Question about Shanksville crash

[CurveLight]

you're right... the F4 should hold up much better than a 757.

Since the F4 couldn't break a single concrete wall and it should "hold up better" than a 757 how did 77 make through a steel reinforced concrete kevlar wall?

Read a little bit. the F4 was sent into a crash resistant wall used on Nuclear facilities. a wall that will actually move a bit with a collision. The pentagon wall may have been reinforced but you just can't stop everything. Are you now telling us that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon?

The scary part is you are serious. You could be a columnist for The Onion. There isn't even a chance of you comprehending the utter stoopidity of trying to compare that one small concrete wall to the Pentagon.

 

[CurveLight]

It hit the reinforced concrete wall, didn't penetrate it at all, so they replaced the relatively unscathed reinforced concrete wall with a brick and mortar job that had a prefabricated hole.

Wait; bent **** wants to run this evolving theory by his handler, Agent Christophera.

and the truthers think that that hole proves flight 77 didn't hit it?

In a NUT shell, I think that's correct. They SEEM to be arguing (not bent ****, of course; no no. Not him. He's just askin' "questions!") that it was a missile.

The sad part is, they're serious.

You're so scared of troofers you have to be dishonest. I've never seen anyone claim that hole proves it was not 77. Your "in a nut shell" scapegoat is dead. It got run over by Common Sense.

 

[CurveLight]

so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?

Another genius that is ignorant of basic info yet claims the OCT is true. Aren't you embarrassed?

 

[Fizz]

Yeah I remember the missile theory. painted in American airline colors, right?

That's one of them. Yes indeed.

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

 

[CurveLight]

That's one of them. Yes indeed.

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

Rotfl! Analyzing the damage of the pentagon based on a 757 is an amateur analysis but trying to compare a non-flying F4 with no fuel to flight 93 is A-Okay! How the hell you say this shit with a straight face is a mystery.

 

[Liability]

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

Rotfl! Analyzing the damage of the pentagon based on a 757 is an amateur analysis but trying to compare a non-flying F4 with no fuel to flight 93 is A-Okay! How the hell you say this shit with a straight face is a mystery.

In the video of the "non-flying" F4, what is the basis of your belief that it had no fuel? It looked like the jets were ignited to me. do they burn in your mythical F4's without fuel, dipshit?

The comparison (as has been pointed out to you numerous times, you dishonest little *****) was never intended to be a one on one correlation, asswipe. It was offered ONLY to show that at a very high speed (both the F4 and Flight 93 had that in common, PussyPuddle) the destruction of the craft physically can be expected to be very complete. Into the concrete wall, the F4 atomized. Into softer dirt, flt. 93 broke into uncountable very small pieces and buried itself deep down into the ground.

Even so, after a missile strike, ass-sucker, one DOES expect to find evidence (even trace evidence) of there having BEEN a "missile." Instead, in Shanksville and in the Pentagon, the remnants recovered were of -- wait for it you scumbag lying Troofer **** -- passenger jet parts. No missile fragments or traces of any missiles were ever recovered at the Pentagon, douche-tard.

Your failure is complete.

 

[CurveLight]

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

Rotfl! Analyzing the damage of the pentagon based on a 757 is an amateur analysis but trying to compare a non-flying F4 with no fuel to flight 93 is A-Okay! How the hell you say this shit with a straight face is a mystery.

In the video of the "non-flying" F4, what is the basis of your belief that it had no fuel? It looked like the jets were ignited to me. do they burn in your mythical F4's without fuel, dipshit?

The comparison (as has been pointed out to you numerous times, you dishonest little *****) was never intended to be a one on one correlation, asswipe. It was offered ONLY to show that at a very high speed (both the F4 and Flight 93 had that in common, PussyPuddle) the destruction of the craft physically can be expected to be very complete. Into the concrete wall, the F4 atomized. Into softer dirt, flt. 93 broke into uncountable very small pieces and buried itself deep down into the ground.

Even so, after a missile strike, ass-sucker, one DOES expect to find evidence (even trace evidence) of there having BEEN a "missile." Instead, in Shanksville and in the Pentagon, the remnants recovered were of -- wait for it you scumbag lying Troofer **** -- passenger jet parts. No missile fragments or traces of any missiles were ever recovered at the Pentagon, douche-tard.

Your failure is complete.

Rotfl!!! The Snitch ***** doesn't even know his own comparison. The flames you see are from the rocket propelled sled...not the F4. The Snitch ***** can't even show one single picture of what the wall and F4 looked like after impact. So basically the OCTAs have been screaming about trying to compare an F4 to a 757 (as if that isn't ridiculous enough) when they can't even show photographic comparisons of the crash sight. Lol....priceless!

 

[HUGGY]

That's one of them. Yes indeed.

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

GAAAWWWDDD!!!! I fuckin hate cute little kitten avatars.

That said....

OK let's just take a glance at the "Hole". FITZZZZ!!!! Just cuz you can does not mean this is the appropriate moment to stick your toungue up your ass. We will reflect on the fact that the hole is not only too small but at the 5 bazillion MPHs everyone that is anyone has determined.....the wings and motors would have surely MADE A ******* SCRATCH!!!!!

THe hole itself shows struitural vulnerability. Why do you say that HUGGY??? UMMMmmmmm...because it is a hole and not a solid wall? So me droooogies...what do you think is structuraly tougher.... the forward point of the fusalage or the leading edges of the wings or engines??

Ok ..you just don't know...Well I'll clue ya...The nose of the plane is mostly hollow.

SO.... IF the hollow nose of the plane could punch a hole like that ...the wings and motors would have had no problem slicing thier profiles out of the wall.

 

[CurveLight]

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

GAAAWWWDDD!!!! I fuckin hate cute little kitten avatars.

That said....

OK let's just take a glance at the "Hole". FITZZZZ!!!! Just cuz you can does not mean this is the appropriate moment to stick your toungue up your ass. We will reflect on the fact that the hole is not only too small but at the 5 bazillion MPHs everyone that is anyone has determined.....the wings and motors would have surely MADE A ******* SCRATCH!!!!!

THe hole itself shows struitural vulnerability. Why do you say that HUGGY??? UMMMmmmmm...because it is a hole and not a solid wall? So me droooogies...what do you think is structuraly tougher.... the forward point of the fusalage or the leading edges of the wings or engines??

Ok ..you just don't know...Well I'll clue ya...The nose of the plane is mostly hollow.

SO.... IF the hollow nose of the plane could punch a hole like that ...the wings and motors would have had no problem slicing thier profiles out of the wall.

Three items about the hole I see:

The unbelievably straight projectory from the point of entry. Whatever caused the hole traveled over 300 ft through concrete, steel, etc. Yet is directly in line with the point of entry. With the landing gear up and both engines, there would have been a massive amount of pinball action happening with the walls, solid concrete slab for the second floor.....floor, and steel reinforced concrete pillars. Somehow that piece managed to make it straight through.

The shape is a round impression but there is no debris past the C Ring that shows what made the hole. If it was a solid object it had to be in tact enough to make the hole a clean cut but we don't see any physical evidence of what caused it.

The distinct scorch mark on top of the hole. A blast through a wall leaves scorch marks all the way around but in this case, there was a narrow intense flame on top of whatever made the hole.

 

[Fizz]

Yet..here you are...the self appointed elete. After nine years you the cynical appologists are looking at all the available facts... Yet...here you are..still here trying to justify where all that metal went...the fuel...the lack of any wing damage to the left and right of the hole...you are still here...

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

GAAAWWWDDD!!!! I fuckin hate cute little kitten avatars.

That said....

OK let's just take a glance at the "Hole". FITZZZZ!!!! Just cuz you can does not mean this is the appropriate moment to stick your toungue up your ass. We will reflect on the fact that the hole is not only too small but at the 5 bazillion MPHs everyone that is anyone has determined.....the wings and motors would have surely MADE A ******* SCRATCH!!!!!

THe hole itself shows struitural vulnerability. Why do you say that HUGGY??? UMMMmmmmm...because it is a hole and not a solid wall? So me droooogies...what do you think is structuraly tougher.... the forward point of the fusalage or the leading edges of the wings or engines??

Ok ..you just don't know...Well I'll clue ya...The nose of the plane is mostly hollow.

SO.... IF the hollow nose of the plane could punch a hole like that ...the wings and motors would have had no problem slicing thier profiles out of the wall.

so you have no evidence. just your own analysis from looking on the internet.

ok. thanks for your input. my kitty laughs at you.

(doesnt the nose have the whole rest of the plane behind it?)

 

[CurveLight]

gee, find any missile parts yet? find any drone parts yet? find any explosives yet? find any witnesses that saw anything other than flight 77?

find any evidence at all that contradicts the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? that flight 93 crashed in PA?

none of this "the hole would be bigger" or any other stupid amateur analysis. you have any ACTUAL evidence? until you come up with evidence to the contrary the evidence overwhelming supports that the official story is correct.

GAAAWWWDDD!!!! I fuckin hate cute little kitten avatars.

That said....

OK let's just take a glance at the "Hole". FITZZZZ!!!! Just cuz you can does not mean this is the appropriate moment to stick your toungue up your ass. We will reflect on the fact that the hole is not only too small but at the 5 bazillion MPHs everyone that is anyone has determined.....the wings and motors would have surely MADE A ******* SCRATCH!!!!!

THe hole itself shows struitural vulnerability. Why do you say that HUGGY??? UMMMmmmmm...because it is a hole and not a solid wall? So me droooogies...what do you think is structuraly tougher.... the forward point of the fusalage or the leading edges of the wings or engines??

Ok ..you just don't know...Well I'll clue ya...The nose of the plane is mostly hollow.

SO.... IF the hollow nose of the plane could punch a hole like that ...the wings and motors would have had no problem slicing thier profiles out of the wall.

so you have no evidence. just your own analysis from looking on the internet.

ok. thanks for your input. my kitty laughs at you.

(doesnt the nose have the whole rest of the plane behind it?)

As you said....the F4 should "hold up a lot better" than a 757.......what happened to the rest of the F4 behind the nose? Lemme guess....suddenly the F4 comparison is no longer valid....

 

[SFC Ollie]

Since the F4 couldn't break a single concrete wall and it should "hold up better" than a 757 how did 77 make through a steel reinforced concrete kevlar wall?

Read a little bit. the F4 was sent into a crash resistant wall used on Nuclear facilities. a wall that will actually move a bit with a collision. The pentagon wall may have been reinforced but you just can't stop everything. Are you now telling us that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon?

The scary part is you are serious. You could be a columnist for The Onion. There isn't even a chance of you comprehending the utter stoopidity of trying to compare that one small concrete wall to the Pentagon.

Duck, dodge, dodge, duck.....LOL

 

[Fizz]

As you said....the F4 should "hold up a lot better" than a 757.......what happened to the rest of the F4 behind the nose? Lemme guess....suddenly the F4 comparison is no longer valid....

what the **** are you talking about? he's saying the nose of a 757 is more structurally vulnerable than the wings but forgot the whole rest of the plane is behind the nose.

did you find a source that says the 757 went though multiple reinforced walls yet?

 

[CurveLight]

Read a little bit. the F4 was sent into a crash resistant wall used on Nuclear facilities. a wall that will actually move a bit with a collision. The pentagon wall may have been reinforced but you just can't stop everything. Are you now telling us that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon?

The scary part is you are serious. You could be a columnist for The Onion. There isn't even a chance of you comprehending the utter stoopidity of trying to compare that one small concrete wall to the Pentagon.

Duck, dodge, dodge, duck.....LOL

Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.

 

[Fizz]

Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.

and your claim it isnt valid is based on what evidence?

 

[Liability]

The scary part is you are serious. You could be a columnist for The Onion. There isn't even a chance of you comprehending the utter stoopidity of trying to compare that one small concrete wall to the Pentagon.

Duck, dodge, dodge, duck.....LOL

Like I said earlier....the F4 analogy is valid in your minds only when you think it will help defend the OCT.

As always, you remain dishonest and retarded.

The F4 analogy was, by its terms, limited.

Craft made out of METAL travels at very high speed (over 500 mph). Crashes into solid object. Craft gets atomized.

::

2nd craft made out of METAL travels at very high speed (over 500 mph). Crashes into solid object (albeit slightly "softer" than the object in the first case). Craft gets destroyed into little tiny pieces for the most part.

Your obtuse and deliberately ignorant evasion of the valid components of that comparison reveal you as the dishonest hack you have always been.

 

[elvis]

so what happened, it hit the wall, put the round hole in it and then the whole wall collapsed?

Another genius that is ignorant of basic info yet claims the OCT is true. Aren't you embarrassed?

Yes. I am embarrassed for this site that you continue to post such drivel.

 

[DiveCon]

that photo shows BRICK AND MORTAR CONSTRUCTION! dumbfuck

Okay....stick to your method of looking at pics you don't understand and ignoring all links that state what construction materials were used.

yeah, cause photo evidence showing brick and mortar is fake

 

[CurveLight]

Nah.

At least not on anything substantive. It's far too much of a flaming *****.

Someone forgot to send out the memo saying your petty whining is supposed to have meaning. It has none. All it does is show you're a crybaby Snitch ***** that is so stoopid you try to compare an F4 to a 757.

you're right... the F4 should hold up much better than a 757.

If the F4 should hold up much better then how did a 757 make it over 300 feet into the Pentagon?

 

[CurveLight]

that photo shows BRICK AND MORTAR CONSTRUCTION! dumbfuck

Okay....stick to your method of looking at pics you don't understand and ignoring all links that state what construction materials were used.

yeah, cause photo evidence showing brick and mortar is fake

Okay....stick to your method of looking at pics you don't understand and ignoring all links that state what construction materials were used.