Flight 93 crash fantasy

[DiveCon]

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.

the purdue simulations showed the wings shredding on impact with the outer walls of the pentagon

got a link to that dwivy ?

they've been posted for you before
moron
i will not waste my time posting them for you again
you will only reject them like all you fucking moron s do

 

[eots]

the purdue simulations showed the wings shredding on impact with the outer walls of the pentagon

got a link to that dwivy ?

they've been posted for you before
moron
i will not waste my time posting them for you again
you will only reject them like all you fucking moron s do

no.. You just told the same lie before you useless ****

 

[DiveCon]

got a link to that dwivy ?

they've been posted for you before
moron
i will not waste my time posting them for you again
you will only reject them like all you fucking moron s do

no.. You just told the same lie before you useless ****

so you deny ever seeing the Purdue University simulation?

that would make you a fucking LIAR
because i KNOW they have been posted in threads you've been in

 

[Obamerican]

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.

YOU CANT KEEP THE PENTAGON OR WTC STRAIGHT..AND THE COMMENT OF WINGS FOLDING BACK WAS FROM SOME BULLSHIT STATEMENT FROM A USA TODAY REPORTER POSTED BY ONE OF YOU FOOLS...FUCKING MORONS..DONT PRETEND...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs[/ame]

But if the same reporter had said that he saw a missile hit the Pentagon YOU would be quoting him, you fucking shit stain.

 

[eots]

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.

YOU CANT KEEP THE PENTAGON OR WTC STRAIGHT..AND THE COMMENT OF WINGS FOLDING BACK WAS FROM SOME BULLSHIT STATEMENT FROM A USA TODAY REPORTER POSTED BY ONE OF YOU FOOLS...FUCKING MORONS..DONT PRETEND...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs[/ame]

But if the same reporter had said that he saw a missile hit the Pentagon YOU would be quoting him, you fucking shit stain.

So what now you support the clown that says he says he saw the wings fold back and enter the hole all at 500 mph ?

 

[eots]

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.

YOU CANT KEEP THE PENTAGON OR WTC STRAIGHT..AND THE COMMENT OF WINGS FOLDING BACK WAS FROM SOME BULLSHIT STATEMENT FROM A USA TODAY REPORTER POSTED BY ONE OF YOU FOOLS...FUCKING MORONS..DONT PRETEND...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs[/ame]

But if the same reporter had said that he saw a missile hit the Pentagon YOU would be quoting him, you fucking shit stain.

So what now you support the clown that says he says he saw the wings fold back and enter the hole all at 500 mph ?

 

[eots]

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.

YOU CANT KEEP THE PENTAGON OR WTC STRAIGHT..AND THE COMMENT OF WINGS FOLDING BACK WAS FROM SOME BULLSHIT STATEMENT FROM A USA TODAY REPORTER POSTED BY ONE OF YOU FOOLS...FUCKING MORONS..DONT PRETEND...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs[/ame]

But if the same reporter had said that he saw a missile hit the Pentagon YOU would be quoting him, you fucking shit stain.

So what now you support the clown that says he says he saw the wings fold back and enter the hole all at 500 mph ?

 

[saiweril]

Ollie? Ever going to give us the story as you said you would when you got back home?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Once I actually wade through the tons of garbage that has cluttered up the searches for the official reports I want to see, I might do that. It is not a high priority to me right now.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M[/ame]

 

[saiweril]

Once I actually wade through the tons of garbage that has cluttered up the searches for the official reports I want to see, I might do that. It is not a high priority to me right now.

How can you be supporting the whole official story if you don't even know what it is?

Scenario:
Truthers: Flight 93 didn't crash
Skeptics: yes it did. prove it didn't
Truthers: the scene conflicts with the official story, such as this, this, this, etc
Skeptics: ah, er, well, I don't really know the official story, but it did crash.

See your problem?

 

[saiweril]

Some board members think most of a 155 foot jet buried deep in the ground...

and only left a 10 foot deep crater...

along with thinking that the relatively few pieces of debris left on the ground came from the cockpit that had broken off!

Coroner remembers Sept. 11 - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle. He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said. The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater.

Talk about

bump

 

[SFC Ollie]

Once I actually wade through the tons of garbage that has cluttered up the searches for the official reports I want to see, I might do that. It is not a high priority to me right now.

How can you be supporting the whole official story if you don't even know what it is?

Scenario:
Truthers: Flight 93 didn't crash
Skeptics: yes it did. prove it didn't
Truthers: the scene conflicts with the official story, such as this, this, this, etc
Skeptics: ah, er, well, I don't really know the official story, but it did crash.

See your problem?

No I don't, since the statement I and many others have made is that the 911 commissions report and other official reports got all the main points right. You are talking about where one piece of the puzzle was found and one persons comment to a reporter. Those are not main points. DUH!

 

[Patriot911]

bump

Let me ask you a question. You seem to be in complete disbelief that a plane flying into the ground could bury itself with the only visible parts being very small. What if it happened before? Or since? Would you believe it then? Or would you continue to claim it is all a lie simply because you can't believe it could happen?

 

[saiweril]

No I don't, since the statement I and many others have made is that the 911 commissions report and other official reports got all the main points right. You are talking about where one piece of the puzzle was found and one persons comment to a reporter. Those are not main points. DUH!

Refresh me on those main points.

 

[saiweril]

bump

Let me ask you a question. You seem to be in complete disbelief that a plane flying into the ground could bury itself with the only visible parts being very small. What if it happened before? Or since? Would you believe it then? Or would you continue to claim it is all a lie simply because you can't believe it could happen?

Not necessarily, but let's hear about this other crash that was similar cause I've searched around and never came across a crash similar to the make-believe Shanksville one.

 

[Patriot911]

bump

Let me ask you a question. You seem to be in complete disbelief that a plane flying into the ground could bury itself with the only visible parts being very small. What if it happened before? Or since? Would you believe it then? Or would you continue to claim it is all a lie simply because you can't believe it could happen?

Not necessarily, but let's hear about this other crash that was similar cause I've searched around and never came across a crash similar to the make-believe Shanksville one.

I see. So even if someone can show you a crash that in almost every way was identical to flight 93 you would continue your bullshit that it couldn't have happened. Wow.

 

[saiweril]

I see. So even if someone can show you a crash that in almost every way was identical to flight 93 you would continue your bullshit that it couldn't have happened. Wow.

Just because something "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did. Another crash could said to be exactly like another reported one. Doesn't mean they other one happened unless all the details were proven, not just written about.

So let's see your crash comparison to the make-believe Shanksville one. Let's at least establish they were indeed similar.

 

[Patriot911]

I see. So even if someone can show you a crash that in almost every way was identical to flight 93 you would continue your bullshit that it couldn't have happened. Wow.

Just because something "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did. Another crash could said to be exactly like another reported one. Doesn't mean they other one happened unless all the details were proven, not just written about.

So let's see your crash comparison to the make-believe Shanksville one. Let's at least establish they were indeed similar.

Well, I believe it will be a waste of time since you've already admitted you won't necessarily be swayed by evidence. Typical.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4]Flight 1771[/ame]

 

[saiweril]

Flight 1771

I see two glaring differences that doesn't make that crash similar.

1) I see no evidence that most of that plane got buried. You can see that there is TONS of debris strewn on the ground compared to the Shanksville scene which relatively few debris strewn across the ground and the reported reason for that is most of Flight 93 buried into the mushy ground there.

2) the one you posted didn't leave any wing scars in the ground.