"United 93" - 2006

[Bolo Boffin]

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

It's playing on the Cinemax channels. It's actually on something being called OMAX right this minute.

I'm going to check that it's on their On Demand after the movie is over.

ETA: OMAX turns out to mean Outer Max, and no, the movie wasn't on their On Demand list. But it will be running a couple of more times in the next few days.

[zappaman]

1. A really well-done movie.

But, ultimately, so sad.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. There are a couple of choices I don't agree with.

I don't think Jarrah was reluctant and I don't think the passengers got that far into the cockpit at the end.

But these are small things. You're right that it's really well done.

[KDLarsen]

4. Not to mention the 'German guy'..

I never got the point of that, showing the 'Old europe' guy as someone wanting to appease to the terrorists, especially as there was no evidence it ever happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Oh, yeah, that, too.

I didn't even remember that from my first viewing. He was fine for expressing the evident misunderstanding of this as a normal hijacking, but trying to give the revolt away was a trope this movie could have done without.

[applegrove]

3. I think that is the one that made me ball my eyes out. Those brave souls.

[antitsa]

6. LOL, how appropriate. The PA plane crash was Hollywood, wasn't it?! nt

[antitsa]

7. Love how the plane totally disintegrated, but one of the red bandanas wrapped around their heads...

survived totally unscathed.


"Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site"
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00111.html

[KDLarsen]

8. Nowhere does it state the bandana was worn...

In any case, airplane crashes are chaotic events, and it's fairly common for light debris such as paper etc. to be thrown clear with the initial explosion and then drift on the winds.

... oh why the hell do I bother presenting a logic explanation to a noplaner.

[antitsa]

9. So that red bandana, as depicted in the movie, didn't come from the plane? nt

[zappaman]

10. you may want to re-read his post.

nowhere does the poster say the bandana didn't come from the plane.
why are you misrepresenting his words?

[antitsa]

11. Then what difference if that red bandana was actually being worn or not?

Yet it still was from the plane? Not understanding his planer logic.

And sorry to get your knickers in a twist.

[zappaman]

12. You don't understand this statement?

"In any case, airplane crashes are chaotic events, and it's fairly common for light debris such as paper etc. to be thrown clear with the initial explosion and then drift on the winds."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Now, are you saying the bandana was planted?
And sorry, but my knickers are firmly un-twisted.

[antitsa]

13. I was talking about bandanas. He seems to be talking about stuff that can float in the wind. nt

[antitsa]

14. 44 people reduced to 8% of bits and pieces. One bandana survives 100% intact. Na, not planted. =P

[zappaman]

15. "Na, not planted"

I agree.

[BeFree]

16. I know =P

Some people don't. Yea, it probably was planted.

[zappaman]

17. "Yea, it probably was planted."

Thank you for the laugh.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Why would they plant a bandana? That makes no sense. n/t

[antitsa]

52. Same reason they introduced this as if they found it at one of the scenes.....

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Exhibit Number Description
FO08301 One box cutter

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/FO08301.html


It's to help PROPAGATE the official story that "hijackers" were on board the planes "wearing bandanas" and "waving boxcutters."

Kind of a no-brainer as to why they would stage the bandana.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. What?

You don't need ridiculous evidence planting expeditions at crash sites. The cell phone calls from the passengers of the hijacked flights would be enough.

[antitsa]

55. OK, armchair conspiracy planner. Glad your hindsight is 20/20. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. The assertion here is

The conspiracy planted a kerchief in order to frame 20, 19 of them dead, presumably innocent people.

But now we're being told that the presence of a kerchief is cause for doubting the story presumably based on the presence of a kerchief. In other words, the proof is a refutation of itself. That seems sort of tail-chasing.

[antitsa]

61. No, your view on this is too simplistic. I highlighted the pristine bandana because.....

it's the most obvious staged evidence of all the planted and staged pieces.

It's common sense to highlight the smoking gun that is giving off the most smoke.

[zappaman]

63. Except you have NO evidence it was planted

NONE.
It's common sense to believe something you have no evidence for?

[antitsa]

65. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. I suppose that explains why so many fans of CTs cling despite the absurdities & evidence

[antitsa]

72. I suppose that explains why so many fans of OSs cling despite the absurdities & evidence

[antitsa]

18. Just realized bandana wasn't planted, it was staged!

Planting involves placing an object at the scene, then pretending to "find" it and then bagging it.

The red bandana is photographed in a sealed bag against a white background indoors somewhere. Looks like they just brought it in to stage it for the photo shoot.

Would PERFECTLY explain its pristine condition. No knicks, cuts, tears, rips, fraying, burns, soiling, or blood stains. All the things you would expect if it came from a plane that had nose-dive crashed going almost 600 mph into the ground, exploding and disintegration into "mostly small pieces."

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. a few problems with this reasoning

(1) Why bother to plant or stage a red bandana at all?

(2) If the evidence is only credible if it has "nicks, cuts, tears, rips, fraying, burns, soiling, or blood stains," then why not supply some? It isn't as if all the other exhibits are in "pristine condition."

[antitsa]

23. Guess you're assuming conspirators don't make mistakes! nt

[zappaman]

24. Yes, that has to be it!

And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

[antitsa]

25. How many skulls of the 44 passengers were recovered? Four supposedly wrapped in red bandanas. nt

[zappaman]

26. Making things up certainly does not help your ridiculous argument.

Please link to the report that 4 skulls in red bandanas were recovered at Flight 93's crash site.
Take your time...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2002/09/08/2397001_p2/on-hallowed-ground.html
"But this is where they are. And this is where they will stay.

No bodies were recovered here, at least not as we normally think of bodies. In the cataclysmic violence of the crash, the people on Flight 93 literally disintegrated. Searchers found fragments of bones, small pieces of flesh, a hand. But no bodies.

In the grisly accounting of a jetliner crash, it comes down to pounds: The people on Flight 93 weighed a total of about 7,500 pounds. Miller supervised an intensive effort to gather their remains, some flung hundreds of yards. In the end, just 600 pounds of remains were collected; of these, 250 pounds could be identified by DNA testing and returned to the families of the passengers and crew."

[antitsa]

29. You misunderstood. Just stating 4 of 44 heads on board supposedly wrapped in bandanas

and supposedly one red bandana of assuming 4 red bandanas on the plane, wrapped around four heads, survived the violent fiery explosive crash perfectly intact. How many of the supposed 44 hardened skulls on board were found at the scene?

[zappaman]

32. questions for you

Can you tell me, from a scientific and/or engineering perspective, what happens when a plane is driven into the ground from a high altitude?

Do you know for sure that the cockpit or cabin does not get ripped apart prior to impact, from the shearing forces of the air going down, throwing the bandana outward, prior to impact with the ground? After all, we have no proof is was on someone's head-it could be on the cabin floor, right?

If such a thing happened, would it not be quite logical the the bandana would float downward and land on the ground?

No skulls were found and that really has nothing to do with the bandana.

[antitsa]

34. "No skulls were found." So no 44 skulls found, but 1 bandana survived PERFECTLY intact. Hmm

"Do you know for sure that the cockpit or cabin does not get ripped apart prior to impact, from the shearing forces of the air going down, throwing the bandana outward, prior to impact with the ground?"

A skeptic site seems to be sure:

The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally before impact. The plane’s roll angle corresponds to eyewitness reports:

Cabin pressure - NORMAL.
Hydraulics - NORMAL.
Cargo fire - NORMAL.
Smoke - NORMAL.
Engines - RUNNING.
Fuel pressure - NORMAL.
Engine vibration - LO.
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2


"After all, we have no proof (it) was on someone's head-it could be on the cabin floor, right?"

Why would that matter?! lol

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Yes, the evidence shows that nothing was malfunctioning on Flight 93

before it crashed. The only thing wrong was human-directed, the direction it was flying and the speed it was flying there.

But the evidence also shows that one hijacker was overcome in the back of the plane, a second outside the cockpit, and the last two hijackers were in the cockpit. The bandana could have come from the two outside the cockpit, lost in the struggle, or even left in carry-on luggage if either of the cockpit hijackers never put theirs on.

Small items survive airplane crashes all the time.

[antitsa]

45. Then you agree zappaman was wrong? Again, why matter where bandana was on plane?

and saying "Small items survive airplane crashes all the time." is a very simplistic answer. It's not so much that this red bandana that supposedly was on the plane that supposedly crashed and it survived, the bandana made it out PERFECTLY INTACT from an alleged plane crash that supposedly decimated the entire large plane and all of its reported 44 passengers.

That's were the implausibility starts skyrocketing.

Only those who live in a simplistic world see nothing wrong with it.

[zappaman]

49. Wrong about what?

Why would it have to be torn or burnt?
Not everything in the world happens the way YOU think it's supposed to happen. That is living in a simplistic world.
You do realize this, right?
Are you saying the crash was faked? Where are the passengers?

[antitsa]

54. Why a cloth bandana have to be torn or burnt from a 600 mph fiery obliterating plane crash? Really?

At least they tried to make the "recovered" passports and IDs from the alleged crash look realistic:


PA00101 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ID card recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00102 Saudi Arabian Youth Hostel Association ID for Ahmed A. A. Al-Nami recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00103.2 Passport sized photo recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00105.08 Page 37 and part of U.S. Visa page from Ziad Jarrah's Passport recovered at the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00108 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia passport for Saeed A A A Al Ghamdi recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00109 Business card of Assem Jarrah recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00110 Part of Ahmed A A Al Nami's Florida Driver's License recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


Now the impeccable Red Bandana!


PA00111 Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site

[zappaman]

64. by your "logic" some of those must be faked

because some aren't as damaged as others.

[antitsa]

66. spooked911 showed why all those IDs are fake......

Hijacker IDs recovered at a higher rate than passenger IDs

IDs reportedly found @ Shanksville-- 3 of the 4 (75%) hijackers, only 5 of the 40 (12.5%) passengers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=319456&mesg_id=319456


As spooked911 says, "funny how that works."

[zappaman]

67. How is that possible?

Did you know that a bunch of items survived the crash of space shuttle COLUMBIA in 2003?
It exploded and broke up at an altitude of 200,000 feet.
But somehow, a dish of worms used in an experiment survived intact.
Guess they must have planted it.
Your logic is what I would expect from a child.

[antitsa]

73. Pretty funny you insult me by calling my logic 'child-like' when you missed my point!

Maybe I should say your comprehension is what one would expect from a child?!

I'm not saying it's impossible cloth and papers survive a devastating plane crash, I'm saying it's extremely suspicious when a piece of cloth survives PERFECTLY INTACT when just about everything else didn't.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Only in positing that the cockpit broke up early.

Small, light items like this bandanna survive plane crashes intact all the time. If you feel it implausible, then you haven't looked at what survives plane crashes. It's very light, especially when you compare it to its surface area, even folded like this. If chance has it blown out the explosion free of the fire, then it's going to survive if it lands in a place where no fire lands.

It certainly is not implausible enough to give a lie to any of the other evidence of who hijacked and who crashed Flight 93.

[antitsa]

74. Perfectly intact from the worst of the worst kind of plane crashes when nothing else did?! nt

[KDLarsen]

36. And we're back at the start..

Namely: How do you know that the bandana that was recovered was worn at the moment of impact?

We know very little of the circumstances in which the bandana was found, so it's rather silly to begin making any blanket statements about it, let alone starting to guess how it entered the crash situation (as in, was it worn, was it lying in a carry-on bag, was it in a bag or suitcase in the hold?).

[antitsa]

39. And again, what would it matter where to bandana was on the plane that supposedly

crashed at almost 600 mph into a fiery explosive mess that supposedly disintegrated the entire plane, left no bodies or skulls and reduced the 44 passengers to only 8% of their total mass?!

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. no, I'm just pointing out problems with your reasoning

I never asserted that it is impossible that the bandana was planted. But if putting words in my mouth is your best answer, then you don't have much of a case.

[antitsa]

31. "I never asserted that it is impossible that the bandana was planted." Agreed! nt

[canetoad]

19. Seems a bit 'needy'

This sad clinging to the so-called heroics of the Flt.93 passengers. Films are not real life.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. "so-called heroics of the Flt.93 passengers"? Really?

With all the evidence for the attack on the cockpit by the passengers, whether you think it was shot down by the military or not, you think you can call their last act "so-called heroics"?

[antitsa]

22. I know. It's like the Jessica Lynch story. nt

[mrarundale]

28. If I'm going to watch fiction

I prefer it to have a little more artistic merit.

[antitsa]

30. I'm trying to decide which crater looked more ridiculous, the 'real' one, or one in movie! nt

[zappaman]

33. Do you know what the crater should have looked like?

Any other passenger jets ever fly straight into this type of ground at 500mph?

[antitsa]

35. You skeptics have brought up a couple of comparison high-speed crashes. NONE

NONE of those craters look ANYTHING like the cartoon crater at Shanksville!

Unless you think Wile E Coyote crashed in Shanksville. lol

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Obviously you've never seen the movie. The crater's not depicted. n/t

[antitsa]

40. You're right, I was thinking of that OTHER fictional Flight 93 movie.

You do agree the "real" crater is pretty cartoon-looking, yeah?

[zappaman]

41. No.

I don't.

[antitsa]

48. Of course you don't. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, I do not agree that the real crater is "cartoon-looking."

What other Flight 93 movie are you talking about?

[antitsa]

46. You've seen a plane crash crater like that before? One that also re-filled itself?!

The other movie I think was called "Flight 93." Here's the ending showcasing the cartoon-like crater:

At least in this fictional film they got the color of a real plane crash mushroom cloud right!

[Bolo Boffin]

70. I didn't see anything "cartoon-like" about that depiction of the crater.

How did you expect the crater to look, and why?

[antitsa]

75. You sidestepped my question......

You've seen a plane crash crater like that before? One that also re-filled itself?!

[Bolo Boffin]

76. As soon as I answer it, you'll answer mine, yes? n/t

[antitsa]

77. sure. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Where I've seen a crater like that before, that filled itself in.

The ValueJet crash into the Everglades. That water isn't six inches deep.

Now my question: What did you expect the crater to look like, and why did you expect it to look that way?

[antitsa]

79. You're comparing a SWAMP crash?!?!? ROFLMAO!!!! Stop with the silliness.

Let's try some Apples to Apples comparisons with other plane crashes into a dirt field, shall we?

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. a neat trick, to renege and move the goalposts in so few words

If you want to look at other plane crashes into dirt fields, go for it, and we can see how "Apples to Apples" they are. Meanwhile, Bolo answered your question, so we're about to learn something important about you.

[antitsa]

82. Only thing I'm guilty of is assuming he'd know how to compare apples & apples. nt

[zappaman]

81. What do you expect the crater to look like and why? n/t

[antitsa]

83. First I need to know how 93 supposedly crashed and what happened to it after.

I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at.

[zappaman]

85. Differing stories?

Why don't you go ahead and list them?
We can go from there.

[antitsa]

86. Just post the "official story."

Not going to waste time with one's that aren't relevant.

[zappaman]

87. What?

Your words..."I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at."
So, list them.
You're not doing the truth movement any favors by ducking and dodging every question.
YOU claim there are differing stories and can't list even ONE?

[antitsa]

88. Can't read?: "Not going to waste time with one's that aren't relevant."

There can be only ONE "official story." What is it?

[zappaman]

90. I can read fine and know a dodge when I see one.

"I'm not going to waste time telling you the stories I heard because that would back up the assertion I've heard MANY stories".
Wow, you really know how to back up your assertions.
Man, you are too funny!


BTW, you are really convincing loads of people to your position of what happened to flight 93.
Oh, wait...we don't know your position cuz you are not going to waste our time telling it.

Please stop now cuz my sides are hurting!!!

ETA:more laughter!

[Bolo Boffin]

92. "First I need" - sigh.

First what you needed was my answer about an airplane crater that filled itself in. I gave that after you promised to answer my question about the crater.

