JFK

Jun 29 2009, 10:59 PM

r2d2m2

Jun 29 2009, 08:36 PM

ToS

 

More like it's an unsubstantiated claim. I can't believe most of a 757 can bury itself, but no one can prove it.

You can't believe it's possible or you can't believe it happened that day?

And no-one can prove it's possible or no-one can prove it happened that day?

OK, lets go back to the desert for a start. Let's imagine that we take a knife and drop it from a height, point first into the sand. Obviously the knife will penetrate the sand to some extent. Agreed?

So then imagine that we increase the height from which we drop the knife. Obviously the knife will be travelling faster when it hits the sand and therefore it will penetrate even further this time round. Agreed?

So then if we continue to increase the height from which we drop the knife we would expect that the knife will have enough speed, at some point, to go right the way in. Agreed?

So then we take a bigger knife and a bigger knife and we increase the impact speed each time (as much as nessecary to get complete penetration) until we have a knife that is a big as a 757 completely buried in the sand. Agreed?

Now we switch the 757 sized knife for a 757 sized plane. The only real difference now is that a plane is not as solid as a knife and so we might expect it to start breaking up as it hit the sand. This would not prevent the individual parts from being buried however. It would simply slow them down a little. And this may well mean that the plane has to travel even faster than the knife in order to become completely buried. But, provided it is travelling fast enough, it will go all the way in. Agreed?

The only question is how fast would it have to be moving. And that depends largely on the exact nature of the sand. If the sand were actully something like packing nuts then the plane would part it very easily indeed. If it were more like small, dense stones then the plane would need a lot more energy to force it's way through. Agreed?

And obviously, you have seen a plane bury itself into a steel and concrete building. The only difference is that the building did not then close around the plane because it was not made of anything powdery? So if a plane can part steel and concrete and bury itself into a building then it does not take much of a leap to accept that it could also bury itself into loose powder such as sand or uncompacted backfill soil. Agreed?

A better analogy would be an empty plastic bottle capped instead of a knife.

Of course if you had studied the Boeing maintainance and parts manuals you would realize this.

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 10:49 PM

Allright r2d2m2, I'll bite.

What is it that you know about flight 93's demise.

Domenick DiMaggio

 

HELLO. I MAY APPEAR INVISIBLE BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I AM ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES PEOPLE TRY TO PRETEND THEY DON'T SEE WHAT I TYPE.

Domenick DiMaggio

 

out of curiousity have you seen anything that i have said about indian lake while reading through the thread?

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 11:20 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 10:49 PM

Allright r2d2m2, I'll bite.

What is it that you know about flight 93's demise.

Edit to add - I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you are not a troll...

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 11:20 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 10:49 PM

Allright r2d2m2, I'll bite.

What is it that you know about flight 93's demise.

Edit to add - I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you are not a troll...

Edit to add - Times up... Posting privileges are now suspended for you... Permenantly.

Domenick DiMaggio

Jun 30 2009, 07:27 PM

1) There is no evidence of 60tons of plane debris in the 10 foot crater.

2) Jim Brandt, John Fleegle, Barry Lichty, Chris Smith, Carol Delasko, Val McClatchey all heard flight 93 fly over Indian Lake. We can confirm it was "flight 93" because the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported Jim Stop watched it fly over him while he was fishing.

Barry Lichty confirms the plane was coming from the direction of the crash site.

This proves the plane flew over the staged crash site.

This explains why there is no evidence that "flight 93" buried itself in a 10 foot crater.

Because it didn't happen.

See I just explained it without say "it doesn't look like a crash site" even though every eyewitness statement we have says that it didn't.

But when I talk about Indian Lake I turn invisible........

ToS

Jun 30 2009, 11:50 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 11:20 PM

JFK

Jun 30 2009, 10:49 PM

Allright r2d2m2, I'll bite.

What is it that you know about flight 93's demise.

Edit to add - I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you are not a troll...

Edit to add - Times up... Posting privileges are now suspended for you... Permenantly.

About time!


Now let's see if any of the other skeptics are brave enough to come back and take the challenge.

unknown

Jul 1 2009, 01:17 AM

You can shout r2d2m2 down. You can ban him from posting. Or you can take heed.

ToS

Jun 30 2009, 07:34 PM

ToS

Jun 30 2009, 03:31 PM

KenyonG, have you won the challenge in the OP yet?

Bump for KenyonG. r2d2m2 can answer it too.

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 03:54 PM

The solution is simple...

Let someone into Iron Mountain with a videocamera and let him/her get shots of the remains of flight 93 including the serial numbers.

Unless of course "they" have something to hide.

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 04:57 PM

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 03:54 PM

The solution is simple...

Let someone into Iron Mountain with a videocamera and let him/her get shots of the remains of flight 93 including the serial numbers.

Unless of course "they" have something to hide.

You still won't believe it. You will say it was faked. The only way you will believe that UA93 crashed in that spot, is if you were sitting in the field that day and you saw it with your own eyes. The evidence was collected and analyzed by the authorities. You don't trust any of them. Even if you were allowed to look at the plane parts in person, 'they' could have fabricated it like they did with the light poles at the pentagon.

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 05:13 PM

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 04:57 PM

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 03:54 PM

The solution is simple...

Let someone into Iron Mountain with a videocamera and let him/her get shots of the remains of flight 93 including the serial numbers.

Unless of course "they" have something to hide.

You still won't believe it. You will say it was faked. The only way you will believe that UA93 crashed in that spot, is if you were sitting in the field that day and you saw it with your own eyes. The evidence was collected and analyzed by the authorities. You don't trust any of them. Even if you were allowed to look at the plane parts in person, 'they' could have fabricated it like they did with the light poles at the pentagon.

Depending upon the contents of the video you may be correct, or you may be full of shit.

Would those serial numbers be checked against maintance records ? You bet cha.

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 05:20 PM

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 05:13 PM

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 04:57 PM

JFK

Jul 1 2009, 03:54 PM

The solution is simple...

Let someone into Iron Mountain with a videocamera and let him/her get shots of the remains of flight 93 including the serial numbers.

Unless of course "they" have something to hide.

You still won't believe it. You will say it was faked. The only way you will believe that UA93 crashed in that spot, is if you were sitting in the field that day and you saw it with your own eyes. The evidence was collected and analyzed by the authorities. You don't trust any of them. Even if you were allowed to look at the plane parts in person, 'they' could have fabricated it like they did with the light poles at the pentagon.

Depending upon the contents of the video you may be correct, or you may be full of shit.

Would those serial numbers be checked against maintance records ? You bet cha.

They have the black boxes, why don't you believe that?

Domenick DiMaggio

 

lol

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 03:44 PM

You guys really need to understand that you will never believe UA93 crashed in Shanksville. I don't know your motives, but there is nothing anyone can do to prove this to you. The challenge video is a joke. When someone walks upon a scene and says, "It doesn't look like a plane crashed here", it is not EVIDENCE that a plane didn't crash there. Using these initial impression quotes, mean absolutely nothing and are not facts, but perceptions. You invalidate all hard evidence by simply saying, "they" could have planted or fabricated it. They can mean two people or thousands of people. They can be the American government, local police, local firemen, local doctors and scientist, local civilians who stopped to lend a hand, etc. There is never anything certain in what you put forth. It could be this or it could be that. You sit back and argue none facts and your feelings about what you believe, and then declare that you have solved a crime. Maybe you want to feel important. Maybe you want to feel like you are the only ones on the planet who can see the truth, even though you have no background in anything like structual engineering, forensic science, aircraft manufacturing, physics, ect. The millions of people in the world who have that knowledge are in on it, or are too blind to see what real geniuses can easily see.

unknown

Jul 1 2009, 06:33 PM

Domenick DiMaggio

 

lol

I have no idea why I bother (maybe I'm just very patient) but here goes...

