evidence against flight 93 shoot down

lee5 said:
To the truthers that believe 93 was shot down... will you please tell me what a crash would look like if a plane hit the ground @ 500mph at the same angle as 93?

A detailed description or picture would be fine.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You're just gagging for someone to post killtown's sketch of the plane crumpled at ground level with the tail sticking up into the sky, right? :D
 
uk_dave said:
You're just gagging for someone to post killtown's sketch of the plane crumpled at ground level with the tail sticking up into the sky, right? :D
Click to expand...

Even though I have not seen killtowns sketch, that is pretty much what I was expecting.

That, or nothing at all actually.

I just think its funny that the "lack of plane parts" would some how indicate a shoot down where as to me, a shoot down would have much much more plane parts scattering in that field.

Not to mention why would we shoot down a plane that was controlled remotely if we could just fly it into the ground via remote?

And why would we cover up shooting down a plane when it would only make us look good facing those that are pissed that we didn't intercept anything?

I could go on and on (as most of us can) as to how this whole theory makes absolutely no sense.

Also, if the plane was shot down, what caused that hole in the ground? Did a fighter jet shoot the plane down and shoot a missle into the ground? Then have a bunch of people rush over and burry plane parts?

How did plane parts get under the earth? If it was shot down, wouldn't it have landed on the surface for the most part? Why did we need a backhoe to dig the **** out?

I would really appreciate a truther telling me their WHOLE theory as to how this went down in their eyes.

Too bad none are able to come up with a complete theory. Just a whole lot of nit picking.
 
Last edited:
You know, it's really funny, I read TC arguments, paper objects shouldn't have survived, debris was scattered over a large distance, little of the plane was recognisable, the engine parts were found 600 yards away and you know what, I keep wondering, why does he ignore that all of these things are virtually identical to PSA Flight 1771. Licences, ID's and a paper bag with a note on it were found unburned, first reponders started that the plane had shattered into tiny pieces no bigger then their hand, most of the wreckage was found burried in the crater, a crater that looked eeriely like 93's, some debries were found 8 miles away. The similar between the two is incredible, and yet TC continues to claim that these things could happen, even when they already did back in 1983!
 
Last edited:
Because TC, like all 'truthers', is emotionally invested in the conspiracy theory. In his case, apparently, he is also financially invested in it.

It's not easy for someone who has an arrogant self assurance about their own abilities and who sees an event and concludes that things don't look the way s/he thinks they should, to then reverse that position after evidence is provided countering their pre-conceptions.

They have to keep on at it, even to the point of dishonesty, simply because they cannot be wrong.

And if they've wasted a few thousand dollars in their pursuit of their fantasy, they have that to reconcile also.

So, they just go on and on and on, kidding themselves as much as anyone else.
 
I just think that if a plane was shot down, exploded in mid air, and the remainder of the plane fell to the earth, there would be no crater, no pieces of plane parts buried into the ground, and debris would be scattered everywhere.

There was virtually NO debris found BEFORE the crater which leads me to believe the plane was intact until it hit the ground.

How does this fail to register in truther land?
 
TC329 said:
somehow 100tons disappeared into an 8 foot deep hole and it didn't even displace the appropriate amount of dirt to accomodate it. weird, huh?
Click to expand...

Weird that after 5 days you have still not provided calculations or retracted this statement. Since you apparently can not provide the calculations (though you could if you would provide the width of the crater), should we assume that you are retracting this claim?
 
WildCat said:
So you think one engine would keep flying off on its own after it was shot off? :jaw-dropp

What planet do truthers live on?
Click to expand...

Disconnected from it's fuel source? No, not really. If you'd read this thread, though, you would have already been exposed to the notion about the other engine, intact and not separated from it's fueld source, would still be providing thrust. Even if you couldn't think of this on your own, it was there in black in white, staring at you from the computer screen, if only you had bothered to look.
 
metamars said:
Disconnected from it's fuel source? No, not really. If you'd read this thread, though, you would have already been exposed to the notion about the other engine, intact and not separated from it's fueld source, would still be providing thrust. Even if you couldn't think of this on your own, it was there in black in white, staring at you from the computer screen, if only you had bothered to look.
Click to expand...
Then how the hell does the engine that was shot off end up in front of the other engine?

Do you even think about what you're claiming?
 
metamars all I have read in this thread and most others you have participated in is a bunch of pretty knowledgeable folk telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. Now, they could be wrong, and you could be the one who 'gets it', but somehow I remain dubious.
 
1337m4n said:
You misunderstand his delusion. metamars believes that if one of the plane's engines broke off, the entire plane would INSTANTANEOUSLY plunge into a 90-degree nose dive, and the tiny amount of residual thrust from the remaining engine would cause it to outrun the engine that broke off.
Click to expand...

The word "INSTANTANEOUSLY" has a precise and unambiguous meaning in Newtonian mechanics, even if (as I think I vaguely recall), some problems are modeled in terms of "impulses", which instantaneously change momentum.* You will look in vain to see where I expressed such a belief, since I didn't. The question arise as to whether you are mistaken, or just lying. Do tell.

Your spurious allegation, which I quote above, is actually wrong on a second count, and that is the false claim about a "90-degree nose dive". You will not find me making such a claim, either.


* As I recall (I think :) ), this is a distinct, though very similar, concept to collisions of rigid bodies, which also enact instantaneous changes of momentum of the participating bodies.
 
WildCat said:
Then how the hell does the engine that was shot off end up in front of the other engine?

Do you even think about what you're claiming?
Click to expand...

Have you considered asking a child this question? As a first attempt, don't let the child read this thread, or mention anything about the nose getting pointed downwards. See if the child can think of it him- or herself.
 
metamars said:
Have you considered asking a child this question? As a first attempt, don't let the child read this thread, or mention anything about the nose getting pointed downwards. See if the child can think of it him- or herself.
Click to expand...
Somewhere, this makes sense. Unfortunately, that place isn't in this universe.
 
Well, metamars, this is just a small forum. In the context of it, I suppose you could be the lone ranger of right and all these people just don't get it.

But, just to check, I think you should take your evidence to Universities, law enforcement agencies, and scientific laboratories and present them to aviation experts, physics professors, and real investigators. As a sociological exorcise, I'm curious as to how many people it will take to tell you that you don't know what you are talking about before you to start suspecting you don't.
 
twinstead said:
Well, metamars, this is just a small forum. In the context of it, I suppose you could be the lone ranger of right and all these people just don't get it.
Click to expand...


lol....

people here still think saddam smuggled his wmd's into syria........

anything to protect bushie.
 
TC329 said:
lol....

people here still think saddam smuggled his wmd's into syria........

anything to protect bushie.
Click to expand...

I know you're not an idiot, but this is something only an idiot would say--especially since you are well aware that few of us even LIKE bush. Even fewer of us would do 'anything to protect bushie'.

In fact, I submit it is YOU who believe an inside job not because of any compelling evidence to support it, but because you are ideologically predisposed. You prove it every day on this forum.
 
lee5 said:
To the truthers that believe 93 was shot down... will you please tell me what a crash would look like if a plane hit the ground @ 500mph at the same angle as 93?

A detailed description or picture would be fine.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Look up flight 1771. All the crackpots here won't address that incident because it pretty much destroys their conspiracy theories. All the detail and pictures are readily available.
 
metamars said:
Have you considered asking a child this question? As a first attempt, don't let the child read this thread, or mention anything about the nose getting pointed downwards. See if the child can think of it him- or herself.
Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing this with a child..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom