Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep when I can dig through all the nutcase conspiracy sites and find the real investigations I'll let you know.
And damn, I actually believed Huggy was too intelligent to be a truther.
Why do you bother to respond to a post of mine when you know that I am much smarter than you and have far more experience in "The Field" being a pilot. I just got done saying that the intelligent path is to just let it go. That does not mean buying your hack bullshit. I rarely come around to these threads because it just depresses me to think of how stupid people like you are.
It frightens me that others trust their life to someone like you who can't put 2 and 2 together.
Lets see, Flight 77 is missing but we have a debris field at the Pentagon.... What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...all of the wreckage...100%...EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING BIT...matches AA77 all the way down to the paint of the plane. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...all of the DNA gathered there, 100%...EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING IT...matches victims at the Pentagon or the passengers save for 5 sets belonging to the five hi-jackers. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...Air Traffic Controllers--you may have heard of them--all of them there, 100%..EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING ONE tracked AA77 into the Pentagon airspace but not leaving it. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
That you don't come around spreading your "wisdom" cheapens the experience of posting here not one iota. There is nothing you can teach me about this subject. Save yourself further embarrassment and turn off your computer Sheila.
Been flying since 76 cupcake.. I'll stand on my safety record.
But since YOU brought it up... your sig line spills the beans as to what you are really here for and what you are all about.
Think you obssess about conspiracies much?
It frightens me that others trust their life to someone like you who can't put 2 and 2 together.
Lets see, Flight 77 is missing but we have a debris field at the Pentagon.... What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...all of the wreckage...100%...EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING BIT...matches AA77 all the way down to the paint of the plane. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...all of the DNA gathered there, 100%...EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING IT...matches victims at the Pentagon or the passengers save for 5 sets belonging to the five hi-jackers. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
To continue on...Air Traffic Controllers--you may have heard of them--all of them there, 100%..EN-TOTO...EVERY FUCKING ONE tracked AA77 into the Pentagon airspace but not leaving it. What does that tell you? It tells the rest of the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon but if you want to go in a different direction, thats your business. You sound as dumb as your avatar looks.
That you don't come around spreading your "wisdom" cheapens the experience of posting here not one iota. There is nothing you can teach me about this subject. Save yourself further embarrassment and turn off your computer Sheila.
Been flying since 76 cupcake.. I'll stand on my safety record.
But since YOU brought it up... your sig line spills the beans as to what you are really here for and what you are all about.
Think you obssess about conspiracies much?
I'll stand by the plane if you're in the cockpit. Love to point out the casual relationship you idiots have with the truth.
Please don't comment on what you don't know about; and you know nothing about 9/11
Been flying since 76 cupcake.. I'll stand on my safety record.
But since YOU brought it up... your sig line spills the beans as to what you are really here for and what you are all about.
Think you obssess about conspiracies much?
I'll stand by the plane if you're in the cockpit. Love to point out the casual relationship you idiots have with the truth.
Please don't comment on what you don't know about; and you know nothing about 9/11
Oh right like YOU DO?? Go fuck yourself cupcake. I'll comment about any damn thing I want to within the rules here at USMB. Are you a pilot? Of course not....you simple ass bitch. Don't try to lecture me on subjects related to flying. It makes you look dumber than you usually do..I know...hard to believe...but true.
I'll stand by the plane if you're in the cockpit. Love to point out the casual relationship you idiots have with the truth.
Please don't comment on what you don't know about; and you know nothing about 9/11
Oh right like YOU DO?? Go fuck yourself cupcake. I'll comment about any damn thing I want to within the rules here at USMB. Are you a pilot? Of course not....you simple ass bitch. Don't try to lecture me on subjects related to flying. It makes you look dumber than you usually do..I know...hard to believe...but true.
We're talking about crashes and the evidence they produced and the evidence you're seemingly ignoring shit-for-brains. Or do you really want to stand on "well gee the planes landed somewhere and we have drones--painted to look like planes, planted DNA, everybody is lying, paid off," bullshit?
I'll stand by the plane if you're in the cockpit. Love to point out the casual relationship you idiots have with the truth.
Please don't comment on what you don't know about; and you know nothing about 9/11
Oh right like YOU DO?? Go fuck yourself cupcake. I'll comment about any damn thing I want to within the rules here at USMB. Are you a pilot? Of course not....you simple ass bitch. Don't try to lecture me on subjects related to flying. It makes you look dumber than you usually do..I know...hard to believe...but true.
We're talking about crashes and the evidence they produced and the evidence you're seemingly ignoring shit-for-brains. Or do you really want to stand on "well gee the planes landed somewhere and we have drones--painted to look like planes, planted DNA, everybody is lying, paid off," bullshit?
