Odd response from United Airlines

[DC]

an imprint like a roadrunner cartoon and an impact angle of 40°.......

 

[scissorhands]

an imprint like a roadrunner cartoon and an impact angle of 40°.......

You think this looks like a cartoon?




And do you think 40 degree impact angle is wrong?
If so why?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait a minute, wait a minute... what the heck are some of these responses trying to get at? What do these anomalies suggest? There is incontrovertible evidence including but not limited to radar data, Air Traffic Controller recordings, CVR (another link)and FDR data, cell and airphone call evidence, DNA analysis, victims personal effects identification, and witness and first responder testimony (scroll down to "Some Witnesses to Flight 93's Last Moments"; first responder testimony immediately follows on that page) that clearly identifies Flight 93 and the path it took and the events that caused the crash. The narrative is proven by these multiple lines of evidence.

How are supposed anomalies, like burning cushions and quibbles about the impact hole supposed to negate all that? Since when is the total weight of multiple converging lines of evidence supposed to be overturned by superficial analysis of the impact and incredulous regard of the debris location? None of these anomalies - none of them! - negate, falsify, or cast into doubt the identity of the jet, the fact that it crashed, or the reason it was hijacked and flown into the ground. None of them. A burning seat cushion found a couple of miles away does not falsify the ATC testimony, the radar data, or the FDR evidence. A disagreement about what the characteristics of the impact crater represent does not invalidate the cell and airphone calls, the CVR recordings, or the DNA identification. None of the objections to the evidence negates the testimony of the first responders who gathered the debris. These attempts at falsification fall flat and far short of what's needed to inject doubt into the narrative. Why are they being brought up? The characteristics of the impact crater do not contradict the crash at all; neither does the fact that debris was found some distance away. Both confirm the presence of a crashed airliner. The fact that minute characteristics of both objections violates some peoples sense of credulity does not mean that Flight 93 didn't crash. It only means that people questioning the data are unable to correctly consider it.

When someone comes up with a reasonable alternative narrative that includes the details of the CVR, FDR, and radar data, explains the crater and debris pattern, and accounts for the witnesses and personal effects identifications, then we will have a truly acceptible alternative narrative. But point objections to isolated elements of the story do not overturn the thrust of the narrative. Not one bit.

 

[DC]

You think this looks like a cartoon?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_997948b7ec1ecd7fd.jpg[/qimg]


And do you think 40 degree impact angle is wrong?
If so why?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RcoShy_6WFI/AAAAAAAAAEM/VGBj5-BpDJc/s1600-h/aerial_msnbc.jpg

yep cartoon like.

do you think this imprint fits a 40° impact angle?

 

[RedIbis]

You think this looks like a cartoon?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_997948b7ec1ecd7fd.jpg[/qimg]


And do you think 40 degree impact angle is wrong?
If so why?

Oh, there's the plane. I see it now.

 

[SDC]

Oh, there's the plane. I see it now.

Red I., what part of such notions as the plane was destroyed on impact do you not understand?

You are not so stupid as to think either 1/ the plane would be largely intact, or 2/ it would do the Wiley Coyote cutout thing.

Your comments are simply unbelievable. You are spouting no-planer-isms, which is about as low as a trutherian can go (outside of death rays and Keebler elves).

ETA: Red I. seems to be on a "no 93" kick. Keeps dodging and weaving, trying to find a weak spot in the consensus account.

 

[RedIbis]

Red I., what part of such notions as the plane was destroyed on impact do you not understand?

You are not so stupid as to think either 1/ the plane would be largely intact, or 2/ it would do the Wiley Coyote cutout thing.

Your comments are simply unbelievable. You are spouting no-planer-isms, which is about as low as a trutherian can go (outside of death rays and Keebler elves).

ETA: Red I. seems to be on a "no 93" kick. Keeps dodging and weaving, trying to find a weak spot in the consensus account.

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

 

[applecorped]

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

You can do better than that.

 

[Disbelief]

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

How much would you expect to be left in the ditch when the plane was traveling so fast?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

DGM,

Can you please forward me the local information? (via private message) I work in Boston and would like to assist you in this.

Thanks,

Mr.H.

 

[SDC]

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

So you are like superman with x-ray vision? It's a fool's business to use poor photographs to make such judgements. As so many trutherians have proved, so often.

And your use of the word "ditch," to imply a small and narrow space, is noted. And its silliness.

 

[1337m4n]

RedIbis, are you going to help DGM in his research?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

Funny, other planes that have crashed in a similar fashion to flight 93 all look exactly the same. What s it about flight 93 that is different from the other plane crashes?

Here's another example. If you shoot a bullet into the ground, how does it pack the dirt around it without disturbing the grass along the edge?

 

[johnny karate]

Was the plane destroyed or did it vaporize? Because it's not in that ditch.

I wonder if the plane buried itself deep into that ditch and then covered itself with dirt without disturbing the grass along the edge.

Red, as a no-planer, what is your opinion on why none of the eye witnesses, first responders, volunteers, or crash scene investigators have come forward to express doubts that United 93 crashed in Shanksville?

Do you believe perhaps they originally were suspicious, but later "changed their minds", as you believe the FDNY at WTC7 did?

 

[DGM]

Just an update:
I have sent and received a confirmation of request for information from the law office that represented the registered owner of aircraft #N591UA

I got the contact from the FAA site:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0

They appear to be the firm that handles the registrations of the aircraft for United. I can't seem to find anyone (other than United) listed as an owner (leasing co. or such).

(blood sucking bastards will probably charge me (Sorry LashL))

DGM

 

[scissorhands]

[qimg]http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RcoShy_6WFI/AAAAAAAAAEM/VGBj5-BpDJc/s1600-h/aerial_msnbc.jpg[/qimg]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RcoShy_6WFI/AAAAAAAAAEM/VGBj5-BpDJc/s1600-h/aerial_msnbc.jpg

yep cartoon like.

do you think this imprint fits a 40° impact angle?

Describing a crash scene like that as "cartoon like" is just one example of why many people think that the truth movement is made up mainly of sociopathic, internet trolling teenagers.
Yes I think it could could quite easily fit a 40 degree impact.
Why dont you?

 

[deep]

What real world impact do you honestly think your incredulity will have?

How is that relevant? Does it change what happened? No, it does not.

 

[deep]

still repeating this lie deep, after its been told to you many times, that hteo nly debris that was found "miles away" was lightweight and small in size.

You haven't proven that - there is evidence that human remains were found miles away from the crash site, as well as other non-paper debris (e.g., a burning seat cushion).

You think it was all paper and windblown debris - fine, prove it. You're telling me something that is contrary to reports from numerous eyewitnesses, so show me the proof.

 

[deep]

Red, as a no-planer, what is your opinion on why none of the eye witnesses, first responders, volunteers, or crash scene investigators have come forward to express doubts that United 93 crashed in Shanksville?

Uhh.. except for all the eyewitnesses who were "mistaken" when they said they saw no evidence that a plane had crashed there, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

Wheee.. round 'n round we go, and the debunker logic merry-go-round.

 

[PhantomWolf]

PSA Flight 1771 which nose dived into the ground at about 700mph in 1983 after a hijacker killed the crew, scattered debris over an 8 mile wide area.

First responder Detective Bill Wammock of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office said "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."

Why then is it strange for Flight 93 to do the same?