divert from the topic to making it personally about me even after I admit I made a mistake.  You're a fuxxing bitch and you know it.  

But I will say thank you for proving what just said.....

"You probably don't know PDEP took several soil samples and couldn't find any contamination.  That's more of those hard facts bitches like you run from...."


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > But what happened to your:
> ...




Look at post #1082 you dumfuk.  You want to pretend I didn't admit the error?  You're also overlooking the fact they were among the first on the scene.  Keep crying I "lied" when I made a simple mistake.

This is why ***** like you are a joke.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


so, now you are a "****"?
you sure are a JOKE


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> *You probably don't know PDEP took several soil samples and couldn't find any contamination.*


Source?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no. a simple mistake is call a reporter a first responder.

you said FIRST RESPONDERS (notice the s on the end) could not smell jet fuel. the ycould and did.

you lied.

backpedal all you want.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


naw, I'll give him that he made an error
it's very likely he read that and assumed the quote came from a first responder


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Holy fuk.  I was referencing the people in the link.  Not ALL first responders.....but keep on proving what I said.......


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Oh shit!  I'm shocked!  Thank you for that.

Here's the results from the monitoring of soil contamination.
Http://html.thepittsburghchannel.com/pit/news/stories/news-100064120011002-151006.html


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


oh, another error
that says no GROUNDWATER contamination


----------



## Liability (Apr 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Nah.  It was a perfectly fine, fair rational and reasonable comparison, as you well know.  You are just embarrassed that it exposes what a bunch of douche-tards you Troofers are.

And there is still no such word as "fuxxing" you laughable imbecile.


----------



## Liability (Apr 27, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Maybe your comparison is what is fucking stupid.  In fact, it is.  Not all jet crashes are the same, retard.

Just because one 757 didn't essentially disintegrate when it stalled and struck a mountain does not mean that another 757 in a 550+ mph nose first crash into reclaimed dirt wouldn't disintegrate and largely disappear into the soft earth.

The fact that made my comparison of value was that the speed of the crash ATOMIZED the jet fighter when it hit a solid reinforced brick wall.  That roughly same speed on the 757 didn't atomize the jet, but it did cause the craft to break apart into many thousands of small pieces when IT struck softer earth.   

The fact is, the high speed of the crash can do very massive damage to a jet.

So stop being a lying retard, PussyPuddle.  Tell us, in the crash you pointed to, when the plane stalled and hit the mountain, at what speed did it strike the mountainside and at what angle?

Your dishonest brain is not functioning effectively at all, and you are still deflecting for all you're worth.  You complete pussy.


----------



## Liability (Apr 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit.

Bullshit 1:  If it's in a stall, going full throttle doesn't translate into getting into a high enough speed to come out of the stall.

Bullshit 2:  full throttle pretty much straight in (nose first) is quite a bit different than even a relatively high speed where the collision comes in the form of a bellyflop or a glancing blow.

And Bullshit 3:  if you haven't "seen" the evidence that the United Flight 93 was going at around 550+ mph into the ground inverted, nose first, at a roughly 40 degree angle, then you haven't bothered to keep up.  The NTSB released the report predicated on the recovered FDR.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Look counselor....do I come arounde telling you how to write up eviction notices when you throw old ladies an children out on the street for non payment of your legal fees on class action suits ya trick em into signing?No..I do not.

I would appreciate you mindin your own damn bidnez in the cockpit then...If you do not believe me then look in ANY flight manual..

Look under emegency proceedures

Sub heading anti stall proceedure

The VERY FIRST thing the pilot must do is add full power

That is all


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 27, 2010)

OK that isn't all...ya need to push the yoke forward rapidly and push rudder hard opposite the spin of the stall..THAT is all


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



That you are full of it is clear.

A lot depends on the REASON for the stall.

An attempt to add thrust will not help a shit load, as you know or should know, if the stall is related to a mechanical loss of engine power or if it's based on an attack angle that has resulted in the kind of turbulence that prevents the pilot from coming out of the stall.

Furthermore, the problem with most stalls is related to insufficient ALTITUDE to permit time to come out of the stall.  The 757 plane crash  the ever-dishonest _bent tight_ shared was of a plane that went *into a MOUNTAIN*.  The problem of insufficient altitude there is obvious.

In any event, there's still no valid  reason or honest basis to deny that United Flight 93, which went down due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, was traveling at over 550 mph into the ground.*  That problem, Smuggy, was NOT a stall-related issue. 

BTW, given the way you write (i.e., illiterately), you clearly *couldn't* offer any useful advice to me in drafting any legal documents.  Oh, and the law I practice doesn't involve evicting anybody, nor do I engage in the practice of filing class action civil suits.  Nice try, but you remain full of it.  

____________________
* Since I remain ever- ready to clarify things for feeble-minded simpletons Troofers, I will AGAIN share the actual information:



> From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots  in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11.


http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

It is hoped that *you* are not quite as far "gone" as the always dishonest scum like _bent tight_ and _911 rimjob_.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> OK that isn't all...ya need to push the yoke forward rapidly and push rudder hard opposite the spin of the stall..THAT is all



yep... full throttle, drop the nose and step on the high wing.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

I came across an interesting excerpt of a 1960's Time magazine article about a similar (not an exactly corresponding) crash.



> The plane and its final explosion blew out a smoldering crater 50 ft. wide and 25 ft. deep. Civil Aeronautics Board crash specialists found empty, neatly laced shoes, a stray airmail letter, a bloodstained blouse, a prayer book lying open at the Litany of the Saints ("Lord have mercy on us..."). Source: "Why This Failure..." Time Magazine, March 28, 1960
> 
> There is a crater--it appears to be quite deep...perhaps 35 feet deep. There is thick smoke. I can barely make out the twisted wreckage of a large aircraft. The plane appears to have slammed itself nose first into the ground. I don't see how anyone could possibly have survived this kind of impact. As I look around in the snow I see slivers of silver/green metal, spilled fuel, and debris. I see no bodies...only indistinguishable remnants of human remains. Here is the largest identifiable piece of humanity: a part of a backbone that is still connected to a kidney. These people...these poor people. What must have happened? How long must they have known their inescapable fate? The wing and engine we first found must have been 3 or 4 miles away. I've never seen anything like this before...
> 
> ...


flight93page2 (wtc7lies)


----------



## eots (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> I came across an interesting excerpt of a 1960's Time magazine article about a similar (not an exactly corresponding) crash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



?????


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

eots said:


> * * * *
> 
> ?????



More:

DISASTERS: Why This Failure . . . - TIME


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> I came across an interesting excerpt of a 1960's Time magazine article about a similar (not an exactly corresponding) crash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for helping show why there are problems with flight 93.

"We are at that location now and can report that we have found a wing, part of what appears to be a fuselage undercarriage, and a large engine."
Http://www.perrycountyindiana.org/attractions/aircrashnarr.cfm


The Electra Story is not very reliable.  It claims the crater was 35 feet deep.  That's almost three times as the twelve foot depth stated in the CAB Report.  They could also see fragments of a wing, the upper and lower rudders, and a horizontal piece of the tail structure.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



Article is scant on details and it claims the crater was 25 feet deep when the official CAB Report states it is only 12 feet deep.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



There was no soil contamination.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Bringing us back to:

 "Source?"


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

> At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts  *seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal*  from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in *10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United.*" Wallace Miller



flight93page2 (wtc7lies)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Only a dumfuk like you could try to ignore the comparison.  What the fuck does "insufficient altitude" have to do with the fact you can clearly see aircraft wreckage after it hit a mountain?  You accuse me of being dishonest for having the audacity to compare other 757 crashes but you want to try and pass off your F4 comparison?  Damn Snitch Bitch!

Here is another great moment in OCTA hypocrisy.  For pages and pages you guys have been screaming veracity for the F4 comparison for 93.  But you've been doing this at your own peril.  You've claimed the F4 is built much stronger than a 757.  There was one concrete wall and the 64 couldn't break through it.  (see where this is going yet?)  

If the F4 couldn't get through one concrete wall then how did flight 77 make through several newly constructed reinforced concrete walls?

(lemme guess......suddenly the F4 is not a valid comparison)

Time Saver: 

The OCTA narrative says you can only make comparisons when they reinforce the OCT but if they do anything else they are automatically invalid.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> > At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts  *seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal*  from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in *10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United.*" Wallace Miller
> 
> 
> 
> flight93page2 (wtc7lies)



Miller is pointing out the lack of human remains.  Do you notice anything odd about the article?  It states there are no human remains yet claims DNA matching was done.  That's impossible.  You have to have remains for a dna match.  Let's look at what else Miller had to say:

He told author David McCall: "I got to the actual crash site and could not
believe what I saw. ... Usually you see much debris, wreckage, and much
noise and commotion. This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no
bodies, and no noise. ... It appeared as though there were no passengers
or crew on this plane." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp.
86-87)
He told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It was as if the plane had stopped
and let the passengers off before it crashed." (Tom Gibb, "Newsmaker:
Coroner's quiet unflappability helps him take charge of Somerset tragedy,"
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/15/2001)
He told CNN: "It was a really a very unusual site. You almost would've
thought the passengers had been dropped off somewhere. ... Even by the
standard model of an airplane crash, there was very little, even by those
standards." (CNN, 3/11/2002)
Author Jere Longman wrote: "Wallace Miller, the Somerset County coroner,
arrived and walked around the [crash] site with [assistant volunteer fire
chief Rick] King. ... They walked around for an hour and found almost no
human remains. 'If you didn't know, you would have thought no one was
on the plane,' Miller said. 'You would have thought they dropped them off
somewhere.'" (Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, 2002, p. 217)
Recalling the crash scene, Miller told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "This
is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood.
Not a drop." (Robb Frederick, "The day that changed America," Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002)
Australian newspaper The Age reported: "Miller was familiar with scenes of
sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his
gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal
cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities
where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this
particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any
single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the
crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so
all of that material just got vaporised.'" ("On Hallowed Ground," The Age,
9/9/2002)


Looks like Miller is your new F4.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



It is always amusing to see the asshole retard of this thread, an imbecile still straining to figure out the implication of his first clue, refer to anybody else as a dumb fuck, even though the retard is too tragically stupid to spell it correctly!

Insufficient altitude, retard, translates into the fact that there may have been insufficient time and space between jet and ground for the pilot to come out of his stall.  His stall could also mean that he had lost a good deal of airspeed.

*Again, you evasive pussy, tell us the precise location of that crash you referenced (you don't know), the Flight number (you don't know), the date of the crash (you don't know), the actual speed at which the plane came into contact with the ground (you don't know) and it's attitude at the moment of initial contact with the ground (you don't know).*

The reason you won't respond to any of these questions is because (a) you don't know and (b) you never take a firm stand or answer direct questions, PussyPuddle.  You remain a coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The first error was largely irrelevant as it cited people who were among the first on the scene.  It doesn't matter if they were reporters or paramedics.  As for this......

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.  So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said."
Http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Man!  How much are you hoping your bright colored text will divert attention away from the fact you ignored the F4 comparison to the Pentagon? Lol...

Then you whine about the crash I referenced?  The info you ask for has already been posted with the link you dumb Snitch Bitch.  Flight 965, December 20, 1995, in the mountains of Buga, Columbia.

You love getting pwned Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PussyPuddle said:
> ...



You have never pwnd anyone, dipshit.  You are regularly pwnd, however. 

Why would I try to divert attention from the F4 comparison, you retard?  As has been noted by several people, the fact that you are far too retarded to get the point of the comparison or way the hell too dishonest to admit it is something I enjoy highlighting about your deficiencies. 

You still can't man up enough to answer questions.  You remain transparently dishonest, PuddyPuddle.  And just so you know, absolutely everyone sees what a total pussy loser you are.  It only gets clearer with each post you submit.  



You are one of the main laughingstocks at USMB.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Not to worry mens and galpals.... If we are all headin out on a flight together and the pilot and co-pilot conks out and Liability jumps up and tries to take command and everything like he allways does...  I won't let us down.  I'll point to his feet and tell him his shoe laces are tied like a gay guy would do it..of course he will look down and unfortunately that will be the moment for him that he will fall/step down from his position of assumed authority.  Trust me ..you do not want him flying the plane.  I'll pull the captain out of the left seat and slide right in and land us safely.  Liability might come to before we land so what I will need is somebody to smack him on the back of his head ...not to hard... We don't wanna kill him...we just don't want him killing us...


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

As I thought, PussyPuddle.  The airspeed of the Flt 965 you tried to compare to the Flt 93 crash was much slower.  It was decreasing from 302 knots and the speed brakes were ON, slowing it down continuously.  We know, also, that by the time the stick shaker (used to alert pilots to a stall) engaged, the speed had dropped to 187 knots.  American Airlines Flight 965: CVR/FDR Transcript 

Since you happen to be retarded, PussyPuddle, let me clue you in.  187 knots would come in around 215 to 216  mph.   

Thus your "comparison" of one crash to the other based on the relevant factors (speed and attitude of craft relative to ground at point of impact) is absurd.  To put that in terms even a retard like you might have a chance of grasping, your bullshit comparison was unreservedly "fuxxing stoopid."   

You are really bad at this, MenstrualMess.  Go find a hobby you can have a chance of handling, PussyPuddle.  In your case, that would probably be "napping."


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




No no, Smugly.  I don't fly aircraft.  But landing a 757 in an emergency is far above your skill set.  We wouldn't be hauling controlled substances, dopey.

I do find it amusing that you persist in trying (albeit ineffectively) to take-up for the hapless, helpless, hopeless MenstrualMess. Don't fret.  That bitch is all yours, Smugly.   Go give yourselves a few minutes together in your "Homo Cage."  You know.  Compose yourself.  

Nevertheless, even a retired criminal like you ought to be smart enough not to take the side of a retard like PussyPuddle when the idiotic things it keeps saying are so obviously wrong.    Best check your agenda, Smugly.  It's undermining your small vestige of credibility.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> As I thought, PussyPuddle.  The airspeed of the Flt 965 you tried to compare to the Flt 93 crash was much slower.  It was decreasing from 302 knots and the speed brakes were ON, slowing it down continuously.  We know, also, that by the time the stick shaker (used to alert pilots to a stall) engaged, the speed had dropped to 187 knots.  American Airlines Flight 965: CVR/FDR Transcript
> 
> Since you happen to be retarded, PussyPuddle, let me clue you in.  187 knots would come in around 215 to 216  mph.
> 
> ...



They were on a descent of 1,500 ft/min.  They added full power before impact you dumbass.  

"The FDR showed that the flightcrew added full power and raised the nose of the airplane, the spoilers (speedbrakes) that had been extended during the descent were not retracted."
Http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html

The speedbrakes on planes do not operate in the same manner as brakes on vehicles you dumb Snitch Bitch.  I never said 965 was going as fast as 93 but you go ahead with your strawmen.   Why don't you find us a single 757 crash that mimics flight 93?  I don't think you can which is why you are stuck with your dumbass F4 comparisons.......which reminds me.....

When are you going to explain how 757 went through so many new reinforced concretes walls when an F4 couldn't make it through one?  You also have dodged the comparison of the 1960 Indiana crash site Snitch Bitch.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I would have everything under control in a couple of minutes counselor.  All I would need are the "V" speeds and a peak at the pilot operating manual...both are kept in the cockpit.

The basic level flight solutions are the same in all aircraft.  

Calm down....  I am not "taking sides"  I've never PM'd any of these guys.  My questions are based out of my own experience.  Christ!..  I don't even really care..  Nothing is going to come of it even if some smoking gun was discovered.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



No no, Smuggler.  The plane was off course.   Do you really imagine your vaunted flying (crazy mad) skillz are so vastly superior to the 757's actual pilot's and co-pilot's skills?

Impressive ego you have there, Smuggler.  

You did get one thing right here, however.  We aren't engaged in accident reconstruction and even if we did find a "smoking gun" there's nothing that would come of it.

The discussion is more a fun way of exposing the utter stupidity of the fucking (for PussyPuddle we should spell that as "fuxxing") dishonest scumbag Troofers.  

That moron can't even grasp that the significantly slower airspeed of Flt 965 compared to Flt 93 at the respective instants of impact plays a huge role in the amount of destruction observed in the wreckage.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Why would i it be hard to believe Huggy could do it?  The OCT claims Hanjour was 77's pilot and he sucked so bad he couldn't even rent a single engine Cessna.   Just another point of OCTA hypocrisy.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 28, 2010)

Just wanted to leave a comment thanking curvelight for engaging in discussion. I am glad to see it.

Good job curvelight!

When I have more time I will take part, but I have enjoyed reading the discussion and again commend curvelight for his newfound ability to actually offer more than insults.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The navigational equipment is the same on a Cessna 172, a Cessna 402 or as it is in a 757.  I don't "Get Lost" in the skys .... friendly or otherwise.  What???... you think I had "help" navigating from Colombia to the Bahammas and on to Virginia?    There are not many landmarks out in the Bermuda Triangle sport.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


still referring to GROUNDWATER


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





"The soil is being tested for jet fuel..."


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



"So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said."

It's like testing _you_ for any sign of intelligence.  Testing certainly doesn't imply that there's anything there.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Thank you for pointing out they did not find soil contaminated with jet fuel.

It's rather amusing how the Snitch Bitch is ignoring everything else and hoping if he makes some jabs people will forget he has presented contradictory evidence he refuses to address.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> When are you going to explain how 757 went through so many new reinforced concretes walls when an F4 couldn't make it through one?  You also have dodged the comparison of the 1960 Indiana crash site Snitch Bitch.



you going to claim the pentagon had exactly how many reinforced walls?


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I have not presented any contradictory evidence, PussyPuddle.   Nor have a I failed (in any way) to address the comparisons of the 1960 crash site with the crash site in Shanksville, you lying retard.  Your inability to comprehend is your issue, not mine, stupid.  

As for soil contamination:  a big jet plane crashed.  It carried jet fuel.  It makes perfectly good sense to test the groundwater and the soil to see if there is any contamination.  That no contamination is found does NOT mean no jet with fuel crashed.  (Jet fuel BURNS and there was a fie at the crash site, imbecile.  It also evaporates.)   Only a moron like you, MenstrualMess, could come to such an obviously invalid "conclusion."  To be as retarded as you must cause you physical pain.

Do you need an aspirin as well as a new Kotex, MenstrualMess?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > When are you going to explain how 757 went through so many new reinforced concretes walls when an F4 couldn't make it through one?  You also have dodged the comparison of the 1960 Indiana crash site Snitch Bitch.
> ...




How many walls did 77 go through?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Lol....I can't even fake caring what you think Snitch Bitch....see ya...


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



In reality, you can't HELP but care about what I think.  

What you can't DO is honestly or intelligently answer direct questions put to you or debate, rationally, the points that refute your tawdry, petty, gibberish-laden form of "logic."

You are right, though, that you WILL see me.  I will continue to expose your numerous efforts at abject dishonesty, you cowardly dripping twat.

Change your tampon.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


 

Is it your new "theory," PussyPuddle, that a drone/missile in the guise of a hijacked passenger jet could penetrate the concrete walls of the Pentagon, but the hijacked passenger jet, itself, would not have been able to do so?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


in the GROUNDWATER
they didnt say anything about the test for soil contamination


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


TWO
the outter wall was the only reinforced wall
and the only other wall was the C ring
on the first floor there were no other walls to go through


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

This is one hell of a fuxxing coincidence:

June 16, 2001
"A major training exercise based upon a simulated terrorist attack is held in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, which neighbors Somerset County where Flight 93 crashes on 9/11."


Here's another one.

Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building

A mass casualty exercise, involving a practice evacuation, is held at the Pentagon. General Lance Lord, the assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force who is one of the participants in the exercise, will later recall, &#8220;[It was] purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building. &#8221; Lord will also say that on 9/11, &#8220;our assembly points were fresh in our minds&#8221; thanks to this practice. [AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND NEWS SERVICE, 9/5/2002]

Http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a99liveflypoisonjet#a99liveflypoisonjet


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Source?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


do you REALLY need me to look that up for you?

it is a fact
i read it many years ago
but i will be happy to look it up once again if you REALLY need me to


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Do you realize it tore down more than walls?  And yes....source for saying it only went through two reinforced walls.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yes, it tore through supports
and it only went through ONE reinforced wall
the inner wall of the C ring was not reinforced


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Source?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


looking for it for you
but this should be common knowledge for someone who claims to know as much as you


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

found it

Pentagon Rings and the Exit Hole

bottom half of the page, and it has links to back up the claims made
including photos showing only 4 stories of interior windows


----------



## Fizz (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you are going to claim that EVERY wall at the pentagon is reinforced?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you are the fucking idiot claiming it went through multiple reinforced walls. where's your fucking source, jackass?!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I'm not going to bother looking up a link for this, but if I remember correctly only the outer wall of the pentagon was reinforced.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i already did
bentdick proves once again, he doesnt know what he is talking about


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> found it
> 
> Pentagon Rings and the Exit Hole
> 
> ...




Their "no concrete on ground floor plans" claim does not seem to line up with:

"The exterior walls of the concentric rings and the interior courtyard are exposed concrete. They appear to have a wood-grain texture because they were poured into wooden forms made of 8-inch boards. A gap was left between boards enabling concrete to ooze and form a slight ridge. From a distance this gives an appearance of limestone."
history_features

If 77 passed through rings E, D, and C that means at least part of the aircraft traveled through 6 concrete walls.  That's not even mentioning the new steel reinforced walls, kevlar backing, or concrete columns with or without steel reinforcement.  That F4 couldn't get through one concrete wall.  Things that make ya go hmmmmmm......

(for clarification I'm not arguing the F4 comparison is valid.  I'm showing how fuxxing stoopid it was and is to try and compare an F4 to a 757 for crashes)

But for those who championed that F4 analogy.....ya'll got some 'splaining to do.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > found it
> ...


OMG, sheesh the first floor didnt not have the gaps of the rings, it went all the way through as ONE FLOOR to the inside of ring C
they even had PHOTOS to prove it


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Their pictures don't prove their claim.

"A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry."

And....


"To conserve steel and other metals, concrete ramps instead of elevators were used to connect the floors, and the outside walls were made of reinforced concrete."
Http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, no shit
but the FIRST FLOOR WAS CONTINUOUS from ring E to ring C
get that through your fucking thick skull


----------



## Fizz (Apr 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> you are the fucking idiot claiming it went through multiple reinforced walls. where's your fucking source, jackass?!!



you going to answer this or not?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




"The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall."

"Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls."
STRUCTUREmag: The Pentagon Lightwell Walls


So the outer most wall (when originally built) was not reinforced concrete but the others were.  You seem to have fallen for the misinformation on that pro-OCT website.  The first floor being continuous does not mean there were no reinforced concrete walls on the first floor.  Do you know what load bearing and shear walls are?  The pic you keep referencing shows the open space between rings for three stories and like that website, you're trying to claim there were no reinforced concrete walls on the first floor because you can't see open space between the rings on the first floor.  The Pentagon is a slab on grade design so together with the info in my link about load bearing and shear walls, it's obvious the first floor of each ring had the reinforced concrete walls.  Why?  What would happen if you tried to place concrete walls three stories high but used a weaker material for the first floor?  The whole fuxxing building would collapse.  

What material do you think is on the first floor walls holding up shear and load bearing reinforced concrete walls for the three stories above it?

The renovation made the outer most wall a reinforced wall back with steel and kevlar and the other walls were reinforced concrete.  One of my main beefs is the exit hole of the C-ring.  No, not the diameter.  It's a dead center line from the point of entry and there is nothing there showing exactly what made the hole.  With all the debris flying around how the hell did (whatever) maintain that nice straight line from the E to C ring?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


GOD DAMN YOU ARE STUPID
there were no ring walls on the first floor
it was continuous from the outter wall to the inner wall of ring C

look at the photo in figure 2
it shows HOW MANY FLOORS of windows and you can see it is a roof on the bottom


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Force of blast. a whole lot of jet fuel going boom at once while headed into the building makes for one big fiery blast.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The pic you keep referencing shows the open space between rings for three stories and like that website, you're trying to claim there were no reinforced concrete walls on the first floor because you can't see open space between the rings on the first floor.  

What material do you think is on the first floor walls holding up shear and load bearing reinforced concrete walls for the three stories above it?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


because they didnt exist you stupid fuck
and as to reinforced walls, that story you found is CLEARLY wrong since you can see the inside wall of ring C was brick and mortar

and it wouldnt require the wall to continue under it if they used support for it


----------



## Fizz (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The pic you keep referencing shows the open space between rings for three stories and like that website, you're trying to claim there were no reinforced concrete walls on the first floor because you can't see open space between the rings on the first floor.
> 
> What material do you think is on the first floor walls holding up shear and load bearing reinforced concrete walls for the three stories above it?



hey jackass, you are the idiot claiming it went through multiple reinforced walls. where's your fucking source!!

fucking liar!!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



One could try to make a similar claim of the hot air coming out of your pie hole.  The problem with calling the fuel suply burning a "blast" is that there was not enough oxygen available for your explosion.  Add some fertilizer like OK city and you have the right components of explosion worthy pressures.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 29, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> One could try to make a similar claim of the hot air coming out of your pie hole.  The problem with calling the fuel suply burning a "blast" is that there was not enough oxygen available for your explosion.  Add some fertilizer like OK city and you have the right components of explosion worthy pressures.



yea... doesnt look like much oxygen at all. nothing resembling a blast at all here. move along.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > One could try to make a similar claim of the hot air coming out of your pie hole.  The problem with calling the fuel suply burning a "blast" is that there was not enough oxygen available for your explosion.  Add some fertilizer like OK city and you have the right components of explosion worthy pressures.
> ...



A ball of flame does not a "blast" make.  Also note the lack of "Blast-like debrise" in your photo.  There is another consideration that may well be over your head but the ORANGE color of your fire ball is not the shade one would be looking for in a high explosion. But again...over your head...move along..


----------



## Fizz (Apr 29, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> A ball of flame does not a "blast" make.


says who? YOU?!! 

Blast - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
_5 a : an explosion or violent detonation_

who said anything about "high explosion"??


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




So I guess they installed the wire mesh and rebar.....when?  It's in the picture.....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


damn, you are too fucking stupid


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I'm providing actual sources while you do nothing but link an OCT site then bemoan about pics you fail to understand.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2010)

Reinforced wall?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i understand the pics you linked to, you, however, clearly do NOT


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Reinforced wall?


no no, Ollie, in-spite of the fact you can see brick and masonry, that is a poured reinforced concrete wall


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Reinforced wall?




http://www.spktruth2power.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/physics911pentagon.jpg


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Other than the one I just posted....what pics did I link?  I linked two independent sources stating the kind of construction.  Do you know all of wedge one was rebuilt before 9e?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Since the F4 couldn't break a single concrete wall and it should "hold up better" than a 757 how did 77 make through a steel reinforced concrete kevlar wall?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Read a little bit. the F4 was sent into a crash resistant wall used on Nuclear facilities. a wall that will actually move a bit with a collision. The pentagon wall may have been reinforced but you just can't stop everything. Are you now telling us that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Reinforced wall?


that photo shows BRICK AND MORTAR CONSTRUCTION! dumbfuck


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




That's what I see.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



perhaps you can provide the ACTUAL SOURCE for the MULTIPLE REINFORCED CONCRETES WALLS the the 757 WENT THROUGH



CurveLight said:


> When are you going to explain how 757 went through so many new reinforced concretes walls when an F4 couldn't make it through one?  You also have dodged the comparison of the 1960 Indiana crash site Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Perhaps _bent twat_ *can't* provide the ACTUAL SOURCE for the MULTIPLE REINFORCED CONCRETES WALLS the the 757 WENT THROUGH.


----------



## elvis (Apr 29, 2010)

so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?



It hit the reinforced concrete wall, didn't penetrate it at all, so they replaced the relatively unscathed reinforced concrete wall with a brick and mortar job that had a prefabricated hole.

Wait;  _bent twat_ wants to run this evolving theory by his handler, Agent Christophera.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?


thats the inner wall of the C ring, not the point of impact on the outter wall of the E ring

the bottom 2 floors were open floor from the E ring to the C ring
the A ring was the inner most ring


----------



## elvis (Apr 29, 2010)

Liability said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?
> ...



and the truthers think that that hole proves flight 77 didn't hit it?


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




In a NUT shell, I think that's correct.  They SEEM to be arguing (not _bent twat_, of course; no no.  Not him.  He's just askin' "questions!") that it was a missile.  

The sad part is, they're serious.


----------



## elvis (Apr 29, 2010)

Liability said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah I remember the missile theory.  painted in American airline colors, right?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


then there is Terral's missle PLUS an A-3 skyhawk painted to LOOK like AA-77


----------



## elvis (Apr 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



flight 77 passengers in a witness protection program in Area 51?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


or beamed up by "the Ancients"

or was that the Asgard?


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2010)

elvis said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



That's one of them.  Yes indeed.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete.   After nine years you the cynical appologists  are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...


----------



## elvis (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



the passengers are in Area 51 with Jimi Hendrix and janis joplin.


----------



## Liability (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



If you could actually point to ANY example of anybody here (whom you mislabel an "elite," or otherwise) who has tried to "justify" where ANY of the metal went or the fuel, you might have the beginning of a point.  But as things stand, you are just mouthing off, in your typically dishonest way.

I personally like elvis' reply.

We all know that Area 51 figures into the whole thing.  Until recently, I had not been aware of the hendrix experience or janice joplin's involvement.  That bitch.

The QUESTIONS assholes like these scumbag troofers "pose" are stupid.  That's the long and the short of it, Smuggler.  They are ridiculous.  Thus all the ridicule!

It works out great.


----------



## elvis (Apr 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You think dodging will help anything?  You claimed the F4 should hold up better than a 757 so how did 77 make it 310 feet into the pentagon when the first wall was steel reinforced concrete with kevlar?

I've already provided a couple of sources and here is a third:

"The Pentagon was built of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and the floors consisted of a slab, beam and girder system supported on spiral-steel-reinforced columns. All of these may have prevented disastrous failure, Mlakar said."

"In less than a second, the fuselage penetrated 310 feet --through the outer three rings -- and destroyed 50 massive columns on the first floor."
Http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29538

Those columns were steel reinforced concrete.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Okay....stick to your method of looking at pics you don't understand and ignoring all links that state what construction materials were used.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




The scary part is you are serious.  You could be a columnist for The Onion.  There isn't even a chance of you comprehending the utter stoopidity of trying to compare that one small concrete wall to the Pentagon.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You're so scared of troofers you have to be dishonest.  I've never seen anyone claim that hole proves it was not 77.  Your "in a nut shell" scapegoat is dead.  It got run over by Common Sense.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

elvis said:


> so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?




Another genius that is ignorant of basic info yet claims the OCT is true.  Aren't you embarrassed?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Rotfl!  Analyzing the damage of the pentagon based on a 757 is an amateur analysis but trying to compare a non-flying F4 with no fuel to flight 93 is A-Okay!  How the hell you say this shit with a straight face is a mystery.


----------



## Liability (Apr 30, 2010)

PussyPuddle said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



In the video of the "non-flying" F4, what is the basis of your belief that it had no fuel?  It looked like the jets were ignited to me.  do they burn in your mythical F4's without fuel, dipshit?  

The comparison (as has been pointed out to you numerous times, you dishonest little pussy) was never intended to be a one on one correlation, asswipe.   It was offered ONLY to show that at a very high speed (both the F4 and Flight 93 had that in common, PussyPuddle) the destruction of the craft physically can be expected to be very complete.  Into the concrete wall, the F4 atomized.   Into softer dirt, flt. 93 broke into uncountable very small pieces and buried itself deep down into the ground.

Even so, after a missile strike, ass-sucker, one DOES expect to find evidence (even trace evidence) of there having BEEN a "missile."  Instead, in Shanksville and in the Pentagon, the remnants recovered were of -- wait for it you scumbag lying Troofer twat --  passenger jet parts.  No missile fragments or traces of any missiles  were ever recovered at the Pentagon, douche-tard.

Your failure is complete.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Rotfl!!! The Snitch Bitch doesn't even know his own comparison.  The flames you see are from the rocket propelled sled...not the F4.  The Snitch Bitch can't even show one single picture of what the wall and F4 looked like after impact.  So basically the OCTAs have been screaming about trying to compare an F4 to a 757 (as if that isn't ridiculous enough) when they can't even show photographic comparisons of the crash sight. Lol....priceless!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



GAAAWWWDDD!!!! I fuckin hate cute little kitten avatars.

That said....

OK let's just take a glance at the "Hole".  FITZZZZ!!!! Just cuz you can does not mean this is the appropriate moment to stick your toungue up your ass.  We will reflect on the fact that the hole is not only too small but at the 5 bazillion MPHs everyone that is anyone has determined.....the wings and motors would have surely MADE A FUCKING SCRATCH!!!!!

THe hole itself shows struitural vulnerability.  Why do you say that HUGGY???  UMMMmmmmm...because it is a hole and not a solid wall?  So me droooogies...what do you think is structuraly tougher.... the forward point of the fusalage or the leading edges of the wings or engines??

Ok ..you just don't know...Well I'll clue ya...The nose of the plane is mostly hollow.

SO.... IF the hollow nose of the plane could punch a hole like that ...the wings and motors would have had no problem slicing thier profiles out of the wall.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




Three items about the hole I see:

The unbelievably straight projectory from the point of entry.  Whatever caused the hole traveled over 300 ft through concrete, steel, etc.  Yet is directly in line with the point of entry. With the landing gear up and both engines, there would have been a massive amount of pinball action happening with the walls, solid concrete slab for the second floor.....floor, and steel reinforced concrete pillars.  Somehow that piece managed to make it straight through.

The shape is a round impression but there is no debris past the C Ring that shows what made the hole.  If it was a solid object it had to be in tact enough to make the hole a clean cut but we don't see any physical evidence of what caused it.

The distinct scorch mark on top of the hole.  A blast through a wall leaves scorch marks all the way around but in this case, there was a narrow intense flame on top of whatever made the hole.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



so you have no evidence. just your own analysis from looking on the internet.

ok. thanks for your input. my kitty laughs at you.

(doesnt the nose have the whole rest of the plane behind it?)


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




As you said....the F4 should "hold up a lot better" than a 757.......what happened to the rest of the F4 behind the nose?  Lemme guess....suddenly the F4 comparison is no longer valid....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Duck, dodge, dodge, duck.....LOL


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> As you said....the F4 should "hold up a lot better" than a 757.......what happened to the rest of the F4 behind the nose?  Lemme guess....suddenly the F4 comparison is no longer valid....



what the fuck are you talking about? he's saying the nose of a 757 is more structurally vulnerable than the wings but forgot the whole rest of the plane is behind the nose. 

did you find a source that says the 757 went though multiple reinforced walls yet?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.



and your claim it isnt valid is based on what evidence?


----------



## Liability (Apr 30, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



As always, you remain dishonest and retarded.

The F4 analogy was, by its terms, limited.  

Craft made out of METAL travels at very high speed (over 500 mph).  Crashes into solid object.  Craft gets atomized.

::

2nd craft made out of METAL travels at very high speed (over 500 mph).  Crashes into solid object (albeit slightly "softer" than the object in the first case).  Craft gets destroyed into little tiny pieces for the most part.

Your obtuse and deliberately ignorant evasion of the valid components of that comparison reveal you as the dishonest hack you have always been.


----------



## elvis (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?
> ...



Yes.  I am embarrassed for this site that you continue to post such drivel.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, cause photo evidence showing brick and mortar is fake


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




If the F4 should hold up much better then how did a 757 make it over 300 feet into the Pentagon?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Okay....stick to your method of looking at pics you don't understand and ignoring all links that state what construction materials were used.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




You're a nut sack sucking bitch that doesn't know anything about the topic and you're obviously too ignorant to try and discuss it.  Embarrass yourself again.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



because the pentagon isnt made out of nuclear containment walls


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.
> ...




Show us photos of the crash test after the impact so we can see the condition of the wall and debris.  

Not to mention common sense.  How desperate do you have to be to try and compare a two seater jet to a 100 ton commercial jet with over 200 seats for crash debris?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Rotfl!!! The Snitch Bitch doesn't even know his own comparison.  The flames you see are from the rocket propelled sled...not the F4.  The Snitch Bitch can't even show one single picture of what the wall and F4 looked like after impact.  So basically the OCTAs have been screaming about trying to compare an F4 to a 757 (as if that isn't ridiculous enough) when they can't even show photographic comparisons of the crash sight. Lol....priceless!!!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



did you find evidence that the 757 went through several reinforced walls yet? 

so you are admitting that you have absolutely no evidence that the F4 comparison isnt valid? thanks jackass!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




ROTFL!!!!!!!!!   So you're saying the wall the F4 crash into was stronger than all the walls and columns and concrete flooring 77 crashed into......holy fuk.  It's like The Onion Reality OCTA Show.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



thats exactly what i am saying.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




In order to do a comparison we need photos of the F4 crash debris to compare them to the photos from the flight 93 crash sight.

I've posted multiple sources showing that entire wedge was rebuilt with reinforced concrete walls, columns, 
Etc.  Your repeated attempts to ignore them and keep asking for what has been provided is just childish.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Why not?  You got nothing to lose.....

We've got pics of the concrete reinforced walls and the ASCE has stated 77 took down fifty steel reinforced concrete columns but since you say one ten foot concrete wall is stronger than all of that it must be true.

You're genuinely fuxxing sad.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



and how many reinforced walls did the 757 make it through? you said it went through multiple reinforced walls. its your fucking claim why are you so annoyed when someone asks you to back it up?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



read it and weep, jackass!! 
Are Nuclear Plants Safe From Attack? - ABC News

Although they vary slightly in design, NRC guidelines stipulate that containment buildings be designed to withstand the impact of a bomb or small plane. That durability was proven in a 1989 test when Sandia National Labs in New Mexico sent a rocket-propelled F-4 fighter jet into a containment wall at 480 miles per hour. The jet disintegrated while the wall sustained only 2.4 inches of penetration.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I've backed it up but you keep living with closed eyes.  Look what it's helped you accomplish.  By golly, you can shamelessly claim it's valid to compare a 2 seater jet to a 200+ seater 100 ton commercial jet and that one square ten foot thick concrete wall is stronger than three rings at the Pentagon.  Rotfl......priceless!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Oh, since ABC said it disintegrated it must be true!  Lol......

Where are the pics to compare crash debris?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I've backed it up but you keep living with closed eyes.  Look what it's helped you accomplish.  By golly, you can shamelessly claim it's valid to compare a 2 seater jet to a 200+ seater 100 ton commercial jet and that one square ten foot thick concrete wall is stronger than three rings at the Pentagon.  Rotfl......priceless!



you showed us the the pentagon had some reinforced walls. where is your proof that the 757 made it through multiple reinforced walls? that is your claim.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



thats it... try to deflect that i just proved you to be a complete fucking moron by asking for pictures that may or not exist.

face it, jackass. you simply insert your foot further down your throat with every post.

you still want to claim the pentagon walls were stronger than a nuclear containment building wall?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





If you don't have pics of the F4 crash then how can comparisons be made?  Is this more of the OCTA Ball?

Then you flat out lie and try to claim the F4 crashed into a nuclear building wall?  It was a single fuxxing concrete block!  Lol.....and you're claiming that single block is stronger than three rings of the pentagon.  No wonder you focus so much on ad homs.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ok, duipshit, i see brick and mortar in  those pics, i dont give a rats ass what some website claims, if i can SEE brick and mortar
you can ignore your own eyes if you like
but when i can SEE that the website was WRONG, i will go with what i SEE over what some fucking website tells me
you are proof that moronic troofer assholes dont give a rats flying ass about the truth


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wow, you really are off the deep end
you cant see similarities in the way it is being compared?
too fucking stupid for words


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




OK...OK...OK...  The wings and Jet engines disintigrated...vaporized...  The only strange thing is they did this remarkable feat of physics BEFORE they were to hit the exterior wall because there appears to be no evidence of any damage on either side of the hole wher wings and jet engines are placed on an airplane.  OR..did the plane MORPH.. so the whole thing could fit into the hole?

So.... wings and motors pre-evaporate.  Everyone in agreement?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no, dipshit
my own EYES saw that it disintegrated
so did your's if you had any honesty


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


sorry, huggy, but there was damage


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 30, 2010)

The Pentagon

Architect 	George Bergstrom	

Location 	Arlington, Virginia, near Washington, D.C.   map
Date 	1941 to 1943   
Building Type 	government office block
 Construction System *	reinforced concrete outer walls, wood framing, slate roof*
Climate 	temperate
Context 	urban
Style 	Neo-classical
Notes 	Pentagonal plan. Houses the U.S Department of Defense. 

The Pentagon - George Bergstrom - Great Buildings Online


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> If you don't have pics of the F4 crash then how can comparisons be made?  Is this more of the OCTA Ball?
> 
> Then you flat out lie and try to claim the F4 crashed into a nuclear building wall?  It was a single fuxxing concrete block!  Lol.....and you're claiming that single block is stronger than three rings of the pentagon.  No wonder you focus so much on ad homs.



where did i say the fucking F4 crashed into a nuclear building?!!! HAHAHAHahahahahaa

you fucking moron. the purpose of the test was to test the strength of nuclear containment buildings. they tested a section of a containment building wall..... NOT THE ACTUAL BUILDING you fucking idiot!! 

it wasnt a concrete block, either jackass. containment building walls have rebar about the size of a persons arm.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I've never seen a photo taken immediately after the crash showing the entry hole with wing and engine damage on either side of the entry hole.  I would expect the damaged area to be in excess of 150 ft wide even if the wings and motors did not fully penetrate the exterior wall.  To those that cannot visualize the expected damaged area ...half a football field in length.  Show me a photo like this and I'll shut my pie hole on the pentagon.  Not one of those later photos where they are demolishing the wall for reconstruction.  I'm talkin a picture taken within the first few minutes.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> I've never seen a photo taken immediately after the crash showing the entry hole with wing and engine damage on either side of the entry hole.



ahhhhh....

you didnt see it therefore it doesnt exist.

now i see how you roll.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a photo taken immediately after the crash showing the entry hole with wing and engine damage on either side of the entry hole.
> ...



Huh? No..I haven't seen it ..therefore I will not turn into an asshat lockstep fuckwit and just assume it is so because I am too scared to challange the big self appointed all mighty "expert" bad asses like Divecon and Liability. 

Do not believe your own eyes.!!!!!!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



how wide was the fuselage? 12 to 15 feet?

seems to be significantly wider damage....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


and you can see wing and tail damage


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 30, 2010)




----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Typical.  Accuse people of lying when you can't provide evidence.  

The brick and mortar you keep whining about.....that was only part of how the wall was built but no worries....you keep on living in active ignorant bliss by ignoring all the facts.


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> The Pentagon
> 
> Architect 	George Bergstrom
> 
> ...



As usual....way behind.  That isn't what 77 crashed into you dumb fuxxing crybaby.


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't have pics of the F4 crash then how can comparisons be made?  Is this more of the OCTA Ball?
> ...



Post 1235 you useless bitch.  You said "nuclear containment building wall."

So when you know you are pwned because you can't produce one single crash debris pic to 93 you just deflect as usual.  You're a waste.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


then you couldnt have actually watched the video

and, dipshit, its YOU that is living in IGNORANCE


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Saw that video years ago.  You guys have no pics of the debris to compare to the pics of debris for 93.  But.....you still want to claim it's a valid comparison. 

You are choosing to ignore the fact the c ring wall was thicker than simply brick and mortar and ignoring the inlaid concrete with wire mesh and rebar.  Just like you are ignoring the concrete slabs and steel reinforced concrete columns on the first and second floors.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


actually, the comparison is not to the amount of debris, and again, if you were honest you would know that

and i am ignoring NOTHING, but i see you have changed your mind about the reinforced concrete WALLS that you WERE claiming


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The comparison is not about the amount of debris?  Lol!  It's been referenced to try and explain the debris for 93.  Keep dancing.

