Creative Speculation

OnTheOtherHand

(7,621 posts)

23. yikes

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:37 PM

Jan 2012

Have you demonstrated that there is an "official story" about whether the nose or the wingtip crashed first?

If you've already decided that a plane didn't crash there, you obviously don't care whether the nose or wingtip crashed first, since in your view neither one did. So, I guess you might as well debunk them both. You must think you already have, right?

Why do you suppose the NTSB even does accident reports? There's a big hint in the mission statement on the NTSB home page: "Charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety...." Given that charge, do you suppose that the NTSB was deeply concerned with establishing whether the nose or the wingtip crashed first? If so, why?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How did United 93 supposedly crash? [View all] antitsa Jan 2012 OP

"looking for serious and non-vague answers, please. " zappaman Jan 2012 #1

Oh, and can you explain what you mean by "supposedly crash"? zappaman Jan 2012 #2

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #3

who's there? zappaman Jan 2012 #4

Donna jberryhill Jan 2012 #5

hmmmmm....Donna who? zappaman Jan 2012 #6

Donna Troll My Thread jberryhill Jan 2012 #7

Got me! n/t zappaman Jan 2012 #8

Which part of the plane contacted the ground first? nt antitsa Jan 2012 #9

The part made of aluminum. zappaman Jan 2012 #10

if what you quoted doesn't answer this question, why would you ask us? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #11

There was an investigation for this incident by the FBI antitsa Jan 2012 #12

Again with the "I've heard different explanations" zappaman Jan 2012 #13

how would someone determine what part of the plane hit first? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #14

I've heard the nose hit first, or the wingtip did. Which was it? antitsa Jan 2012 #15

if you don't think it's hard, then why don't you do it? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #17

Because I don't believe what supposedly happened there (plane crashed) antitsa Jan 2012 #18

yikes OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #23

Don't you want people like me to believe the OS? Isn't that why UR here? nt antitsa Jan 2012 #28

"People like me" zappaman Jan 2012 #31

no, I want people like you to care about what happened OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #39

Yeah, we'd hate to have you wasting your time William Seger Jan 2012 #24

If you don't have anything constructive to post, please stay off. Thanks. nt antitsa Jan 2012 #27

Who are you to tell someone to stay off a thread? Thanks. nt zappaman Jan 2012 #30

You're the one who seems to have nothing constructive to add William Seger Jan 2012 #35

Then why are you posting in this thread? antitsa Jan 2012 #36

Just to annoy you William Seger Jan 2012 #37

this is a fun game! n/t zappaman Jan 2012 #20

meh OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #25

I should have used this... zappaman Jan 2012 #26

sorry, nothing personal OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #40

It went nose down Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2012 #16

You saying its nose hit first? nt antitsa Jan 2012 #19

Here's a thought. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #21

I've repeatedly asked for these "alternative theories" zappaman Jan 2012 #22

Why don't you guy's cut to the chase and post how it 'crashed'? nt antitsa Jan 2012 #29

Because no one here is into playing your game. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #32

Trying to find the correct OS in order to debunk it is playing games? antitsa Jan 2012 #34

You have been provided a link to the official NTSB report Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #38

If you don't know the entire OS, just say so. No shame in that. nt antitsa Jan 2012 #42

Please stop playing your silly games. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #45

If I'm playing 'silly games', then why are you still posting here? antitsa Jan 2012 #48

You would get a lot better response from posters here by stopping the silly games. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #51

NTSB: "40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude" William Seger Jan 2012 #41

Stop wasting time? You guys took forever to give me an OS!!! antitsa Jan 2012 #43

quite the malarkey by you OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

NTSB only gave half the story. antitsa Jan 2012 #49

"Huh?" OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #53

Glad you agree the wing-first impact/'cartwheel' story is nonsense, but... antitsa Jan 2012 #44

Well, see, this is exactly why nobody wants to play... William Seger Jan 2012 #46

Oh, but you assuming the plane DID crash is so much better! lol antitsa Jan 2012 #50

uh huh zappaman Jan 2012 #52

You shouldn't use words you don't understand William Seger Jan 2012 #54

"plane-shaped crater" ROFL. Can you show me another "plane-shaped crater" in a field?! antitsa Feb 2012 #59

You promised "debunking" and all you've got is "ROFL"? William Seger Feb 2012 #62

155 ft plane buries into 'loosely packed dirt' & only leaves 10 ft deep crater? antitsa Feb 2012 #63

