Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please stop the lies.

First you state that i said i was not going to show the document ot anyone.

Second you state i have deleted a post.

WHY MUST YOU LIE?

do i need to post this again?

i also never stated you removed anything. id like to discuss 9/11 like rational adults. if you are going to claim i say things that i did not, i will have to report you to the mods for slandering me over and over.

when did i ever say that?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Azrael75]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75
i asked where that list was, not about any arugment you are having? dont get mad at me, i am not a believer, nor am i arguing. i asked politely where the list was .

All you had to do was go back a couple pages.

posted on 24-8-2008 @ 11:54 single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

Originally posted by jfj123
You're not going to newspapers? TV? International reporters? etc..????? Why wouldn't you do that?

There are many media outlets that would of course publish it. Here are a few sources
The Raw Story
Moveon.org
Crooks and liars
Guardian Unlimited
Center for American Progress
Infowars
The Drudge Report
Black Listed News
The Hill
Think Progress
AmericaBlog
AfterDowningStreet
Project censored
NPR

i just wanted to know where the original poast that this list came from was. in the first place. now can anyone please direct me to it? i have no problem admitting i am apparently just too blind to find it back a couple pages.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ultima, yes you have filed a FOIA for an alleged document. That means essentially nothing until to receive a response. We are all looking forward to this.

Hey, i offered you the phone number to the FOIA office so you can verify the request and the document.

WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?


[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Azrael75
i also never stated you removed anything.

Gee just go back 1 page and you notice these quotes that you stated i removed posts.

it seems that several old posts have been deleted. it must be nice to say things, then have them deleted so that you can say "prove i ever said that." and be right.

i cannot currently prove the those posts were deleted because they are gone. but if you can live with the lie, fine, then i appologize for claiming something i cannot back up.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75
i also never stated you removed anything. id like to discuss 9/11 like rational adults. if you are going to claim i say things that i did not, i will have to report you to the mods for slandering me over and over.

Gee jsut go back 1 page and you this quote.

it seems that several old posts have been deleted. it must be nice to say things, then have them deleted so that you can say "prove i ever said that." and be right.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

going back 1 page shows nothing of the sort. i can see how someone who is unfamiliar with English as a first language might think they read that, but you go back one page and QUOTE ME or retract it.

Originally posted by Azrael75
going back 1 page shows nothing of the sort. .

Oh so now your stating that you did not post the posts i quoted?

I have proven that you made statments about me removing post. now grow up and move on.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75
going back 1 page shows nothing of the sort. .

Oh so now your stating that you did not post the posts i quoted?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

yes.

when did i claim you were never going to show the item to anyone?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Hey just curious but has anyone ever calculated the energy released by flight 93 upon impact ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

and....
yes.

it seems that several old posts have been deleted. it must be nice to say things, then have them deleted so that you can say "prove i ever said that." and be right.

where in there does it say that YOU removed anything??????????????????? i said they were removed and it must be nice to have that happen. i never said you did it. now retract your statement.

now tell me.

when did i claim you that you stated you would never do anything with the document or retract that too.

BOTTOM LINE.......... you 2 stop this bickering NOW!!!

Originally posted by Azrael75

Last post on this.

i cannot currently prove the those posts were deleted because they are gone. but if you can live with the lie, fine, then i appologize for claiming something i cannot back up.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

since ultima claims that i said he claimed he would not show the document to anyone but cannot show me where i ever said that. coupled with the messages i have received as well as the other confrontations on this thread. it is clear, he is deceptive and perpetrating frauds as accused more than once. if the mods will not reign him in, what point is there in trying to have a rational discussion about anything here. I refuse to have untrue statements made about me and let them stand unchallenged. if there was proof, the subject would not have changed. now is there a way we can discuss 9/11 without having to deal with liars who have now proven over and over to be little more than dishonest provacateurs?

OK, let's let this topic continue:

Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

ok so we have a 757-200 traveling at approx 563 mph (approx. mach .75) and weighing approx. 70,000 kg and impacting at a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude.

Just a few questions
Have there been ANY other plane crashes with a similar speed and angle at impact?

Has anyone calculated the energy released by both the plane and remaining fuel upon impact?

Other that PSA flight 1771 I cant think of another lilke that. The similarities between the two crashes is pretty convincing.

Originally posted by gavron
Other that PSA flight 1771 I cant think of another lilke that. The similarities between the two crashes is pretty convincing.

I find it very convincing as well. In addition, most plane crashes I have read about, happened as pilots were trying to prevent the crash whereas the hijackers were deliberately trying to fly the plane into the ground. I believe the amount of energy released on impact could have easily caused that type of crash.

So let me see if I am all caught up. The OP shows a plane crash that is supposed to look like that of flight 93 but it is not so that proves that the flight 93 scene is not a lie. Then it is pointed out that this scene includes large pieces of plane, such as the tale. The OP admits it is not exactly the same, just simliar. At this point the point of the entire thread seems moot. Yet people go on to congratulate him on doing such a great job of showing a scene just like the one of flight 93, even though he admitted it was not the same after we saw pictures rather large pieces of wreckage.

Am I caught up?

Originally posted by samael93
Am I caught up?

Flight 1771 crash scene is eerily similar to that of the crash scene of flight 93.

Commonalities:

-suicide crash

-high speed crash

-large debris field

-very small plane parts

-very small body parts

-Suicide note found / Hijackers passport found

-similar crater

-personal belongings found

-first responders stating it didn't look like a plane had crashed.

There ya go. Now your caught up.

Originally posted by samael93
So let me see if I am all caught up. The OP shows a plane crash that is supposed to look like that of flight 93 but it is not so that proves that the flight 93 scene is not a lie. Then it is pointed out that this scene includes large pieces of plane, such as the tale. The OP admits it is not exactly the same, just simliar. At this point the point of the entire thread seems moot. Yet people go on to congratulate him on doing such a great job of showing a scene just like the one of flight 93, even though he admitted it was not the same after we saw pictures rather large pieces of wreckage.

Am I caught up?

No you're not caught up yet.
Let me help.
You see, as far as we are all aware of, there has been no other crash exactly or even reasonably close to flight 93.
The OP has found the most SIMILAR crash we've seen so far. Notice everyone has said something along the lines of, "most similar".

Now in addition, many of the "truthers" say that a plane would not make that type of impact and debris field yet the OP has found one that does. hmmm. So the claim that the truthers make, is false. Geeeeee, wonder what else they're wrong about?

Originally posted by jfj123

No you're not caught up yet.
Let me help.
You see, as far as we are all aware of, there has been no other crash exactly or even reasonably close to flight 93.
The OP has found the most SIMILAR crash we've seen so far. Notice everyone has said something along the lines of, "most similar".

Now in addition, many of the "truthers" say that a plane would not make that type of impact and debris field yet the OP has found one that does. hmmm. So the claim that the truthers make, is false. Geeeeee, wonder what else they're wrong about?

Have you read the entire thread? first of all, this plane crash left very large plane parts sitting around. So when truthers say a plane will not leave an impact like the 93 one, they are still right, i do not see any big plane parts there. In fact I see no plane parts there at all. The closest I have seen are random individual pics of plane parts taken away from the crash site later that were never id'd by serial number to prove they came from flight 93. So what is your point exactly? Even throatyogurt admitted that this was not the same because of say the HUGE TAIL SECTION that there is a nice pic of. Where is 93's huge tail section? This crash site proves nothing except that when a plane crashes, it DOES leave plane parts around. So I guess this only helps the flight 93 case for truthers.