How the Shanksville Crater Was Made

[dafydd]

You're a shrewed one, aren't you?

Yep. Why do you never answer questions? It's spelled shred, by the way. You haven't figured that out yet.

 

[LSSBB]

You're a shrewed one, aren't you?

Your response is a condescending dodge. Answer the question.

 

[dafydd]

Your response is a condescending dodge. Answer the question.

He won't. Truthers never answer awkward questions that would bring them face to face with the reality of 911.

 

[yankee451]

Yep. Why do you never answer questions? It's spelled shred, by the way. You haven't figured that out yet.

There's a 'w' in there somewhere, but far be it from me to correct a typo when there are more important things to discuss.

 

[Bell]

There's a 'w' in there somewhere, but far be it from me to correct a typo when there are more important things to discuss.

Like how UA93's black box ended up in the crater? Not to mention the body parts (and with them the DNA) of the passengers and crew.

 

[yankee451]

Your response is a condescending dodge. Answer the question.

The question was condescending; evidently there ARE stupid questions. No.

 

[Axxman300]

"As for the burned trees, I speculate they actually launched at least three JASSMs,"

So you are saying time-travel, and a time machine were used to launch the JASSMs? They didn't go into production until 2002.

Cool, I'd like to see the science on that.

"but that the first one struck a tree and went off course, and was remotely self-destructed to cover up their tracks, as military commonly do with misfiring or downed technology to prevent it getting into the wrong hands."

So what you demonstrate here is a lack of understanding standard explosives. 3, 1000lb warheads should have knocked over more trees. There would be a circular crater.

There would also be missile parts identifying them as your time-traveling JASSMs, or just run of the mill cruise missiles, because they have engines that would have made identification instant. The military would have been on the scene fast to recover their missile wreckage. The media would have noticed two large tractor trailer rigs at the site needed to stage the scene with the wreckage of the actual plane, and body parts.

None of that happened.

Local fire was the first on the scene, and all they found was a plane crash.

 

[swright777]

An (quantity 1) untrained eyewitness who can't provide the markings, drawing, or flightpath, and unspecified circumstantial evidence?

That's nothing, in my book.

ETA: By the way, the stuff I struck out isn't evidence of anything but a plane.

I wouldn't even call her an eye witness to a missile vice a plane. She just sort of droned on....

 

[StankApe]

The question was condescending; evidently there ARE stupid questions. No.

translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about and have no answers for your questions, boy are they hard!"

 

[dafydd]

The question was condescending; evidently there ARE stupid questions. No.

Asking what happened to the passengers is very sensible. You can't answer that question, hence the dodges. Impressive, not.

 

[Bell]

The question was condescending; evidently there ARE stupid questions. No.

If by "condescending" you mean "I can't possibly answer that question in any sane or reasonable way therefor I dodge it in every which way I can" then yes, yes you are right.

 

[dafydd]

translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about and have no answers for your questions, boy are they hard!"

''And if I actually thought about the answers then I would realize that 911 trutherism is a load of paranoid nonsense, so I will continue to wallow in my no-plane delusion.''

 

[yankee451]

translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about and have no answers for your questions, boy are they hard!"

Yeah. That's it.

 

[332nd]

I'm a slow study, but at least I figured it out. What's your excuse?

So you figured this out and the most you've done with it is post videos on YT & post about it on obscure web forums?

 

[yankee451]

Asking what happened to the passengers is very sensible. You can't answer that question, hence the dodges. Impressive, not.

Coming from the person who couldn't even correct a typo correctly, impressive.

 

[yankee451]

So you figured this out and the most you've done with it is post videos on YT & post about it on obscure web forums?

So far that's about the nutshell. How about you?

 

[yankee451]

''And if I actually thought about the answers then I would realize that 911 trutherism is a load of paranoid nonsense, so I will continue to wallow in my no-plane delusion.''

Don't you want to corect my spelling or sometlhing?

 

[332nd]

So far that's about the nutshell. How about you?

Does it bother you that you've been proven wrong & have to dodge questions?

 

[yankee451]

If by "condescending" you mean "I can't possibly answer that question in any sane or reasonable way therefor I dodge it in every which way I can" then yes, yes you are right.

Desperate men do desperate deeds. Fine - it wasn't on the missile. There's your answer.

 

[LSSBB]

The question was condescending; evidently there ARE stupid questions. No.

In what way was it condescending? It was just asking you to explain an unexplained part of your theory. If you can't anwer it, just say so. No need to get rude with the questioner.