Oh right like YOU DO?? Go fuck yourself cupcake. I'll comment about any damn thing I want to within the rules here at USMB. Are you a pilot? Of course not....you simple ass bitch. Don't try to lecture me on subjects related to flying. It makes you look dumber than you usually do..I know...hard to believe...but true.
We're talking about crashes and the evidence they produced and the evidence you're seemingly ignoring shit-for-brains. Or do you really want to stand on "well gee the planes landed somewhere and we have drones--painted to look like planes, planted DNA, everybody is lying, paid off," bullshit?
I don't have to know ALL of the evidense. Every scap of evidense in a plane crash has to stand alone and in concert with all of the other pieces of evidense. If any one piece of evidense is absolutely wrong then the whole of the evidense is wrong and any conclusion drawn on that set of evidense is flawed. The recorder was never in a fire. That makes the Shanksville conclusions flawed.
The hole at the Pentagon was WAY too small. That makes the conclusions drawn on that set of evidense flawed.
It is really THAT simple. It does not matter how much OTHER supporting evidense has been added to either crash site. Airplane crashes are NOT debatable. The evidense is all that matters. If the two examples I have isolated cannot be fully explained then NONE of the crash investigation can be trusted.
You can post your nonsense till the end of time. It will not change what I just pointed out.
Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.We're talking about crashes and the evidence they produced and the evidence you're seemingly ignoring shit-for-brains. Or do you really want to stand on "well gee the planes landed somewhere and we have drones--painted to look like planes, planted DNA, everybody is lying, paid off," bullshit?
I don't have to know ALL of the evidense. Every scap of evidense in a plane crash has to stand alone and in concert with all of the other pieces of evidense. If any one piece of evidense is absolutely wrong then the whole of the evidense is wrong and any conclusion drawn on that set of evidense is flawed. The recorder was never in a fire. That makes the Shanksville conclusions flawed.
The hole at the Pentagon was WAY too small. That makes the conclusions drawn on that set of evidense flawed.
It is really THAT simple. It does not matter how much OTHER supporting evidense has been added to either crash site. Airplane crashes are NOT debatable. The evidense is all that matters. If the two examples I have isolated cannot be fully explained then NONE of the crash investigation can be trusted.
You can post your nonsense till the end of time. It will not change what I just pointed out.
So every piece of that plane that does not show marks from a fire could not have been in the plane crash? OK Huggy put down the crack pipe.
just curious, which one was that?Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.I don't have to know ALL of the evidense. Every scap of evidense in a plane crash has to stand alone and in concert with all of the other pieces of evidense. If any one piece of evidense is absolutely wrong then the whole of the evidense is wrong and any conclusion drawn on that set of evidense is flawed. The recorder was never in a fire. That makes the Shanksville conclusions flawed.
The hole at the Pentagon was WAY too small. That makes the conclusions drawn on that set of evidense flawed.
It is really THAT simple. It does not matter how much OTHER supporting evidense has been added to either crash site. Airplane crashes are NOT debatable. The evidense is all that matters. If the two examples I have isolated cannot be fully explained then NONE of the crash investigation can be trusted.
You can post your nonsense till the end of time. It will not change what I just pointed out.
So every piece of that plane that does not show marks from a fire could not have been in the plane crash? OK Huggy put down the crack pipe.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.I don't have to know ALL of the evidense. Every scap of evidense in a plane crash has to stand alone and in concert with all of the other pieces of evidense. If any one piece of evidense is absolutely wrong then the whole of the evidense is wrong and any conclusion drawn on that set of evidense is flawed. The recorder was never in a fire. That makes the Shanksville conclusions flawed.
The hole at the Pentagon was WAY too small. That makes the conclusions drawn on that set of evidense flawed.
It is really THAT simple. It does not matter how much OTHER supporting evidense has been added to either crash site. Airplane crashes are NOT debatable. The evidense is all that matters. If the two examples I have isolated cannot be fully explained then NONE of the crash investigation can be trusted.
You can post your nonsense till the end of time. It will not change what I just pointed out.
So every piece of that plane that does not show marks from a fire could not have been in the plane crash? OK Huggy put down the crack pipe.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
I'll have to look for it, Dive. It's in one of these loony threads........One of the older ones for sure.just curious, which one was that?Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.So every piece of that plane that does not show marks from a fire could not have been in the plane crash? OK Huggy put down the crack pipe.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
that wasnt the infamous Dr Jones, was it?I'll have to look for it, Dive. It's in one of these loony threads........One of the older ones for sure.just curious, which one was that?Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
Seriously, eots or one of these fools put up his "claims" as facts......It was then found that he was in the latter stages of alzheimers when he made the "claims"
whats funny is that i dont know who has made any claims that the "wings folded back"Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.So every piece of that plane that does not show marks from a fire could not have been in the plane crash? OK Huggy put down the crack pipe.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
It doesn't matter to me what some other experts said. At 500 knots a wing does not "fold" back.