And now you're stalling again. Weak sauce.

[antitsa]

93. It's "weak sauce" to ask for the correct OS to know what goal post to shoot at?

Really? Seriously?

[Bolo Boffin]

95. It's weak sauce to promise to answer a question and then stall answering it. n/t

[antitsa]

97. What good would answering based on the wrong story?

I'm simply asking for the correct "official" way the plane supposedly crashed and what happened to it afterward.

You know, common sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. The question is how would YOU expect the crater to look and why.

Us specifying the story has no bearing on this. You are simply stalling.

[antitsa]

100. No I'm not. AGAIN, what good would if be if I based on a scenario

you OS believers will later say that's not how it happened?

I'm simply asking you how it supposedly happened, since I've heard varying explanations, so I know the correct goal post to aim for.

A very prudent question for me to ask.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. You've reneged on your promise.

We shall keep that in mind when speaking to you in the future.

[antitsa]

103. If you told me what the correct version is and then I refused, THEN you'd be correct.

Not sure why it's so difficult for you guys to understand this.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. If you had had further conditions for your answer, you should have stated them

at the start.

You reneged.

[antitsa]

105. If I knew you guys would throw such a hissy fit, I would have. Now...

you guys going to tell me the correct crash scenario so I know which goal post to aim at? Or are you going to keep whining?

[zappaman]

107. Hissy fit?

you words:.."I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at."
So, list them those differing stories.
Obviously, we haven't heard them.
Why can't you do that?
The time it took you to write the 6-7 responses crying like a little baby could have been spent telling us a few of these "differing stories".
You're not doing the so-called "truth movement" any favors by ducking and dodging every question.
YOU claim there are differing stories and can't list even ONE?
Oh my, if you are representative of the so-called "truth movement", one can see why it's dying.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Why would I do any such thing?

I'm happy to discuss these matters with anyone willing to discuss them, but that's the key: willing to discuss.

All I see you willing to do is drag things out and play silly games. Do as you like, antitsa.

[antitsa]

110. I'm willing to discuss too. As I've asked MULTIPLE times now, what is...

the CORRECT crash version so I know which goal post to aim at?

Pretty simple and prudent request.

Soon as you give me the correct version, I can proceed to answering your question.

Ball's in your court.

[William Seger]

127. This is really bizarre

In this thread (and the one you deleted), you seem to be asking other people to tell you what it is you don't believe.

[OnTheOtherHand]

128. "...to debunk the official story, one needs to know what the official story is, agreed?"

It's a concise example of how the notion of an "official story" can impede inquiry into what happened, or even what could have happened. Creative speculation? FTN.

antitsa won't be able to provide further explanations (or whatever) in this thread.

ETA: in case it wasn't obvious, I really liked this: "asking other people to tell you what it is you don't believe."

[greyl]

106. If this had been an authentic discussion, he would have.

Did you really expect to get something like "Oh, I now see where I was incorrect" in reply?

[zappaman]

99. weak sauce indeed

Your words..."I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at."
So, list them.
You're not doing the truth movement any favors by ducking and dodging every question.
YOU claim there are differing stories and can't list even ONE?
You can take your time...there's no rush.
C'mon, you can do it. What differing stories?

[T S Justly]

89. From a faked jetliner crash? Pretty much as depicted by the 9-11 hoaxers, lol. Their errors ...

Aren't known for their subtlety. Apparently, there's no theory too wacky for the "crazy Arabs
did it im series11! coz Bush henchmen and DINOs say they did it brigade". Fucking unreal.

[zappaman]

91. Yes, it is fuckin unreal

what happened to flight 93?
Please, if you could be so kind, to enlighten us all?

[antitsa]

94. It didn't crash in Shanksville. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Wait, what?

A couple of ways to take that statement, antitsa.

1. It didn't crash: the government shot it down.

2. It didn't crash: the site was faked and Flight 93 was flown someplace else where the passengers were disposed of.

Which one are you talking about? If you don't see your option there, please let us in on the details.

[zappaman]

101. still waiting

Tell us what happened please.

