How did United 93 supposedly crash?

[antitsa]

The plane supposedly came in like this:

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.

Which part of the plane contacted the ground first?

What happened to the plane after it made contact with the ground?


Looking for serious and non-vague answers, please.

[zappaman]

1. "looking for serious and non-vague answers, please. "

You're looking for non-vague answers to vague questions.
Too funny.
"What happened to the plane after it made contact with the ground?"
After shattering into many many pieces, the pieces were picked up. That's what happened to the plane.

"Which part of the plane contacted the ground first?"
I am not aware of anyone who saw or videotaped it's impact so I guess we'll never be 100% sure "Which part of the plane contacted the ground first".
Who cares what part of the plane impacted micro-seconds before other parts of the plane?
What difference would that make?

Now, here's where you reply that this is your thread.

[zappaman]

2. Oh, and can you explain what you mean by "supposedly crash"?

That would help further our discussion.
Thanks!

[zappaman]

4. who's there?

[jberryhill]

5. Donna

[zappaman]

6. hmmmmm....Donna who?

[jberryhill]

7. Donna Troll My Thread

[zappaman]

8. Got me! n/t

[antitsa]

9. Which part of the plane contacted the ground first? nt

[zappaman]

10. The part made of aluminum.

Hope that answers your question.
Time to move on?

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. if what you quoted doesn't answer this question, why would you ask us?

Even if one of us were an eyewitness, we might still have a hard time answering this question.

You seem to assume that somewhere out there is an "official story" that supplies an answer to every question. Why should there be?

[antitsa]

12. There was an investigation for this incident by the FBI

with help of the NTSB and other experts. Why shouldn't there be answers to my questions?

I've heard different explanations. I just wanted to know which one is the "correct" one.

[zappaman]

13. Again with the "I've heard different explanations"

Like what?
Simple question.
And didn't I tell you what part of the plane hit first before being followed by the rest of the plane within micro-seconds?

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. how would someone determine what part of the plane hit first?

You don't seem to think that a plane hit at all, so maybe asking you to think about your questions as if you wanted to know actual answers is an empty exercise.

[antitsa]

15. I've heard the nose hit first, or the wingtip did. Which was it?

There was FDR data and experts assessing the scene. Shouldn't be too hard to determine what part of the plane supposedly hit first.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. if you don't think it's hard, then why don't you do it?

And, by the way, do you think the FBI would be focused on determining whether the nose or the wingtip hit first? If so, why?

[antitsa]

18. Because I don't believe what supposedly happened there (plane crashed)

and I don't want to waste my time debunking the incorrect official story.

What can I say, I've heard two version of what hit first (nose or wingtip) and if you look at NTSB crash reports, they try to determine this kinds of details you don't seem to think is important, or maybe you're afraid of the devil in the details?

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. yikes

Have you demonstrated that there is an "official story" about whether the nose or the wingtip crashed first?

If you've already decided that a plane didn't crash there, you obviously don't care whether the nose or wingtip crashed first, since in your view neither one did. So, I guess you might as well debunk them both. You must think you already have, right?

Why do you suppose the NTSB even does accident reports? There's a big hint in the mission statement on the NTSB home page: "Charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety...." Given that charge, do you suppose that the NTSB was deeply concerned with establishing whether the nose or the wingtip crashed first? If so, why?

[antitsa]

28. Don't you want people like me to believe the OS? Isn't that why UR here? nt

[zappaman]

31. "People like me"

What kind of person is that?
A person who refuses to answer questions posed to him?
What we would like you to do is explain a few things that need explaining if you believe a plane did not crash in Shanksville, PA...

Start by debunking the evidence.
http://www.unitedflight93.com/

Then you can tell us what really happened and back it up.

I expect neither from you, but what the hell, it's worth a try.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. no, I want people like you to care about what happened

I couldn't care less whether what you believe corresponds with "the official story"; I just think we all should try to make sense.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that sometimes there is more than one "official story," and sometimes there isn't an official story.

[William Seger]

24. Yeah, we'd hate to have you wasting your time

[antitsa]

27. If you don't have anything constructive to post, please stay off. Thanks. nt

[zappaman]

30. Who are you to tell someone to stay off a thread? Thanks. nt

[William Seger]

35. You're the one who seems to have nothing constructive to add

You made it clear many posts ago that: A) you intend to simply deny any story about UA93 crashing into that field; B) denials are all you have; and C) you consider your own incredulity to be "smoking gun" evidence. And then you expect to be taken seriously? I doubt it.

[antitsa]

36. Then why are you posting in this thread?

No one is forcing you.

[William Seger]

37. Just to annoy you

Turn-about is fair play, eh?

[zappaman]

20. this is a fun game! n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. meh

As far as I know, unless antitsa has evidence to the contrary, we're discussing the deaths of over 40 people. Sometimes the twists in the discussion amuse me, but all in all, I don't see much fun in it.

[zappaman]

26. I should have used this...

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. sorry, nothing personal

Sometimes people seem to fancy themselves as one of the Three Musketeers, bravely -- and wittily! -- jousting against the Official Story malefactors. I wish I could find a way to snap them out of it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. It went nose down

[antitsa]

19. You saying its nose hit first? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Here's a thought.

Why don't you cut to the chase?

You've heard all these different scenarios, right? Well, list them out. Then tell us what you think of them one by one. And then this whatever it is you are doing can be over.

[zappaman]

22. I've repeatedly asked for these "alternative theories"

I guess the poster doesn't want to tell anyone.

[antitsa]

29. Why don't you guy's cut to the chase and post how it 'crashed'? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Because no one here is into playing your game.

If you want to discuss this issue, start discussing it.

[antitsa]

34. Trying to find the correct OS in order to debunk it is playing games?

Wierd.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. You have been provided a link to the official NTSB report

I don't know how much more "OS" it can get than that. And yet here you are, still pretending you don't know what you're on about.

List out all of the OS's you've heard and then debunk them. No one is stopping you.

[antitsa]

42. If you don't know the entire OS, just say so. No shame in that. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Please stop playing your silly games. n/t

[antitsa]

48. If I'm playing 'silly games', then why are you still posting here?

No one is forcing you to participate.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. You would get a lot better response from posters here by stopping the silly games.

I'm trying to help make this group a place for better discussion. Silly games isn't a part of that.

No one is forcing you to act the way you're acting. You could just list out the various scenarios of the demise of United 93 and give us your take on them, instead of this drawn-out game you're playing. Why don't you have a discussion rather than this?

[William Seger]

41. NTSB: "40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude"

That description fits the fairly clean plane-shaped crater. The wing-first impact and "cartwheel" that coroner Wally Miller says was explained to him by some unidentified person does not fit the FDR data or the clean look of the crater. Wally Miller is not an NTSB investigator, and I dare say you will not find any "official story" about the wing hitting first.

The nose hit first; many pieces were scattered over a wide area above ground, but most of the debris went into that soft dirt. Now stop wasting everyone's time and get to debunkin'. I can hardly wait.

[antitsa]

43. Stop wasting time? You guys took forever to give me an OS!!!

Quite the oxymoron statement by you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. quite the malarkey by you

The NTSB report is official, but good luck convincing anyone that it took other people forever to give you that (as if anyone should have had to give it to you, anyway).

Apparently you think that people sat around thinking up "official story" answers to questions that Truth Movement aficionados were likely to ask. Have you ever considered the possibility that that isn't true? Or does your 'skepticism' only swing one way?

[antitsa]

49. NTSB only gave half the story.

"Have you ever considered the possibility that that isn't true?"

Huh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. "Huh?"

Yeah, it's been that kind of "conversation."

[antitsa]

44. Glad you agree the wing-first impact/'cartwheel' story is nonsense, but...

if that is what officials are going with, what will you think then?

You guys should probably call Wally Miller and ask him who explained it to him.


As to what you think is the OS:

"The nose hit first; many pieces were scattered over a wide area above ground, but most of the debris went into that soft dirt."

Which of the plane was the above ground pieces from? Miller says the explanation was the front end of the plane, the section you think hit the soft dirt first at the reported 580 mph. I hope you agree too that explanation is ridiculous.

[William Seger]

46. Well, see, this is exactly why nobody wants to play...

... your stupid "official story" game, when you're just going to start with the assumption that UA 93 didn't crash in that field, regardless of the details or the source of the details, but all you've got are denials and personal incredulity. I told you why I don't believe Miller is correct, but his is not the "official story" anyway, so who cares what someone told him. I have no idea what specific pieces of the plane were above ground except for that identifiable fuselage piece with windows. Other than that, all the pictures I've seen were mostly pieces too small to identify or pieces I wouldn't recognize. If you think it matters, you might ask some of the 1100 or so people who participated in the clean-up, but I wasn't one of them nor do I see any reason to speculate. But since you've already announced that evidence plays no actual part in your conclusions, there's nothing to be gained by arguing about the evidence or the details with you, much less doing your research for you.

It appears that you don't quite grasp the concept of "debunking." You're supposed to pick a claim that you think is not true and try to refute it with either contradictory evidence or at least a rational argument. If you can't do that, then you should have let this thread die rather than embarrassing yourself further.

[antitsa]

50. Oh, but you assuming the plane DID crash is so much better! lol

"stupid "official story" game"
Yeah, who cares if the official story adds up. Let's just blindly believe it.

"all you've got are denials and personal incredulity"
Apparently I'm not the only one.


How about we start over by you answering this question you ignored:

Glad you agree the wing-first impact/'cartwheel' story is nonsense, but...
if that is what officials are going with, what will you think then?

[zappaman]

52. uh huh

Still waiting for you to debunk the evidence of a plane crash.
See post #31 for a link.
Yes, your games are wearisome and if you haven't noticed, you pretty much are the only one in this thread with "denials and personal incredulity". Neither of which debunk the evidence of a plane crash.
When do you intend of debunking the "assumption" of a plane crash?
Shouldn't be difficult if it's just an "assumption"...

[William Seger]

54. You shouldn't use words you don't understand

If the radar track of UA 93 shows it went down near Shanksville,

and several eyewitnesses saw it going down toward that crater,

and UA 93's FDR and cockpit recorder were found in that plane-shaped crater,

and the DNA of passengers known to be on UA 93 was also found in and around that crater...

then I conclude -- not "assume" -- that UA 93 crashed into that crater.

You, on the other hand, are asking us to assume that that's not what happened, and therefore conclude that all the evidence that says that's what happened must have been faked. And, or course, we must then conclude that literally hundreds of people -- mostly ordinary citizens -- were recruited into covering up the hoax. And, although you can't come up with anything resembling a rational reason why the alleged conspiracy perps would have attempted this elaborate and incredibly risky hoax, we can safely conclude that they must have had some reason, since that's what they did?

Are you really as perplexed as you seem to be that people would ask you support that outrageously implausible contention with something more than denials and personal incredulity? You'll have to take my word for this: This is not how rational people attempt to figure out what happened.

> Glad you agree the wing-first impact/'cartwheel' story is nonsense, but...
if that is what officials are going with, what will you think then?

I'm not sure why I should have to repeat myself, but I already explained to you why I don't think that hypothesis is likely: Because that's not what the FDR shows, and because a plane-shaped crater would be plausible if the plane was inverted and hit nose first, but not likely if was banked at 90 degrees and hit at a shallow enough angle to hit the wing first. And it shouldn't need repeating that the NTSB report is the "official story" about how the plane hit the ground. If you can ask "if that is what officials are going with, what will you think then," without saying who these "officials" are or why they are "going with that" or why you think it matters, then I rest my case that you simply have no idea how rational people think.

[antitsa]

59. "plane-shaped crater" ROFL. Can you show me another "plane-shaped crater" in a field?!

One not in the cartoons?!

Radar. lol. There were many phantom blips on the radar that day, many from the WAR GAMES going on that morning. Remember? Also why didn't the control tower at Johnstown see this 757 when they tried to physical spot it with binoculars? Logical answer: phantom blip, just like the many that morning during the WAR GAMES.

Why did all the few witnesses contradict the official crash angle; 90 degrees vs. 40 degrees? Why did so many witnesses report a small white aircraft BEFORE the "crash" and reported an aircraft flying over Indian Lake immediately after, a trajectory the official one flew over?

DNA. lol. Not a single drop of blood at the scene reported by the coroner, so DNA from all 44 passengers, but no blood. Yeah, right. Kills me how much weight you put behind alleged DNA evidence, the easiest for govt conspirators to make up.

How did a 155 foot plane buried, yet leaves a crater only 8-10 ft deep?

[William Seger]

62. You promised "debunking" and all you've got is "ROFL"?

> Can you show me another "plane-shaped crater" in a field?!

Um, no, that's not how this "debunking" stuff works. You're the one who claims to be able to refute the "official story," so you're the one tasked with show-and-tell. Show me another 757 that crashed at over 500 MPH nose-first into a reclaimed strip mine and didn't make a plane-shaped crater, or give me logical reason why a 757 crashing at over 500 MPH nose-first into a reclaimed strip mine shouldn't make a plane-shaped crater. Your personal incredulity is not even interesting.

> Radar. lol. There were many phantom blips on the radar that day, many from the WAR GAMES going on that morning. Remember?

Irrelevant, even if it were true (and it's not, for FAA screens), because the flight path shown in the NTSB report is from recorded radar data, not from what people saw or didn't see on their screens that day.

> Also why didn't the control tower at Johnstown see this 757 when they tried to physical spot it with binoculars?

Um, maybe they weren't looking in the right place?

> Why did all the few witnesses contradict the official crash angle; 90 degrees vs. 40 degrees?

You're confused: One witness reported seeing UA 93 flying overhead and banking at 90 degrees, but no witnesses saw the final crash. The FDR data shows that it was inverted, 180 degrees, when it crashed. The 40 degrees is the nose-down angle of impact. Since the plane would necessarily be banked at 90 degrees on its way to being inverted 180 degrees, there is no contradiction.

> Why did so many witnesses report a small white aircraft BEFORE the "crash" and reported an aircraft flying over Indian Lake immediately after, a trajectory the official one flew over?

My first hunch would be that there was a small white aircraft in the area before the crash, but it's also possible for witnesses to simply be mistaken. Turns out, in this case it was the former; there was a small personal jet in the area and it circled back over the crash site.

> DNA. lol. Not a single drop of blood at the scene reported by the coroner, so DNA from all 44 passengers, but no blood. Yeah, right. Kills me how much weight you put behind alleged DNA evidence, the easiest for govt conspirators to make up.

"Not a single drop of blood" but lots of human flesh. You continue a pattern of willful ignorance of the facts. It kills me how much weight you put on simply declaring that all the evidence was faked, without a shadow of a reason.

> How did a 155 foot plane buried, yet leaves a crater only 8-10 ft deep?

Because it plowed into the loosely packed dirt of a reclaimed strip mine. I'm sure you knew that would be the answer, but once again your personal incredulity is not even interesting.

I'm not sure why you bothered posting this, really.

[antitsa]

63. 155 ft plane buries into 'loosely packed dirt' & only leaves 10 ft deep crater?

How in the world does THAT happen?!?!

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. I think "buries" is part of your problem

You're aware that (According to the Official Story^TM) the plane wasn't exactly found in one piece, right?

[antitsa]

65. Yeah. What's your point? It was still mostly found underground*, right?

*According to the Official StoryTM

[William Seger]

67. What's YOUR point? You have given no reason whatsoever...

... for why that shouldn't be expected when a 757 plows into a reclaimed strip mine at over 500 MPH. None. Nor will you ever be able to, because it's simply not implausible. You've already confessed to starting with the assumption that UA93 didn't crash there, leading to your "conclusion" that all the evidence that proves it did must be fake, and now -- as predicted -- you think your own denials are reason enough to believe such an outrageously implausible scenario as a faked UA 93 crash.

Not even close.

[antitsa]

70. Because if you look at the scene, there's a shallow crater, not a deep hole.

And the amount of debris lying in the crater looks like the amount if only a very small plane crashed there. Certainly nothing even remotely close to the reported 95% of the plane being recovered.

Should be obvious as day that the official story is a bunch of hooey.

[William Seger]

73. And you still have given no reason whatsoever...

... for why that shouldn't be expected when a 757 plows into a reclaimed strip mine at over 500 MPH. None. "Should be obvious as day" is certainly not a reason. Incredulity on the part of someone who admits that he starts with the assumption that UA 93 didn't crash there (and announced his intent to deny any evidence that it did) is certainly not a reason.

You believe highly implausible things for no good reason.

[antitsa]

76. I did; two reasons. Please re-read. nt

[William Seger]

78. No, those are not "reasons"

"... for why that shouldn't be expected when a 757 plows into a reclaimed strip mine at over 500 MPH."

> Because if you look at the scene, there's a shallow crater, not a deep hole.
> And the amount of debris lying in the crater looks like the amount if only a very small plane crashed there.

Offering those as "reasons" amounts to saying that what we see at the crash site is not what we should expect, because we should expect to see something different. A.k.a. begging the question.

As predicted, after promising us "debunking" all you've got is denials and personal incredulity, despite the fact that both of your "reasons" can be explained by the loosely-packed dirt in that reclaimed strip mine.

[antitsa]

82. Can you please elaborate about this 'loosely-packed dirt' nonsense? nt

[William Seger]

85. Game over (n/t)

[antitsa]

87. Yes, game over on the ludicrous 'loose dirt' theory

Unless you actually think it's possible:

1) to fill a 50 foot deep, hundreds of yards across mined pit by having trucks back up to the edge and dump the reclaimed soil into it.

2) the trucks, diggers, and people doing the so-called "crash" investigation didn't get stuck in this "loose dirt"

3) a nearly 600 mph 155 foot Boeing 757 can crash into this "loose dirt" at a 40 degree angle and just push a little of this "loose dirt" off to the side

4) the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrates when hitting this "loose soil" where hardly much looks to be left, but amazing the FBI is able to somehow recovered about 95% of the plane, especially amazing when maybe 5% of a 757 looks to be left!

As you said, GAME OVER!

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. how deep should the crater have been?

If you had an intelligible argument about this, at least we could assess your evidence for it and see if we agree with it. But all you bring is "ROFL" and "lol."

[antitsa]

71. How deep did they say the plane buried?

And as to your second part, funny how you never said anything about some posters on your side who were doing nothing but trolling. Biased are we?

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. oh, brother

Here we go again. You're asking us to tell you what The Official Story is, so you can tell us why you don't believe in It? Wouldn't it make sense to find out what The Official Story is before forming an opinion about It?

I'm criticizing your resort to "ROFL" and "lol" not because it is trolling -- I'll let others make that judgment -- but because it fails to support your position. Why complain about the behavior of other posters instead of, y'know, supporting your position?

[antitsa]

75. Yes. How deep did they say the plane buried? nt

[zappaman]

77. How deep did who say what plane was buried? n/t

[zappaman]

74. Who is "they"?

Who on OTOH's "side" is trolling?
To use your idea of an argument...Can you tell me what happened so I can say I don't believe it?

[cpwm17]

55. Seventeen posts on this thread and you've written absolutely nothing

That has to be an all time record on DU.

You've heard this, you've heard that, you make demands; but nowhere have you written anything productive.

[zappaman]

57. Give credit where credit is due.

There are waaaay more than 17 posts with this nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11351988

[zappaman]

33. see post #31. thanks. nt

[ryan_cats]

56. I'm not sure but

I'm not sure but, I think it collided with the ground. God rest their souls.

[antitsa]

60. Supposedly went UNDERground. Pure fantasy.

Can't believe the public is so gullible to buy that absurdity.

[ryan_cats]

79. Knock off the BS and get to the point???

Knock off the BS and get to the point???

What is your theory? You write and act like a teenager; you think you've got people trapped by their own words but you don't because you don't understand logic or rhetoric.

Get on with it, what do YOU think happened?

[zappaman]

80. Ha!

Good luck getting a reply to a direct question like that.
Here's how it works...
YOU supply the story of what happened so he can tell you it's wrong.
Duh.

[ryan_cats]

81. You're right, but I had to try; plus for newcomers to the thread...

You're right, but I had to try; plus for newcomers to the thread, they'll see the original post and the calm, well reasoned and fact filled responses and make up their minds.

I would like to know the poster's TOE (theory of everything) since if he doesn't believe flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, I'm dying to hear the rest of his theory and the all important question, does it include dancing Jews?

[antitsa]

83. My theory? The crash there is 'pure fantasy.'

My position should have been obvious, but whatever.

[zappaman]

84. That's not a theory.

If the crash was "pure fantasy", where did the plane go?
And if it was "pure fantasy", go ahead and make that case.
It wasn't obvious to anyone since you have not even attempted to make that case.
Have at it!
I look forward to it!

[ryan_cats]

86. Then what do you think really happened or are you going to continue playing childish games?

Then what do you think really happened or are you going to continue playing childish games?

[antitsa]

88. If I'm playing 'childish games', why are you responding?

But what do I think really happened? They faked a plane crash there and you guys bought it hook, line, and sinker.

[zappaman]

89. "They faked a plane crash there"

Can you attempt to explain how this was done and the evidence that supports this claim?

[ryan_cats]

90. You have several options here.

You have several options here some ideas taken from thread; none of these ideas are my ideas.
1) Real plane crash brought down when passengers fought back. Everyone dies. DNA evidence real. NTSB evidence is real.

2) Real plane crash where the hijackers brought it down. Everyone dies. DNA evidence real. NTSB evidence is real.

3) Real plane crash shot down by military (I thought this was where you were going). Everyone dies, even the fighter pilot to keep the secret. DNA evidence real. NTSB evidence is real.

4) Real plane crash, empty remote control plane, passengers taken out, given new identities. DNA evidence faked. NTSB evidence is real.

5) Real plane crash, empty remote control plane, passengers taken out, told they are to be given new identities but are then killed. DNA evidence real. NTSB evidence is real.

6) Fake plane crash where a salvaged plan's parts are buried to be dug up to support theory #1. Passengers taken out, told they are to be given new identities but are then killed. DNA evidence real. NTSB evidence is real.

7) Fake plane crash. NTSB completely fakes everything and the passengers and hijackers never existed in the first place except for the actors who played their parents and relatives when they listened to the supposed cockpit recording.

As I was writing this, I thought halfway through that it would be better to start with the smallest number of people needed to keep this a secret and have that number expand as you went down the list but I don't care enough.

Your theory please.

[antitsa]

91. Which one's will you except to convince you the scene was staged?

Otherwise this just your doing to waste everyone's time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. what about which one is true?

If you aren't trying to figure out what actually happened, then I suppose it's a waste of time to ask you about it. But if that's the case, then you really can't blame anyone else for that. And if it isn't the case, then I have no idea what you're complaining about.

[ryan_cats]

94. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word, Irony?

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word, Irony?

[antitsa]

95. If I'm wasting everyone's time, why r u responding to me? nt

[zappaman]

97. Cuz it's fun to watch you twist and avoid direct questions

while saying absolutely nothing!
Plus, you've had your ass handed to you numerous times and that's also funny!

[ThomThom]

58. I'm still wondering how one of the engines ended up on that garage or

carport some distance away. Did it bounce? Why would it fall off before impact? Was the plane taken out by a missile? I never heard.

[antitsa]

61. I think a seat cushion supposedly did. So plane buries, seat cushion lands on roof.

Can't believe there are still people who buy the official story!

[ThomThom]

66. No, I saw a picture of a jet engine on a garage

or carport the day after on line, from a local paper I think.

[antitsa]

69. See if you can find this pic. nt

[Politicalboi]

118. Seat cushion?

Where are there ANY pictures of seats? 4 planes 800 seats, and not one in ANY picture of the day. In New York there should have been some in the streets either empty or occupied sections. And the hole in the ground in Pa was there in 1992. The same land mark. I don't have the picture anymore, but it is out there. And if you notice the video around flight 93 that the workers in white suits are working around the "crash" site in knee high grass, but no fires. The same type of "hot" fire that took down steel and concrete in New York couldn't burn grass. I can't believe people still buy the official story either.

Here's a video that opened my eyes more.

&context=C48fbafcADvjVQa1PpcFMAk40b11YJ9Ht0pJBSZlvY-SqE1l3m-9A=

At the 43 second mark pause the video. Close the window in the right corner. Now click your mouse very fast as to play, pause the video. As the object appears in the video, what do you see before it hits the building? You have to catch it before it hits. If this "theory" is correct, it would explain a lot. I never dreamed I would go here with this, but this video can't be ignored, and neither can the missing seats, or the flash before the impact. But since all has been ignored, it just makes ya want to give up.

[zappaman]

119. Yes, what happened to the seats?

[antitsa]

92. So if I got this right, practically all the 757 was located...

under this shallow crater where the man is standing?


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200059.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200058.html

Do I got that right?

[antitsa]

96. Well debunkers, do I got what supposedly happened right? nt

[zappaman]

98. Looks like everyone got tired of playing your game.

But I'm still here!!!!

[antitsa]

99. Looks like debunkers want to stay clear of affirming the details

of this alleged "plane crash" and I don't blame them because I wouldn't want to be on the side of having to defense such nonsense of a story when you really look at what supposedly happened.

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. speaking of which, when will you "really look at what supposedly happened"?

For instance, you could link to some statements by people who were there, and tell us which ones you think are lying and why.

As it stands, you're the only one telling a story, so if the story is nonsense, you have only yourself to blame. It's like beating yourself at checkers.

[antitsa]

102. When u answer: Do I have it right, much of the plane was under the crater?

according to the official story, of course.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. "under the crater"?

Dude, why are you asking me to do your research for you? Why would you trust me, anyway?

[antitsa]

106. No, just looking for confirmation that's what supposedly happened

and seeing if you debunkers really believe that part of the story.

So is it what supposedly happened and do you believe that happened?

A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. LOL

I've heard of invincible ignorance, but I don't know what to call this.

Week after week, your stated position amounts to this: you don't know what the official story is, but whatever it is, you don't believe it. It's like a little case study in how the "Truth Movement" inspires so much derision.

[zappaman]

110. more like

"tell me what the official story is so I can tell you I don't believe it".
I've never seen anything like it either.
would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. yeah, more like that

I can sort of imagine what it is like to know from first principles that you don't believe something, and therefore not really have to know the specifics of what it is. That's how most creationists relate to evolution, I suppose: whatever the theory is, it's wrong, so it's perfectly reasonable not to try to figure it out -- just to ask questions and express incredulity about the answers. Even if the incredulity is misdirected in detail ("So, you seriously think you are descended from a monkey?" "Uh, no....&quot , it's somehow on the Right Side.

But it makes me really uncomfortable. Sometimes I participate in these discussions because I learn interesting facts, but that isn't likely to happen in a thread like this. All I can learn from a discussion like this is that sometimes discussion is impossible.

Oh, wait. Maybe it's time to go outside. (But I think I'll wait for the sun to rise.)

[antitsa]

111. I got it, you don't want to have to confirm the details. I don't blame you.

The more you look into what supposedly happened there, the more of a joke the story is.

I see it's in you govt loyalists best interest to keep the story as vague as possible. That's your only chance.

[William Seger]

113. From post #41...

> The nose hit first; many pieces were scattered over a wide area above ground, but most of the debris went into that soft dirt. Now stop wasting everyone's time and get to debunkin'. I can hardly wait.

Nearly two months later you've got nothing but the same silly games. What a surprise.

[antitsa]

116. Oh THAT'S what you meant. So 'most of the debris' was under that crater.

I thought because some were saying the front end of the plane somehow broke off and went into the forest that you were saying the rest of the plane hit the field of "soft dirt" where that ridiculous crater is.

This is why I am asking questions and trying to figure out the correct official story cause parts of it are so unbelievable!

Got another question then, how do you get a crater and most of the plane under it? How does that happen?


And can you stop with the "silly games" BS. It's so trollish and hypocritical for you guys to say.

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. no, really, think about this

Suppose it's true that I don't want to have to confirm the details, because I'm a government loyalist, and it's in my best interest to keep the story as vague as possible. (It isn't, by the way. That's just a story you made up, presumably because it makes you feel good.)

Why are you playing into my hands by refusing to find, post, and support the (purported) details yourself? By your reasoning, doesn't that make you a government loyalist?

[antitsa]

117. I have been finding details. They are in dispute by you debunkers.

I brought up that one of the crash versions is that the wing hit first and partially flipped the plane the plane breaking off the nose of the plane and sending it into the forest, or something.

Seger weighed in and said no, that didn't happen, that the nose hit first and didn't flip, or something like that.

See, if I didn't ask you guys for confirmation, I'd be going down the wrong road with the wrong story.

Now do you agree most of the debris was under the funky shallow crater?

[Mr. Skeptik]

101. Secretary Rumsfeld....

said it was shot down. So that's how it crashed. What's so hard to understand here?

[antitsa]

103. If it crashed, where did it crash? nt

[Mr. Skeptik]

105. Ask Rumsfeld, he shot it down.

But it didn't create the crater-that already existed (as seen in USGS photos of the area from 1994).

[antitsa]

107. Your theory doesn't make a lot of sense.

First, the 9/11 crater isn't the same as the '94 crater, albeit how coincidental in shape and location (a few yards from each other) they were.

Second, no debris was observed leading up to the crater, disproving anything was shot in the sky before the crater.

Third, are you saying they planned a shoot down AND to stage that field with the crater? Or are you saying they didn't plan a shoot down, but after they shot it down, they quickly staged a scene at the field to cover the shoot down up? Or other scenario?

[Mr. Skeptik]

108. First -

I don't recall being able to distinguish two separate craters but if you can point it out ....

Second - being shot down doesn't require that the plane dribble plane parts up to where ever it hit the ground. I recall reading several sources about the items found 'upwind' of the crash site at a lake some 8 miles away by road, 3 miles as the crow flies. Many of the items were mail which is typically a forward load cargo item which could jive with a shot to the fuselage (nothn' like some good A-10 20mm DU cannon ammo to do the trick or maybe it was a missile that homes in on electronic broadcasts like those used to attack ground radar).

I don't think the shoot down was planned. I think the perps ran out of time and the decision was made. Don't see what anyone would have to 'cover up' at the site-the investigation started from the premise that the plane was wrested to the ground and a bit of shot-up fuselage and airframe might not even be identifiable or if it was, might somehow end up as part of the >10% of unrecoved plane. Who knows?

[antitsa]

112. Craters where different. No A10 witnessed, that was a 'UAV' seen by Susan McElwain

Craters where different, although coincidentally close. See here: http://behindthecurtain.zzl.org/Flight93.php#crater


"Second - being shot down doesn't require that the plane dribble plane parts up to where ever it hit the ground."

Yes it does. It will dribble parts up to where it crashes, not the other way around.


"I don't think the shoot down was planned. I think the perps ran out of time and the decision was made. Don't see what anyone would have to 'cover up' at the site"

So by "miracle" part of the shot down plane landed in a convenient empty field that just so happened to leave wings marks almost at the same spot as in 1994?

The shoot down theory is bunk. Sorry. Nothing crashed there. The whole thing was staged.