Let me give you another example of what may be coming your way and why you might just want to stop making unfounded and ridiculous claims in order to push your beliefs...

Imagine that someone with the resources (and a huge audience) decides to make a documentary about you. They begin with your ludicrous claim that the hunk of metal dug up at Shanksville must be part of a scrap engine that was planted there because it's covered in rust. They then interview someone who makes these hunks of metal for a living and quickly prove that you are talking s**t. Then they ask this purveyor of propulsion technology if he knows anyone that makes 757s, as they would like to find out whether or not the government claims defy the laws of physics. He points them in the direction of his mate Hank The Yank at Boeing.

At the same time they ignore anything that you have uncovered that may be worthy of careful consideration (a bit like me) hoping that the majority of people (who never heard of you before) will do the same once they have you down as a raving lunatic.

This goes on for a whole long hour, until your good name and any useful work you have done goes down the pan with your sixty minutes worth of BS, possibly taking the useful work of other researchers with it too.

And if they can't make up the hour all the do is feed you a few straws and wait for you to do the rest.

How are you going to feel when that happens?

Unless I am misinformed the BBC have already been on the blower to Rolls Royce asking questions about the materials used to make gas turbans [sic]. Maybe because some of them are Rolls Royce's own special concoctions. Not saying it's anything to do with your imaginary iron oxide. It's probably something else. But you never know.

And unless I am misinformed a chap from Rolls Royce has already been on a little trip to the land of the brave to help his buddy Hank identify some unusual bits of metal. Of course he had to sign the Official Secrets Act and so he's not said much (or so I heard) but then blokes that mek engines for jet fighters are used to that.

Just imagine anyway. You're good at that. Just hope you don't suffer from paranoia.

And try not to laugh too loud. You might pull something.

ToS

Jul 1 2009, 06:40 PM

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 03:44 PM

You guys really need to understand that you will never believe UA93 crashed in Shanksville. I don't know your motives, but there is nothing anyone can do to prove this to you. The challenge video is a joke. When someone walks upon a scene and says, "It doesn't look like a plane crashed here", it is not EVIDENCE that a plane didn't crash there. Using these initial impression quotes, mean absolutely nothing and are not facts, but perceptions. You invalidate all hard evidence by simply saying, "they" could have planted or fabricated it. They can mean two people or thousands of people. They can be the American government, local police, local firemen, local doctors and scientist, local civilians who stopped to lend a hand, etc. There is never anything certain in what you put forth. It could be this or it could be that. You sit back and argue none facts and your feelings about what you believe, and then declare that you have solved a crime. Maybe you want to feel important. Maybe you want to feel like you are the only ones on the planet who can see the truth, even though you have no background in anything like structual engineering, forensic science, aircraft manufacturing, physics, ect. The millions of people in the world who have that knowledge are in on it, or are too blind to see what real geniuses can easily see.

I'll take that as a no, you weren't able to pass the challenge. Don't worry, I couldn't either.

Domenick DiMaggio

Jul 1 2009, 06:50 PM

unknown

Jul 1 2009, 06:33 PM

Domenick DiMaggio

 

lol

I have no idea why I bother (maybe I'm just very patient) but here goes...

Let me give you another example of what may be coming your way and why you might just want to stop making unfounded and ridiculous claims in order to push your beliefs...

Imagine that someone with the resources (and a huge audience) decides to make a documentary about you. They begin with your ludicrous claim that the hunk of metal dug up at Shanksville must be part of a scrap engine that was planted there because it's covered in rust. They then interview someone who makes these hunks of metal for a living and quickly prove that you are talking s**t. Then they ask this purveyor of propulsion technology if he knows anyone that makes 757s, as they would like to find out whether or not the government claims defy the laws of physics. He points them in the direction of his mate Hank The Yank at Boeing.

At the same time they ignore anything that you have uncovered that may be worthy of careful consideration (a bit like me) hoping that the majority of people (who never heard of you before) will do the same once they have you down as a raving lunatic.

This goes on for a whole long hour, until your good name and any useful work you have done goes down the pan with your sixty minutes worth of BS, possibly taking the useful work of other researchers with it too.

And if they can't make up the hour all the do is feed you a few straws and wait for you to do the rest.

How are you going to feel when that happens?

Unless I am misinformed the BBC have already been on the blower to Rolls Royce asking questions about the materials used to make gas turbans [sic]. Maybe because some of them are Rolls Royce's own special concoctions. Not saying it's anything to do with your imaginary iron oxide. It's probably something else. But you never know.

And unless I am misinformed a chap from Rolls Royce has already been on a little trip to the land of the brave to help his buddy Hank identify some unusual bits of metal. Of course he had to sign the Official Secrets Act and so he's not said much (or so I heard) but then blokes that mek engines for jet fighters are used to that.

Just imagine anyway. You're good at that. Just hope you don't suffer from paranoia.

And try not to laugh too loud. You might pull something.

listen r2d2 and i'll clue you in on a little secret....

see to a certain extent some fake truthers [like alex jones] kinda already tried selling me out and my work.

you see before anyone here ever saw the susan mcelwain interview i did certain 'leaders' of the truth movement got to see it.

this list is extremely small but it sent some of these frauds into such a panic that they passed it onto the history channel while they tried stringing me along. then the history channel hurried up and packed up their goodies and went to shanksville and found susan mcelwain.

then they documented her account.

only they didn't do what i did.

they deceived her and the american people.

they ignored her real account about what she witnessed in stoystown and instead showed a brief clip of her talking about the planes leaving the site when she saw them a few minutes later from her house and that they were high and looked like white triangles up in the sky.

so the history channel has already in a way tried to discredit me and my work because to this day i stand by my statement that i have provided the 911 truth movement with the absolute biggest smoking gun eyewitness testimony proving the official story is a lie.

now naturally some 'leaders' of this movement has tried to suppress this interview and its importance and belittle it.

thats alright though because when they least expect it i am going to destroy their credibility in this movement and expose them as puppets and frauds.

i welcome it.

there is no such thing as bad publicity. once you realize that you'll realize that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and i have no fear in me.

"bender rules"

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 06:52 PM

The real challenge is trying to figure out what "National Security Alert" proves.

ToS

Jul 1 2009, 06:56 PM

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 06:52 PM

The real challenge is trying to figure out what "National Security Alert" proves.

Not sure what that has to do with this thread, but whatever.

Listen, do you believe the official story that the bulk of Flight 93 was buried? If so, why do you believe this?

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 06:52 PM

ToS

Jul 1 2009, 06:40 PM

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 03:44 PM

You guys really need to understand that you will never believe UA93 crashed in Shanksville. I don't know your motives, but there is nothing anyone can do to prove this to you. The challenge video is a joke. When someone walks upon a scene and says, "It doesn't look like a plane crashed here", it is not EVIDENCE that a plane didn't crash there. Using these initial impression quotes, mean absolutely nothing and are not facts, but perceptions. You invalidate all hard evidence by simply saying, "they" could have planted or fabricated it. They can mean two people or thousands of people. They can be the American government, local police, local firemen, local doctors and scientist, local civilians who stopped to lend a hand, etc. There is never anything certain in what you put forth. It could be this or it could be that. You sit back and argue none facts and your feelings about what you believe, and then declare that you have solved a crime. Maybe you want to feel important. Maybe you want to feel like you are the only ones on the planet who can see the truth, even though you have no background in anything like structual engineering, forensic science, aircraft manufacturing, physics, ect. The millions of people in the world who have that knowledge are in on it, or are too blind to see what real geniuses can easily see.

I'll take that as a no, you weren't able to pass the challenge. Don't worry, I couldn't either.

The real challenge is trying to figure out what "National Security Alert" proves.

KenyonG

Jul 1 2009, 06:56 PM

Lets put it like this, you have said that Lloyd England is guilty of aiding and abetting in the murders on 9/11/01.

Quote:

 

Can you prove this in a court of law? He can sue you for slander.