[zappaman]

109. Guess it was just another drive-by post to smear DUers, eh?

Keep digging, TS, you're almost there! LOL!

[T S Justly]

111. Lol, the irony! (nt)

[zappaman]

112. Guess we will just have to keep waiting, eh TS? LOL!

Maybe you could spend less time creating threads smearing DUers and a little more time answering questions or backing up claims.
Nah, easier to smear, eh TS?

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. that's pretty much the opposite of the usual complaint

which is not that it looks too much like a cutout of a plane, but that it doesn't look enough like a cutout of a plane.

I can't say that either assertion seems very well thought out.

[antitsa]

47. Never heard that argument. You making things up? nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. nope

Here is one of spooked911's versions.

http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/2008/02/whered-fuselage-go.html

Even if we assume the whole plane both blew up into tiny pieces or burrowed into the ground (as the official story holds), the fuselage would have had to have make some sort of crater in the ground where it hit. But there is nothing there where the fuselage should have hit.

This crater is bogus.

I guess They just forgot to dig a hole for the fuselage?

Part of another version by a different writer:

http://larrysownblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/flight-93-hoax/
...However, if the plane was in fact right-side up as it impacted, why a) is the government lying about it, and b) what made the “tail” scar on the northern edge of the crater???

I don’t know exactly what happened at this crash scene.

I strongly suspect the crater was made artificially, to make it LOOK as though an airplane crashed there, and then plane debris was strewn around the site. Perhaps a bomb or projectile of some sort was used to create the damage.

In any case, the important point is that: THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS A LIE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

Why did They go to such lengths to make an obviously fake crater? I guess this guy Larry isn't in the explaining business.

[antitsa]

56. Oh thanks! More proof the crash is bogus. Appreciate it! : )

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. remarkable

So you went from thinking I was inventing the argument, to accepting it wholesale, just like that?

You can imagine how that looks to me, yes?

[antitsa]

59. That it looks like I'm not closed minded? ; ) nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I know how it looks from here.

Not well. Not well, at all.

[antitsa]

62. Oh wow, is that your best comeback?! ROFLMAO!!!! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

71. This group is not about "comebacks."

It's about discussing the issues. Let's remember that, shall we?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. What a silly comment.

I don't agree at all with the heinous plots of The Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, but that doesn't mean those two pictures don't have artistic merit.

Taken as a movie, United 93 is a very potent examination of how people compartmentalize information, how systems and people can be rendered useless without enough information, and how on gaining enough correct information, most people will act. This need of people to smear every single part of something they don't agree with is just pathetic.

[T S Justly]

84. The Creative Speculation group/forum is the perfect place for this crap. (nt)

[antitsa]

113. Can someone tell me how Flight 93 supposedly crashed?

And what happened to it afterward?

[antitsa]

114. anyone? nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. I don't understand the question

Were you looking for the NTSB report? (I guess I should say, were you requesting that someone find that for you?) Or, what?

[antitsa]

116. Your snide remark aside, didn't see in there where is described how it crashed

or what happened to the plane afterward. This is what I want to know.

If you are going to say the FDR does say how the plane came in, 1) at best it only answers half my question, 2) I don't know how to decipher the data, so you'd have to for me. Thanks.

[antitsa]

117. anyone? nt

[antitsa]

118. So far we got how it supposedly was when it touched the ground

From approximately 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.

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=478665

Which part of the plane contacted the ground first?

What happened after it touched the ground?

[zappaman]

119. after it "touched" the ground...

or as I like to say "smashed into the ground at 500 mph", people came and dug pieces out of the earth.
Also, please don't troll Bolo's thead.
Thanks.

[jberryhill]

120. Déjà vu

[dixiegrrrrl]

121. Haven't we just danced this one before?

[zappaman]

122. I'm starting to wonder if this poster is serious...

Hmmmm....what was a "troll" again?

[dixiegrrrrl]

123. hmm...

I think we will let MIRT decide that, shall we?

[jberryhill]

124. Is this your subthread?

[dixiegrrrrl]

125. " I paid for this microphone!!"