Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

I still wonder if Roundhead figured out the meaning of compressing clothing with a vacumcleaner.

An airplane is mostly air and will take up a lot less room if crumbled or shredded.
 
roundhead said:
Not long after the crash, Escherich was on the scene. Emergency personnel were only just arriving. Undetected, he grabbed his camera and set up his tripod and fired off 10 shots before being asked to leave.
“I was about 150 yards away from where the plane hit,” he said. “But then I did as they said. I packed up and left.”
Escherich knew the images he just captured were important, so he immediately had them processed.
Within 90 minutes of the crash, he shared his historic photo with a local newspaper and it was printed the next day. The following day, The Associated Press sent the Shanksville photo around the world. It is believed that Escherich captured the first images of the crash site.
Escherich recalled his sense of disbelief when he arrived at the scene of the downed aircraft.
“There wasn’t a trace of an airplane,” he said. “There was only a crater where it made impact. I’m not a real emotional person, but I am saddened by the whole thing.” - Tribune-Democrat (10/06/07)



Wasnt a trace of an airplane.................
Click to expand...


Yet this man believes a plane crashed there. It's called hyperbole. Most people familiar with the concept of verbal and written comminication understand what it is, and when it is used. Perhaps you have also heard of similies and metaphors...? You see Roundhead, people don't always communicate their feelings in the most precise and literal manner. Try it sometime. Oh and what you just did there is called cherry-picking, and it's a very dishonest way to communicate what others have said.

Anyhow, I see RedIbis hasn't been back to accept my challenge.

ETA: Bye roundhead, hope you had a nice stay here!
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Yet this man believes a plane crashed there. It's called hyperbole. Most people familiar with the concept of verbal and written comminication understand what it is, and when it is used. Perhaps you have also heard of similies and metaphors...? You see Roundhead, people don't always communicate their feelings in the most precise and literal manner. Try it sometime. Oh and what you just did there is called cherry-picking, and it's a very dishonest way to communicate what others have said.

Anyhow, I see RedIbis hasn't been back to accept my challenge.

ETA: Bye roundhead, hope you had a nice stay here!
Click to expand...

Great challenge. Do I have to match the seat color as well?
 
The 'black box' in a commercial aircraft gives a location signal for 30 days, subject to it being capable of doing so. Can reheat, beachnut, 911files confirm or clarify this please.
 
RedIbis said:
I have no idea. My main concern is that the Shanksville ditch does not appear to contain a 100 ton commercial airliner.
Click to expand...

Then you are stuck with the task of showing us what there is about the crater than indicates that there is no aircraft there and an alternative explanation for the crater.

If you are half as smart as you think yourself to be, you should be able to do this within a day of reading this post.
 
I'm confused. Here we have shown the truthers images of OTHER crash sites that were similar to Shanksville where known airliners have crashed, have shown them OTHER eye witness and first responder comments of these other crash sites remarking about the surprising apparent lack of debris and human remains at first glance, have shown them a HUGE amount of physical evidence what was collected from Shanksville, and yet they still are arguing that because it didn't look like they expected the crash site to look, it was all faked?

What is wrong with these people?
 
twinstead said:
I'm confused. Here we have shown the truthers images of OTHER crash sites that were similar to Shanksville where known airliners have crashed, have shown them OTHER eye witness and first responder comments of these other crash sites remarking about the surprising apparent lack of debris and human remains at first glance, have shown them a HUGE amount of physical evidence what was collected from Shanksville, and yet they still are arguing that because it didn't look like they expected the crash site to look, it was all faked?

What is wrong with these people?
Click to expand...

A far easier way to go is to ask what is right with these people. If you wind up with a short list, well that pretty much explains what's wrong with them now doesn't it?
 
leftysergeant said:
Then you are stuck with the task of showing us what there is about the crater than indicates that there is no aircraft there and an alternative explanation for the crater.

If you are half as smart as you think yourself to be, you should be able to do this within a day of reading this post.
Click to expand...

He seems to be intellectually incapable of understanding;

1. How little material constitutes a 100 ton airliner, they being basically aluminum origami, and more air than structure.

2. How shredded it was.

3. That the pit closed back in over the debris, that they were embedded in the soil and had to be dug out.

4. That human beings are "bags of mostly water" and that very little of substance is left after a violent impact.

Wow, I wish we would get us a SMART truther in here again. I miss Max Photon, even. But the really smart ones figured this out a long time ago, and are no longer truthers.
 
BenBurch said:
He seems to be intellectually incapable of understanding;

1. How little material constitutes a 100 ton airliner, they being basically aluminum origami, and more air than structure.

2. How shredded it was.

3. That the pit closed back in over the debris, that they were embedded in the soil and had to be dug out.

4. That human beings are "bags of mostly water" and that very little of substance is left after a violent impact.

Wow, I wish we would get us a SMART truther in here again. I miss Max Photon, even. But the really smart ones figured this out a long time ago, and are no longer truthers.
Click to expand...

5. The difference between a 100 MPH impact and a 600 MPH one.

ETA: I almost forgot- Buh-bye roundhead!
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
The enormity of how stupid that analogy is is not something that I'm about to tackle at this hour.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. It in fact demonstrates the ridiculousness of your logic. Let me lay it out for you again. First, you say this:

RedIbis said:
There are no pictures, that I'm aware of that show anything near "several 18 wheelers" worth.
Click to expand...


You are saying since there happen to be no pictures of that much debris, there could not have been that much debris. In other words, if it's not photgraphed, it didn't happen. I respond with:

Corsair 115 said:
There are no photographs of the Titanic sinking either. I guess that means it didn't sink?
Click to expand...


It's a perfect extension of the logic you yourself established.



Incidentally, did roundhead ever answer the questions below? I don't recall seeing any attempted answers, but perhaps I missed them.

Corsair 115 said:
First query: Why do you think that? What has conditioned you to expect that as the result? I trust it's something more substantial than Hollywood movies and television shows.

Second query: Is water softer than the ground?

Third query: If you answer to the second query is yes, then can you explain why Swissair Flight 111 was shattered into approximately two million pieces when it struck the soft waters off of Nova Scotia back in 1998?
Click to expand...
 
And in all that time roundhead did not once tell me why a nearly identical crash scene was a crash and Shankesville was a fake... except to vaguely imply that the difference in ground composition should have made a difference in the complete fragmentation of the plane and the perfect wil-e-coyote impression in the ground. Perhaps redibis will eventually fill me in but I won't get my hopes up...
 
Corsair 115 said:
You are saying since there happen to be no pictures of that much debris, there could not have been that much debris. In other words, if it's not photgraphed, it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I think what he was trying to say is that there are no pictures showing ALL of the debris, and pictures showing SOME of the debris are proof that there is no more debris than what the pictures show.

Equally silly, if not sillier, but we wouldn't want to misrepresent his position, would we? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom