• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

Quad4_72 said:
Everyone please keep one thing in mind before you decide to respond to red or bill. Combined, they have over 5,000 posts of utter drivel, mixed with zero evidence, stirred with nonsense, and topped off with delusions. Type up your responses accordingly (Or, not at all if you can find the strength to "Just say NO to twoofers"). I found the strength not too long ago and have been twoofer free for a few months now. With the help of my fellow members, I hope to go a full year without responding to the older twoofers. Oh and you don't have to tell me, I already know. I am very brave.

Now, if a new one rolls along, I will give him a few chances to accept evidence. If he fails to accept after numerous chances, then it is time to ignore him. Keep in mind though, these new twoofers can be addicting. It's like taking just one more drag off of a cigarrete after you have quit smoking. After you take that "last" drag, you want just one more. And then another, and so on. In this case, the twoofer is the cigarrete and the smoke you inhale is the nonsense he spews. The little high you get off of the cigarette is like the feeling of a good debunking. While the cigarette high may feel good, it actually builds up tar in your lungs and can lead to lung cancer. Then in the end, the cigarrete leaves you with nothing, except the addiction of wanting more.

The same is with the twoofer. The debunking feels great, but once that twoofer responds, ignoring every single point you made in your 1000 word post, it leaves you feeling frustrated, angry, and there is probably some physical harm caused to your brain from excess intake of stupidity (Someone should do a study on that one). Then finally in the end, nothing is accomplished.

So the next time you feel like engaging a twoofer in discourse, think of your health, and more importantly, your family. Because if you can't say no to twoofers, do you really want to die from a brain aneurysm caused by twoofers? What will your family think? I for one am not going to let that happen. I hope you all can find it within yourselves to do the same.

Just say NO to twoofers.
Click to expand...

Perfect analogy and i like the 'just say no'. I also remember the ad campaign for it.
 
if you decide to respond to bill in the future (why would you after this display)
i would only link him to this thread
where it all went wrong for ole bill
 
I'm a little curious as to what the vegetation on the down-range side of the crater looked like. Was there dirt thrown over it or was it just pushed up with the surrounding soil? I have a troll on another board telling me that he could excavate a hole like that without leaving tire marks.
 
Last edited:
And in closing I'd like to say to bill smith:
"Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground."
The CT debunk thread where it all gets too real.
 
You guys like being led along like sheep by morons don't you? Who is worse in that case?
 
leftysergeant said:
I'm a little curious as to what the vegetation on the down-range side of the crater looked like. Was there dirt thrown over it or was it just pushed up with the surrounding soil? I have a troll on another board telling me that he could excavate a hole like that without leaving tire marks.
Click to expand...

this video http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4777746&postcount=38
as the shot pans
you can see the ripple (left of wing marks)
but the vegetation is barely disturbed
wheres the upturned dirt if it was excavated?

looks like the plane hit so hard that the wings pushed and compressed the dirt to the sides not blowing it out of the hole and displaced the layer next to it with the vegetation forming that mound

i could be wrong though
lol
 
Ohhh too bad I missed that classic exchange.

truther said:
where r teh wing scars...huh...huh...dewunker. any moron can figure out that they should be there. inside jobby job, OMGWTFPWNED!1!11!1ONEONELEVENTY1!
Click to expand...
JREers said:
(provide numerous photos showing very obvious wing scars)
Click to expand...
truther said:
omgzors lol thats all u got? silly dewuhners. pwned.
Click to expand...
 
~enigma~ said:
You guys like being led along like sheep by morons don't you? Who is worse in that case?
Click to expand...

Jeez, haven't seen you in a while. I guess the overwhelming amount of "taking the troll bait" got to you.

Good to see you posting again, if only for the purpose of "berating".

TAM:D
 
RedIbis said:
So you think Flight 93 buried itself into the ground, except for some smaller pieces, yet the closest thing we have to a picture showing any of this buried plane being excavated, is part of an engine rotor curiously poised by the backhoe bucket.
Click to expand...

Somebody please confirm that I actually read this. Did RedIbis really suggest that it's suspicious that a piece of wreckage was at some point not very far from the piece of equipment used to dig it out?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Somebody please confirm that I actually read this. Did RedIbis really suggest that it's suspicious that a piece of wreckage was at some point not very far from the piece of equipment used to dig it out?
Click to expand...

Even worse, he suggested that this is pretty much the only evidence available that a plane crashed there.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Somebody please confirm that I actually read this. Did RedIbis really suggest that it's suspicious that a piece of wreckage was at some point not very far from the piece of equipment used to dig it out?

Dave
Click to expand...

That would be a daft thing to suggest, so you must have read it wrong.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Somebody please confirm that I actually read this. Did RedIbis really suggest that it's suspicious that a piece of wreckage was at some point not very far from the piece of equipment used to dig it out?

Dave
Click to expand...

No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could post the photograph.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make?

95% of Flight 93 was found at the crash site.
 
RedIbis said:
No, I find the positioning of the engine part interesting. The photo was set up to convey the image that the backhoe was removing that piece. That piece was not in that position originally, so the photo is obviously a set up.

Or do you think the engine part was excavated that close to the rim?
Click to expand...

Is there anything about this crash site that you consider is not a set up Red?

Those perps must have been really stuuuuuuupid to give so many clues away that somebody like you who has zero qualifications to make any form of comment on an aircraft crash sites can make such astonishing observations. Yet the same astonishing observations go totally unnoticed by every qualified, professional aircraft crash investigator on the planet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom