| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Shanksville 757 challenge for duhbunkers | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 22 2009, 11:12 PM (5,133 Views) | |
| ToS | Jul 1 2009, 08:43 PM Post #201 |
|
I don't care if you think it is possible, I want to know if you think it happened. Why are skeptics always trying to weasel out of answering if they believe the official story that most of Flight 93 buried? Is it because deep down they know no 757 buried itself at Shanksville? |
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 1 2009, 09:17 PM Post #202 |
|
how could it when its been proven that it continued flying southeast over indian lake? 
|
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 2 2009, 10:27 AM Post #203 |
|
If it is possible, it could have happened. You have never shown that it is impossible for a plane to crash like that and you see exactly what the initial photos show. Isn't that the basis of your disbelief? Why is it impossible for UA93 to have crashed there creating the visible 10ft crater with debris scattered all around? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 2 2009, 11:32 AM Post #204 |
|
For a start... http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec9.pdf 
|
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 2 2009, 01:55 PM Post #205 |
|
No, my argument is not about if it could, or could not. It is about if it DID, or DID NOT. So if you think it did, please provide some good evidence that it did. If most of a 757 buried itself and they extracted it all out of the ground, it shouldn't be too hard to prove. |
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Jul 2 2009, 09:44 PM Post #206 |
|
Lets compare the Payne Stewarts Learjet crash site to Flight 93's site, First that Payne Stewarts small Learjet made almost as big of a crater as a much larger 757. Second the small learjet left big recognizable parts and the much larger 757 did not. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 5 2009, 02:04 PM Post #207 |
|
Compare kenetic energy Ultima. So, there is more energy of a 757 crashing to the ground than a Cessna. Potential energy is also a major factor. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 5 2009, 11:33 PM Post #208 |
|
how could it have crashed there if it continued flying southeast over indian lake? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 6 2009, 12:34 AM Post #209 |
|
Major factor in what? |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 6 2009, 03:39 PM Post #210 |
|
Can you identify the difference between a 767 versus a KC 767, or even a C-130 from even half a mile away?? I can't. Take this picture for instance.  Now, we know that is a 767, but look at this one.  Can you identify this plane with absolute certainty in a split second?? My guess is no. How about this one??  I doubt very seriously even one of you can name any of the aircraft in this one. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 6 2009, 03:45 PM Post #211 |
|
Aand why does this confirm that there were other aircraft in the area, Including a C-130?? (which looks alot like a 757, and a 767) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jul 6 2009, 05:10 PM Post #212 |
Arlingtonian
|
Can you identify the difference between a 767 versus a KC 767, or even a C-130 from even half a mile away?? uhm, yes. a c130 not only looks NOTHING like a jet airplane, but it sounds nothing like a jet engined plane either. in fact they sound so different that i can distinguish between the 2 with my eyes closed! imagine that! as for a regular 767 versus a tanker KC767, they are both 767's, right? so they would be hard to tell apart (except for color and a fuel boom). but so what? that doesnt prove anything nor is it relevant to the point (about shanksville) you seem to be attempting (but failing) to assert. I can't. because either you're retarded or playing retarded intentionally. Now, we know that is a 767, no we dont. we know its alleged to be a 767, but there is no proof that it is, and it has never been conclusively proven to be a 767. but look at this one. this one what? a 767? no the plane you posted has 4 engines and is therefore NOT a 767. are you blind? I doubt very seriously even one of you can name any of the aircraft in this one. i'll do you one better, i'll name one of the planes and the airport: its an Airbus A300 from thai airways and its at bangkok's suvarnabhumi airport but i admit, i cheated. how? you will know the answer soon enough... Aand why does this confirm that there were other aircraft in the area, accounts posted in the press can not be trusted. if you wanna read some words on a screen and take them for legit, then its obvious why you are failing at finding the truth. yet in spite of your handicap, you have the retardedness and the audacity to chose those static accounts over actual videotaped interviews with the witnesses (thanks to dom), which are much more legit than any 9/11 news propaganda and disinfo. but whatever sockboy, its obvious that you cant think outside your bias and your faith. i wish i could say its nice to see you again, but it aint. Including a C-130?? (which looks alot like a 757, and a 767) refer to earlier part of my post. but to reiterate: a c130 vs. any jet engined (commercial) airplane are NOTHING alike. they are very easily told apart by even the slightest amateurs. one may not know or be able to name the exact model/make of the planes, but even an average joe can tell the 2 apart, even from memory if and when recalling having seen one at a prior time. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jul 6 2009, 05:37 PM Post #213 |
|
First off, I live in the flight path of Patrick AFB in Florida, and hear C-130's all day long. I most certainly could tell the difference. But, I will admit I was wrong. A C-130 is a quad-prop plane. I was thinking of the C-20's and C-21As that fly in and out of there. Would it be possible for someone who's closest Int'l Airport is 60 +/- miles away be certain about a plane?? Come on, if you lived in a rural area with very little aiplane traffic, could you tell the difference between a 767-200 and another twin engine turbofan aircraft??? Most likely not. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 6 2009, 09:19 PM Post #214 |
|
What does that have to do with the challenge? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 6 2009, 10:15 PM Post #215 |
|
Absolutely nothing... You mean you actually expected a skeptic to remain on topic ? 
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 6 2009, 11:40 PM Post #216 |
|
is he insinuating that a c130 flew over indian lake coming from the northwest just seconds prior to the explosion in the field? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 7 2009, 08:36 AM Post #217 |
|
That is what I am getting out of it... I however see nothing of the sort in the 84 RADES data. Perhaps he is also insinuating that that was faked as well ? < shrugs > |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 7 2009, 09:42 PM Post #218 |
|
Skeptics, will you concede that a 757 was NOT buried under that Shanksville crater? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 8 2009, 01:26 AM Post #219 |
|
yeah its garbage because it would then place the c130 at the scene of the crime at the time of the attack. my next challenge then would be for someone to identify 1 c130 witness in shanksville so i could contact them and veryify their accounts. there was no c130 in shanksville on 9/11. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 8 2009, 10:11 AM Post #220 |
|
I will concede that some of it was. Other parts were scattered around the area. What proof do you have that it didn't crash there? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 8 2009, 01:15 PM Post #221 |
|
What % do estimate was buried versus found above ground? |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 8 2009, 03:43 PM Post #222 |
|
I have no idea. The point is some of the plane would almost certainly be buried. What is so incredible about the scene or discription of debris, etc.? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 8 2009, 08:00 PM Post #223 |
|
Do you think the official claim of about 80% is in the pall park?
No one is disputing this. What is under dispute is the AMOUNT of claimed buried wreckage and it seems like you skeptics are running away from it too. I don't blame you. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 9 2009, 01:14 AM Post #224 |
|
exhibit a [again] for you to ignore [again] |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Jul 9 2009, 08:23 AM Post #225 |
Patriotic American
|
Simple common sense. The Flt 93 black boxes were small, light-weight, of relatively the same size, and located next to each other in the tail of the aircraft. Common sense dictates that the tail section of the aircraft allegedly and officially flying upside and diving into the ground at a 40 degree angle from the horizontal, (like Wile E Coyote in one of his famous dives) would have broken off when the tail hit the ground and tumbled away carrying the black boxes with it, and shattering across the surface.  Even if the tail of the aircraft had entered the strip mine following the previous mass of the aircraft; why would the light-weight black boxes be buried deeper than the alleged multi-ton turbofan engine allegedly found mere inches below the surface? And assuming that the mass of the fuselage containing seats, passengers, landing gear, baggage, fuel, and crumpled aluminum was buried ahead of them; how could one light-weight black box be officially buried at 15 feet, and the other light-weight black box be officially buried at 25 feet. Sounds fishy to me. How did those black boxes get past all of that alleged aircraft mass buried ahead of them?  And with no serial numbers from the black boxes proving where they came from nor the identity of the aircraft, and in fact not one single serial number from any of the four alleged 9-11 aircraft proving aircraft identity or black box or any single individual part; these alleged black boxes are bogus. The photos could have been taken anywhere in the world; even in Italy where that bogus Pentagon room full of parts photo first popped up.   The evidence taken in its entirity is overwhelming; an aircraft did not bury itself in that strip mine and disappear. Cartoon science and 9-11 physics laws are not adequate. Time for all pseudoskeptics and government loyalists to face reality.  |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:03 AM Nov 28
