Creative Speculation

William Seger

(11,040 posts)

113. From post #41...

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 06:04 PM

Mar 2012

> The nose hit first; many pieces were scattered over a wide area above ground, but most of the debris went into that soft dirt. Now stop wasting everyone's time and get to debunkin'. I can hardly wait.

Nearly two months later you've got nothing but the same silly games. What a surprise.

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