Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

antitsa

(116 posts)
61. I think a seat cushion supposedly did. So plane buries, seat cushion lands on roof.
Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:26 PM
Feb 2012

Can't believe there are still people who buy the official story!

"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
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»How did United 93 suppose...»Reply #61