Originally posted by turbofan
No Hablo Inglés

Obnoxious non-responses from someone "pretending" on the Internet are not worth responding to.

Seven and a half years after the fact and all you have are obnoxious posts on an internet discussion board - no interest, no contributions, no indictments, no lawsuits (of any consequence - discounting April Gallop's hilarious attempt at legal extortion), no nothing. I suppose when you are that far down the rat hole, obnoxious non-responses are all you can conjure up.

Originally posted by trebor451
Killtown? Geez. I though you died and went to 9/11 Heaven. Could you go away again?

That was kind of insulting. Why do you say that?

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
If the dirt was hard and nonporous, wouldn't there be substantially more debris outside the crater? Woudln't the engines be located outside the crater?

Please define what 'hard' and 'non-porous' dirt is using numerical quantities.

I'm not a soil engineer,

Then your comments about the dirt are useless, uninformed and probably disinformation.

but I know what happens if you throw something onto hard dirt as opposed to soft dirt.

The moment that logic dies... again... You admit that you are not a soil engineer, so how would you know how soil behaves when it is allegedly struck by a 90 ton plane? You are not a soil engineer, so you know nothing about modelling the alleged crash.

Therefore, for the OS to hold true, the dirt would need to be porous and soft, enabling the plane to bury itself into the ground.

Considering that you're not a soil engineer, I'm not expecting you to provide any proof about the soil properties of the strip mine. I do expect you to hand wave and provide completely speculating conjecture that's ill informed though.

But lets let a more authoritative source speak on the condition of the soil:

The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater. " -Standard-Times (09/11/02)

I don't get it? You want to provide me with an authorative view on the soil, but all that you can do is to provide one unsourced quote from a newspaper? Wow...

Since when are newspaper journalists soil engineers?

Please, unless you have some cold, hard facts about the geological conditions of the alleged crash site, you would be better off refraining from responding in this thread...

I take it that I'll be waiting a long time before any 'soil engineer' can accurately describe the conditions, which would permit a plane to be buried and swallowed?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Flight 1771 Killtown. Look into that will ya?

Off topic. Read the thread.

Thanks, and are you still denying the Holocaust?

Off topic and baiting a fellow member.

Be careful, Cameron...

Originally posted by turbofan


Nothing like Shanksville.

Fatalities:Flight 1771 43

Flight 93 44

Type of crash:Flight 1771 Suicide

Flight 93 Suicide

Debris fields:Flight 1771 6-8 miles

Flight 93 8 miles

Debris: Flight 1771 Suicide note found(paper)

Flight 93 Hijacker passport found

From the NTSB Report:

Witnesses:Flight 1771 "Plane was intact"

Flight 93 "Plane was intact"

Witnesses:Flight 1771 Plane was "nose down"

Flight 93 Plane was "nose down"

From the CVR Report:

Flight 1771 Scuffle in the cockpit

Flight 93 Scuffle in the cockpit

Photos of body parts
made public: Flight 1771 0

Flight 93 0

Release reports of
matching serial numbers:Flight 1771 0

Flight 93 0

Crater with debris? Flight 1771 yes

Flight 93 yes

Debris found in trees? Flight 1771 yes

Flight 93 yes


Witnesses of Debris:

Flight 1771:

Bill Wammock -“nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Flight 93:
Ernie Stull- Mayor of Shanksville-"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


Were their differences? Sure!

Flight 1771 was a BAe 146, Flight 93 was a larger 757.

Maximum take off weight for the BAe 146 is 93,035 lb
Maximum take off weight for the 757 is 255,000 lbs.

The speeds of the crash were different as well.

Originally posted by Killtown7
Volunteers at the memorial are trained to recite the official story to the tourists:

If you think that lady is going to the memorial and whipping out lies to tourists, then tell us what % of Flight 93 buried itself underground as the official story claims?

So, why didn't you post something official then to back up your claim? Instead of a volunteer, since they go off the 9/11 commission report (according to your posted article) why in the world not post the parts of the report as fact instead?

Originally posted by Soloist
So, why didn't you post something official then to back up your claim? Instead of a volunteer, since they go off the 9/11 commission report (according to your posted article) why in the world not post the parts of the report as fact instead?

You calling that volunteer a liar?

Originally posted by Killtown7

Originally posted by Soloist
So, why didn't you post something official then to back up your claim? Instead of a volunteer, since they go off the 9/11 commission report (according to your posted article) why in the world not post the parts of the report as fact instead?

You calling that volunteer a liar?

Nope, I'm calling you one.

Why the deception? You aren't fooling anyone.

Originally posted by CameronFoxDebris fields:Flight 1771 6-8 miles

Flight 93 8 miles

Debris: Flight 1771 Suicide note found(paper)

Unreal.

Are you that foolish to list all of that nonsense when it has absolutely
NOTHING to do with the location of UA93 and its parts?

The only thing you listed in your reply was already corrected in my
previous post which you seem to have trouble understanding.

Wind blowing debris from the crash site DOES NOT equal debris
scattered from the impact force.

Capisce?

I can't believe some people are stupid enough to believe a bandana
was found (no dirt, blood, or wrinkles) from the crater, but the government
cannot supply a photo(s) representing 70 tons of aircraft from the crash
site.

Sometimes I wonder why I debate GL's...

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Killtown7

Originally posted by Soloist
So, why didn't you post something official then to back up your claim? Instead of a volunteer, since they go off the 9/11 commission report (according to your posted article) why in the world not post the parts of the report as fact instead?

You calling that volunteer a liar?

Nope, I'm calling you one.

Why the deception? You aren't fooling anyone.

What did I "lie" about?

Originally posted by Killtown7
What did I "lie" about?

Yawn.

I'm not playing these games with you.
You know very well what you tried to do.

Originally posted by turbofan
I can't believe some people are stupid enough to believe a bandana
was found (no dirt, blood, or wrinkles) from the crater, but the government
cannot supply a photo(s) representing 70 tons of aircraft from the crash
site.

Are you sure that bandana was found in the crater?

Originally posted by Soloist
You know very well what you tried to do.

I tried to show you the volunteers recite the official story.

If you think that lady is lying about the 80% figure of how much of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried, then PLEASE give us your estimation of what % of the plane was buried.

Originally posted by Soloist Are you sure that bandana was found in the crater?

Are you sure it was found at the scene?!