I've not changed my mind about the walls.  The pics of the c ring show inlaid concrete with wire mesh and rebar genius.  I see you will continue to look only at OCTA handpicked info instead of all that is available.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


sorry, but the photos YOU posted show brick and mortar when the wall was punched out


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Yes there is brick and mortar ALONG WITH inlaid concrete, wire mesh, and rebar.  Keep on ignoring that with the fact several independent resources verify it.  What are you going by?  Arrogance and a smoke filled pic from an OCTA site.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ROFLMAO
you saw concrete and rebar in that?


ok christoFEARa


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



In the pic I posted, yes.  Not in the smoke filled shit octa pic you posted.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


both pics showed the same fucking thing, dipshit

i guess your seeing the dipshits invisicrete now


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol....your octa pic shows the hole smoke filled dishonest abe.  The pic I posted shows the depth of the wall and rebar.  Are you really trying to claim the outer wall was only brick wide?  Rotfl!  Do you know how wide one of those bricks are?  Do you know how thick that wall was?  Of course not.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


omg you are such a fucking idiot
it's a waste of time to attempt anything with you because you are too much of an idiot


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


here are both pics again, dipshit
what you think is rebar, is actually electrical conduit


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Here are the options:

Believe Divecon and one very unclear pic of the C Ring exit hole from an OCTA site....

Or

Several independent sources stating the exterior walls were reinforced concrete, along with clear pictures showing reinforced concrete.

Gee.


----------



## Fizz (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Post 1235 you useless bitch.  You said "nuclear containment building wall."
> 
> So when you know you are pwned because you can't produce one single crash debris pic to 93 you just deflect as usual.  You're a waste.



no fuck, jackass.... building a piece of "nuclear containment building wall" to test crash an F4 into doesnt mean you fucking build the WHOLE NUCLEAR PLANT!!!


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


except that pic DOESNT SHOW CONCRETE
and its NOT an exterior wall
and that is the PIC you posted
dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Post 1235 you useless bitch.  You said "nuclear containment building wall."
> ...


and now he is calling the pic HE posted unacceptable


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Rotfl!!!!  Absolute proof you don't understand the pics you are looking at.  Have you ever noticed that "No Parking" sign?  That is the exterior of the C Ring wall facing the access road between the B and C rings you dumfuk so yes it is an exterior wall.

Thank you for proving you don't understand the pics you have been trying to discuss.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, that is the inner wall of the C ring
it does NOT have a "road" through it


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

please show us where your "road" is

The Pentagon Aerial View - GreatBuildings.com


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Because as we all know....the proper place to put a "No Parking" sign is on the inner wall of a building and not the exterior wall.......ROTFL!

That exit hole is from the C Ring of the second wedge you asswipe.   Like I've been saying.....you don't understand the pics you've been looking at and you keep proving it.  Thanks for another classic OCTA moment...


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Is that why I just pointed out why my pic is valid because you can clearly see the ring versus your smoke filled pic?  Lol!  Way to pay attention!


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2010)

The image of the punch out hole is taken from this source: 9-11 Research: Punchout Hole

It says the following about the images:  





> These photos show the most prominent puncture in the C-ring wall opening from the building's interior into the courtyard between the B and C rings. The fourth photograph was taken by Jocelyn Augustino on 09/14/2001.



Unless there is some form of vehicular traffic [like small cargo handlers, etc] that is used in the corridors or in the "rings", I am not clear on the precise meaning of the "no parking" sign.  Here is a schematic map of the Pentagon.  http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/PDFs/Pent.pdf


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> The image of the punch out hole is taken from this source: 9-11 Research: Punchout Hole
> 
> It says the following about the images:
> 
> ...


a lot of good photos on the first link


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The image of the punch out hole is taken from this source: 9-11 Research: Punchout Hole
> ...



How the fuck could you know the diff between good and bad photos when for almost ten years you've been looking at the C Ring exit hole and didn't know it was the exterior wall?

Ten years of looking at a "No Parking" sign and you never had a clue.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


you fucking moron, it ISNT an exterior wall
its an INTERIOR RING WALL
god damned you are such a fucking moron

the ONLY "exterior" wall is on the OUTSIDE of ring E
dipshit

your major problem in understanding this is you are thinking each ring is a separate building
it ISNT


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The exit hole opens into the courtyard between the C and B Rings you dumb fuck.  Every ring has exterior walls but obviously you have never known that....


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i KNEW you were hung up on Exterior being a wall to the outside
you stupid fuck
typical MINUTIA moronic troofers focus on


btw, we are STILL waiting on your proof of there being 6 reinforced concrete walls on the first and second floor of ring e to c


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Anytime _bent twat_ can deflect the conversation from something substantive, he considers it a win of sorts.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


clearly he doesnt understand that when refering to an "exterior wall" on the pentagon, it is referring only to the OUTSIDE wall of Ring E


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The exterior walls are between the Rings you dumbfuck.

Link the post where I said 77 went through 6 reinforced concrete walls you lying bitch.

I'm still laughing at you claiming:

"the ONLY "exterior" wall is on the OUTSIDE of ring E
dipshit"

Priceless!


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


still hung up on "exterior" meaning to the weather
dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Rotfl!!! The Snitch Bitch doesn't even know his own comparison.  The flames you see are from the rocket propelled sled...not the F4.  The Snitch Bitch can't even show one single picture of what the wall and F4 looked like after impact.  So basically the OCTAs have been screaming about trying to compare an F4 to a 757 (as if that isn't ridiculous enough) when they can't even show photographic comparisons of the crash sight. Lol....priceless!!


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


while you are correct about the F-4 being rocket propelled, you fail to understand the comparison


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2010)

bent-twat said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Right on cue, PussyPuddle proves me right again.

According to his asinine asshole uninformed way of "thinking" (and in his case we must use the word "thinking" in a very broad sense, obviously), a rocket sled spouting flames doesn't contain fuel.  



Anyway, MenstrualMess is still trying as hard as his petty little retarded lying mind can, to deflect.

I presented a clear cut expression about the limited purpose of the F4 :: 757 crash comparison, and the prissy little puss, PussyPuddle,  immediately hides behind irrelevancies, instead of even considering admitting that his bullshit interpretation of the purpose of the analogy is the thing that's flawed.

*Hey, MenstrualMess:  when planes crash, does the speed at which they crash have ANY impact on the degree of physical destruction caused to the crafts?*

(Countdown to _bent twat's_ next desperate transparent flailing effort to deflect, complete with references to "rofl" "snitch bitch, "****" and the always meaningless "fuxxing" and "stooopid."  5 ... 4 ... 3 ....)


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No dumbfuck....exterior as in between the B and C Rings.  Link the post where I said 77 went through 6 reinforced concrete walls you lying bitch.

I'm still laughing at you claiming:

"the ONLY "exterior" wall is on the OUTSIDE of ring E
dipshit"


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The only thing I fail to understand is how desperate you have to be to try and make a comparison between a rocket propelled sled driven 2 seater into a 10 foot thick wall to a 757 with over 200 seats that crashed into a reclaimed mine.  What's worse is you don't have a singl.....

There's no point with you


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


just more proof you dont know a fucking thing


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you can laugh all yoiu want
because you dont know what the fuck you are talking about
that has been proven quite clearly


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


LOL!

I _knew_ MenstrualMess would deflect and completely fail to admit the validity of the comparison for the limited purpose for which it was offered! 

PussyPuddle, it would have been easier on you (and more honest) if you'd just confess that you have no facts whatsoever on your side.   It's clear you have no handle on logic.


----------



## CurveLight (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Look at all the pics showing the exterior walls between the rings dumbfuck.

Http://www.killtown.911review.org/flight77/inside.html

Look where the exit hole is and notice it opens up to the outside.....that is why you can see it from an ariel view.  Since you missed the "No Parking" sign you probably missed the windows right above the exit hole.  If it was strictly inside the building as you claimed you wouldn't be able to see the exit hole from an ariel shot you moronic shitbrain.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


god damn you are stupid
you THINK i'm claiming something i'm NOT
you are a fucking(dipshit translation: fuxxing)idiot


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Sometimes I think bentdick must be a 12 year old.


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

hey dipshit
from the link you just posted






see!!!!
it supports everything i have been telling you, you FUCKING MORON

and notice, the EXTERIOR WALL(the one on the outside of the WHOLE FUCKING BUILDING!!)
is THICKER than the walls of the rings internally
it also shows that the 1st and 2nd floors did NOT have walls at the ring points

damn, will you finally admit that i know what i am talking about, or continue to make bullshit claims you cant back up


----------



## DiveCon (May 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


that would be an insult to many 12 year olds


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> hey dipshit
> from the link you just posted
> 
> 
> ...




What does the E Ring wall being thicker than the C Ring concrete reinforced wall have to do with anything?  The plane entered the new Wedge 1 and made the exit hole in wedge two you dumfuk.  I never claimed the E Ring wall and C ring walls had the same thickness.  Once again you celebrate on strawmen.

There are walls in the Rings you dumfuk but you can't see from the Ariel shot because they are inside.  There are also several (over 50) large steel reinforced concrete columns 77 knocked down.


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That is called the "inner" wall because that is the exterior wall of the C Ring closest to the A Ring.  The "outer" wall would be on the other side closest to the E Ring.

There is a road there you dumfuk.  It's between the C and B Rings and that is why there is a NO PARKING sign.  The name of the road is A-E Drive.  Keep proving how ignorant you are bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> hey dipshit
> from the link you just posted
> 
> 
> ...



You're fuxxing clueless as I keep proving.  Every Ring has exterior walls you dumfuk but you try to claim the only exterior wall is on the E Ring.  Everyone can see windows in the rings that open to the outside.  Those are called exterior walls and your pathetic attempt to redefine what an "exterior wall" means is laughable bullshit.  You also tried to claim there is no road between the B and C Rings and you'll ignore that too because that is the kind of bitch you love to be.  Do you really think your **** pom pom crowd can conceal all of your fuck ups on this?  They're so cowardly they don't have the balls to call you out when you are flat out wrong.  I've pissed em off because I pwn them like I pwn you but you are too stoopid to know when you are wrong.  Give me some more laughs bitch and claim there is no road and claim there is only one exterior wall on the Pentagon.


----------



## Liability (May 2, 2010)

MassivelyandWillfullyandConstantlyDishonestPussyPuddle said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > hey dipshit
> ...



PussyPuddle:  You misspelled "fuxxing."  You only used two "x's", you utterly retarded fucker.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > hey dipshit
> ...


too fucking stupid for words


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's all you have left which is usually all you have to begin with.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it all you deserve


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Awwww....poor divey gets pwned and goes straight to ad hom-I'll get him with the rep button mode!  Lol!


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


whine some more, dipshit

the day you "pwn" anyone on here will be the first


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Playing the bandwagon card again?  Lol...


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dont need to play ANY card
your dipshit posts do it for me


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're just another whiny **** that can't admit when you've been proven wrong.  Tell us again how there is no road between the B and C Rings ****.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


showing once again how fucking STUPID you are
there is no "road" between the C ring and the B ring
there MIGHT be a driveway/pathway, but not a ROAD
you are a moron


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol....what was that about minutia you are always complaining about?  You've been looking at the no parking sign for almost a fuxxing decade and you didn't know there is a road there! Lol


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


dipshit, you do know they use things like golf carts at the pentagon, right?
ever stop to think THATS what the sign was for?
and they didnt use a sign that said no golfcart parking since most people would understand it to mean the same thing and they could buy the existing sign from STOCK anywhere?
no, you are too fucking stupid to THINK that far out


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




ROTFLLMAO!!!!!!!!

You

Are

Beyond

Fuxxing

Pathetic!


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


again, PROJECTION


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Your little.....rotfl....golf cart bullshit....lol....does not conceal the fact you didn't know there is a road between the B and C Rings.  Every time I debate a new area of 9E with you dumfuks there is always some basic info you are not only ignorant of, but try to deny exists even after you've been proven wrong.  Look at this pic and see how wide the space is between the B and C Rings you dumfuk.  Then after your golf...lol..cart shit you can try to tell us those aren't exterior walls....

Http://www.911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/pic/912_A-EDrive4.JPG


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


that photo DOESNT show a road, dipshit

and while it might be called "exterior" as meaning open to the weather, it is not exterior as for what the STORY you linked to was talking about
you remain a massive dipshit

and YOU are so fucking stupid you cant post an image right so it shows in the post
thank me for fixing your massive stupidity


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're right.  I should have used a flux capacitor in a DeLorean, gone back in time, and had the guy take a picture with a car running over the guys standing in the middle of the road called A+E Drive.  Use your two working brain cells at the same time divebitch.  We know the exit hole opened on to AE Drive and that is what the picture shows.

Then you try to hide behind some "story" I linked to try and hide the fact you claimed there is "only one exterior wall" at the Pentagon?  Rotfl!  You got pwned again so do the predictable ad hom/rep button whiny bullshit you fuxxing worthless ****.


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, DRIVE, as in DRIVEWAY
not ROAD
dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (May 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Rotfl!  Isn't that the "minutia" you are always whining about?  Do you know how many public roads in America have "Drive" in the name?  Are you really so fuxxing pathetic you are going to try and hide behind that you worthless ****?  Tell us again there is only "one exterior wall" at the Pentagon?

So I produce a pic of guys standing in the middle of a road you said doesn't exist between two exterior walls you claimed don't exist.  Lol....no wonder you couldn't see the rebar in the exit hole......you can't even see roads and exterior walls!!!  Rotfl!!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (May 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


keep proving what a fucking dipshit you are
its quite comical


----------



## Liability (May 3, 2010)

It's a "road" to nowhere.  

It's is "exterior" in the sense of not being inside and enclosed.

But it is still interior in the sense that it is enclosed by the walls of the various rings from anything OUTSIDE of the Pentagon.

So while _bent twat_ continues to make the irrelevant quibble his preferred tool in his dutiful and endless effort to deflect, let's recap.

The punch out area is not concrete, reinforced or otherwise.  It's obviously a brick and mortar type construction.

The fact that the craft lost it's energy at around that point after depleting it during the earlier stages of the crash does not even marginally establish ANY doubt that it was a passenger jet that did the damage.

In reality, there is only one rational reasonable and non-ridiculous conclusion.  The passenger jet aircraft did the deed.  It was one of the hijacked jets that day and there is no honest doubt about that either.

And PussyPuddle will attempt to deflect some more.  Guaranteed!


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> It's a "road" to nowhere.
> 
> It's is "exterior" in the sense of not being inside and enclosed.
> 
> ...


yes, he will deflect again, and also claim non-existing pwnage


----------



## CurveLight (May 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Right back to ad hom mode.....hahahahaha!


----------



## DiveCon (May 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



back?!?!?!
holy shit!!!!
i never leave it with fucking moronic dipshit troofers
it would be a waste of time and not as much fun
dipshit


----------