Haven't seen that claim either.........One must remember that there is an obvious slice in the towers where you can clearly see the where the wings and fuselge went through.....The towers weren't built like pentagon.....It wasn't reinforced like the pentagon. No doubt when that plane hit the pentagon, the wings sheered off on impact and virtually disinigrated........Wings are primarily hollow, reinforced every couple of feet with steel ribs. That's why you can literally watch them bow and flex in flight......No doubt they completely disintegrated on impact......And this was fully proven on the nat-geo special that debunked all the BS.whats funny is that i dont know who has made any claims that the "wings folded back"Yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......And, a hole in the Pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at FULL SPEED with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........One does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........Unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who NEVER were involved in the investigation.......Or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
LMAO!
It doesn't matter to me what some other experts said. At 500 knots a wing does not "fold" back.
Not sure what is his name was.....I'm looking for it....It's in one of these threads......I'm watching football at the same time i'm posting and looking......It may take awhile.that wasnt the infamous Dr Jones, was it?I'll have to look for it, Dive. It's in one of these loony threads........One of the older ones for sure.just curious, which one was that?
Seriously, eots or one of these fools put up his "claims" as facts......It was then found that he was in the latter stages of alzheimers when he made the "claims"
the purdue simulations showed the wings shredding on impact with the outer walls of the pentagonHaven't seen that claim either.........One must remember that there is an obvious slice in the towers where you can clearly see the where the wings and fuselge went through.....The towers weren't built like pentagon.....It wasn't reinforced like the pentagon. No doubt when that plane hit the pentagon, the wings sheered off on impact and virtually disinigrated........Wings are primarily hollow, reinforced every couple of feet with steel ribs. That's why you can literally watch them bow and flex in flight......No doubt they completely disintegrated on impact......And this was fully proven on the nat-geo special that debunked all the BS.whats funny is that i dont know who has made any claims that the "wings folded back"It doesn't matter to me what some other experts said. At 500 knots a wing does not "fold" back.
i'll have to look for it, dive. It's in one of these loony threads........one of the older ones for sure.just curious, which one was that?yeah, the flight recorder couldn't have possibly been thrown away from the fire......and, a hole in the pentagon couldn't have possibly appeared smaller, seeing as though the plane was travelling at full speed with the landing gear up when it sliced into the building like a knife........one does not need an advanced degree in physics to fully understand that a slower moving plane with the wheels down would have caused a much bigger hole than a plane travelling at full speed with the wheels up.
Once again, these twoofer claims are repeatedly debunked........unless the only "experts" relied up on are former this' and retired thats' who never were involved in the investigation.......or of course, the one "expert" they put up who was found to be in the advanced stages of alzheimers when he made his fully debunked "claims"
lmao!
Seriously, eots or one of these fools put up his "claims" as facts......it was then found that he was in the latter stages of alzheimers when he made the "claims"
the purdue simulations showed the wings shredding on impact with the outer walls of the pentagonhaven't seen that claim either.........one must remember that there is an obvious slice in the towers where you can clearly see the where the wings and fuselge went through.....the towers weren't built like pentagon.....it wasn't reinforced like the pentagon. No doubt when that plane hit the pentagon, the wings sheered off on impact and virtually disinigrated........wings are primarily hollow, reinforced every couple of feet with steel ribs. That's why you can literally watch them bow and flex in flight......no doubt they completely disintegrated on impact......and this was fully proven on the nat-geo special that debunked all the bs.whats funny is that i dont know who has made any claims that the "wings folded back"
Haven't seen that claim either.........One must remember that there is an obvious slice in the towers where you can clearly see the where the wings and fuselge went through.....The towers weren't built like pentagon.....It wasn't reinforced like the pentagon. No doubt when that plane hit the pentagon, the wings sheered off on impact and virtually disinigrated........Wings are primarily hollow, reinforced every couple of feet with steel ribs. That's why you can literally watch them bow and flex in flight......No doubt they completely disintegrated on impact......And this was fully proven on the nat-geo special that debunked all the BS.whats funny is that i dont know who has made any claims that the "wings folded back"It doesn't matter to me what some other experts said. At 500 knots a wing does not "fold" back.