I think "buries" is part of your problem OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #64

Yeah. What's your point? It was still mostly found underground*, right? antitsa Feb 2012 #65

What's YOUR point? You have given no reason whatsoever... William Seger Feb 2012 #67

Because if you look at the scene, there's a shallow crater, not a deep hole. antitsa Feb 2012 #70

And you still have given no reason whatsoever... William Seger Feb 2012 #73

I did; two reasons. Please re-read. nt antitsa Feb 2012 #76

No, those are not "reasons" William Seger Feb 2012 #78

Can you please elaborate about this 'loosely-packed dirt' nonsense? nt antitsa Feb 2012 #82

Game over (n/t) William Seger Feb 2012 #85

Yes, game over on the ludicrous 'loose dirt' theory antitsa Feb 2012 #87

how deep should the crater have been? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #68

How deep did they say the plane buried? antitsa Feb 2012 #71

oh, brother OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #72

Yes. How deep did they say the plane buried? nt antitsa Feb 2012 #75

How deep did who say what plane was buried? n/t zappaman Feb 2012 #77

Who is "they"? zappaman Feb 2012 #74

Seventeen posts on this thread and you've written absolutely nothing cpwm17 Jan 2012 #55

Give credit where credit is due. zappaman Jan 2012 #57

see post #31. thanks. nt zappaman Jan 2012 #33

I'm not sure but ryan_cats Jan 2012 #56

Supposedly went UNDERground. Pure fantasy. antitsa Feb 2012 #60

Knock off the BS and get to the point??? ryan_cats Feb 2012 #79

Ha! zappaman Feb 2012 #80

You're right, but I had to try; plus for newcomers to the thread... ryan_cats Feb 2012 #81

My theory? The crash there is 'pure fantasy.' antitsa Feb 2012 #83

That's not a theory. zappaman Feb 2012 #84

Then what do you think really happened or are you going to continue playing childish games? ryan_cats Feb 2012 #86

If I'm playing 'childish games', why are you responding? antitsa Feb 2012 #88

"They faked a plane crash there" zappaman Feb 2012 #89

You have several options here. ryan_cats Feb 2012 #90

Which one's will you except to convince you the scene was staged? antitsa Mar 2012 #91

what about which one is true? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #93

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word, Irony? ryan_cats Mar 2012 #94

If I'm wasting everyone's time, why r u responding to me? nt antitsa Mar 2012 #95

Cuz it's fun to watch you twist and avoid direct questions zappaman Mar 2012 #97

I'm still wondering how one of the engines ended up on that garage or ThomThom Jan 2012 #58

I think a seat cushion supposedly did. So plane buries, seat cushion lands on roof. antitsa Feb 2012 #61

No, I saw a picture of a jet engine on a garage ThomThom Feb 2012 #66

See if you can find this pic. nt antitsa Feb 2012 #69

Seat cushion? Politicalboi Mar 2012 #118

Yes, what happened to the seats? zappaman Mar 2012 #119

So if I got this right, practically all the 757 was located... antitsa Mar 2012 #92

Well debunkers, do I got what supposedly happened right? nt antitsa Mar 2012 #96

Looks like everyone got tired of playing your game. zappaman Mar 2012 #98

Looks like debunkers want to stay clear of affirming the details antitsa Mar 2012 #99

speaking of which, when will you "really look at what supposedly happened"? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #100

When u answer: Do I have it right, much of the plane was under the crater? antitsa Mar 2012 #102

"under the crater"? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #104

No, just looking for confirmation that's what supposedly happened antitsa Mar 2012 #106

LOL OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #109

more like zappaman Mar 2012 #110

yeah, more like that OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #115

I got it, you don't want to have to confirm the details. I don't blame you. antitsa Mar 2012 #111

From post #41... William Seger Mar 2012 #113

Oh THAT'S what you meant. So 'most of the debris' was under that crater. antitsa Mar 2012 #116

no, really, think about this OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #114

I have been finding details. They are in dispute by you debunkers. antitsa Mar 2012 #117

Secretary Rumsfeld.... Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #101

If it crashed, where did it crash? nt antitsa Mar 2012 #103

Ask Rumsfeld, he shot it down. Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #105

Your theory doesn't make a lot of sense. antitsa Mar 2012 #107

First - Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #108

Craters where different. No A10 witnessed, that was a 'UAV' seen by Susan McElwain antitsa Mar 2012 #112