Question about Shanksville crash

[CurveLight]

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:


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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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...

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]

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."

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]

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.

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...

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.

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]

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...

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

oh, another error
that says no GROUNDWATER contamination

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

still referring to GROUNDWATER

 

[CurveLight]

oh, another error
that says no GROUNDWATER contamination

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

still referring to GROUNDWATER

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel..."

 

[Liability]

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

still referring to GROUNDWATER

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel..."

"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]

still referring to GROUNDWATER

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel..."

"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.

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]

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]

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel..."

"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.

Thank you for pointing out they did not find soil contaminated with jet fuel.

It's rather amusing how [Liability] is ignoring everything else and hoping if he makes some jabs people will forget he has presented contradictory evidence he refuses to address.

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]

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?

How many walls did 77 go through?

 

[CurveLight]

"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.

Thank you for pointing out they did not find soil contaminated with jet fuel.

It's rather amusing how [Liability] is ignoring everything else and hoping if he makes some jabs people will forget he has presented contradictory evidence he refuses to address.

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?

Lol....I can't even fake caring what you think Snitch Bitch....see ya...

 

[Liability]

Thank you for pointing out they did not find soil contaminated with jet fuel.

It's rather amusing how [Liability] is ignoring everything else and hoping if he makes some jabs people will forget he has presented contradictory evidence he refuses to address.

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?

Lol....I can't even fake caring what you think * * * ....see ya...

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.