No we cannot. Who said the plane was forced down? Maybe I am reading too much into that statement. How exactly was it 'forced' down?
I was under the impression that they chose to dive into the ground because they feared people would get into the cockpit.
At least that is how I read the transcripts.
Is there an audio of that event, BTW? I've only found transcripts.
And debris were scattered over a vast distance, up to 8 miles away.
I find that hard to believe. Note that people noted earlier about dew on the ground. Paper traveling on the ground getting wet would have gotten heavier.
The mushroom cloud does not look like a terrible explosion to me, and yes, I've seen many.
Nor does the theory of an extremely powerful explosion seem evident because of the impact area evidence. The first shots (before the digging) looks like someone 'drew' the plane impact into the ground.
(I'm not saying they did that)
A massive explosion would have effected the ground more. Imagine an explosion powerful enough to launch debris miles away. Also I find it hard to believe that the impact made a perfect plane sized hole.
Things that hit the ground that hard tend to leave ground damage many times the size of the object that hit it.
Inertia, kinetic force, etc.
You do realize, do you not, that this post - like many of your other posts - exhibits extremely poor rational or critical thinking, and exhibits classic conspiracist/twoofer behaviour?
For instance, you leapt on the word "forced" as if it had some anomolous meaning, which it does not, and then added several descriptors to the rest of your post, which uk_dave never used, as though he had actually used them.
E.g.: "extremely powerful explosion", "massive explosion", "explosion powerful enough to..." none of which uk_dave said, and the latter of which you use to argue from incredulity.
Moreover, you have become increasingly shrill, and you have repeatedly made - and continue to make - arguments from incredulity; you repeatedly insist that others do your research for you; you repeatedly demand that others provide evidence and conduct calculations to answer your questions whilst failing to provide any yourself outside of a low-resolution youtube video and unsourced newspaper reports that you have deliberately to feed a conspiracist .
Also, you have employed logical fallacies in so many instances that I suspect that even the inimitable Arkan_Wolfshade would have to spend an entire evening pointing them all out.
In addition, you continue to repeat questions that have previously been answered. It's as though - just like the vast majority of troofer trolls who visit here - you just don't bother reading the answers when you're given them.
Also, you have made in this thread numerous assertions that you have searched numerous sources (without identifying them); you have made numerous assertions of fact without providing any sources for those alleged facts other than you “read it somewhere” or that you “heard it somewhere”, etc., and yet you expect others to "refute" your unnamed, unsourced claims with appropriate evidence and backup. Sorry, but other posters are not to fetch and carry for you.
While it is perfectly acceptable to
occasionally refer to something one read somewhere or heard somewhere, one ought not expect it to be given much weight or credence without the source being identified, and one certainly ought not demand that others refute such claims at your beck and call. Yet, you have made such assertions and such demands repeatedly in this thread.
All of the above is not "playing devil's advocate'; it is much more akin to trolling.
Have at it. I, for one, am not going to play your game.
