Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[CurveLight]

What is your evidence that is an engine from flight 93?

hey dipshit, how about because it was FOUND AT THE SITE FLIGHT 93 CRASHED AT

so one should just assume any rusty part in the vicnty is from flt 93 ? thinking like that is most likely why you are not one of two former presidents of the air crash investigation board calling for a proper investigation

I have no idea why you care what he thinks.

 

[CurveLight]

yes but divecon claims he received a private e-mail from DR Q in which he says he hates toofers and they are crazies..but he cant post the proof because it is full of private information and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked

you are a complete fucktard
i never said anything of the sort
i DID email the man, and got a reply
he did say "crazies will be crazy" in regards to what YOU said as i sent him a link to YOUR post
and because the email contains personal info about ME (IE my email address and real name) i will not post it, got that yet dipshit

Basically you just admitted you think so highly of Eots you had to get the opinion of someone like Dr Q. Haha....holy fuk you are a joke.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

 

[Fizz]

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

 

[DiveCon]

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

hey, maybe he can find out how many modes a wndows mobile phone has

 

[420ish]

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

I guess my question was too hard for him!

 

[CurveLight]

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

hey, maybe he can find out how many modes a wndows mobile phone has

Tell us again how your phone doesn't have a Flight Mode:

Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Symptom:
Nokia E71x Stuck in Airplane Mode
Nokia E71x Stuck in Flight Mode

Error: "Unable to connect. Please verify that airplane mode is off and you have network coverage, then try again."
https://www.wireless.att.com/suppor...alsCategory=Getting+Started&tutorialId=733360


You're such a sooper stoopid fuk.

 

[CurveLight]

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

I guess my question was too hard for him!

So you're another stoopid fuk. Did you happen to miss where I said i'll form my opinions after I've studied it? No, wait. I believe you even quoted my post where I said that. As for not answering questions:

For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

You're one of the bitches claiming to know what happened yet you ignored those questions just like you ignored the fact you weaseled out of admitting your fukked up OP. See ya bitch.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

 

[Fizz]

You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim. You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight? Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

still can't answer his question, eh?

weasel!!!

 

[CurveLight]

talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

still can't answer his question, eh?

weasel!!!

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was?

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.

 

[Gamolon]

Here is a quote from Dr. Q's paper:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.

 

[Fizz]

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

still can't answer his question, eh?

weasel!!!

That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie. Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

people see airplane crashing. rush to the scene. find crash site. find plane parts. find DNA from passengers on flight 93.

gee..... where could the plane parts have possibly come from??

you really are a moron. now go clean your room like mommy told you and stop playing on the internet with the big boys.

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.

Here is where I hand your ass to you.

What is NIST's "conclusion" as you understand it?

 

[slackjawed]

Hey curvey, Is the new iPhone for Verizon going to have a flight mode?

How will I access the flight mode on the new iPhone for Verizon?

Please tell us oh cell phone guru!

 

[CurveLight]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was?

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

 

[Fizz]

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

once again your lack of reading comprehension abilities are woefully exposed.

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was?

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

So all your pointing out is the fact Dr. Q disagrees with the fact that NIST thinks the collapse was caused by fires weakening columns and that Dr. Q believes that the collapse was caused by fires weakening the floor trusses?

Is that it?

You mean to tell me that you want a new investigation into the towers because you are concerned that the changes that may be made to structural design procedures, building codes, and fire codes may not be "correct" because they used the incorrect structural failure mechanism?

I'll ask you again.

What exactly, the way you think you understand it, is NIST's conclusion that Dr.Q disagrees with?

 

[Gamolon]

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion. You lie and say he is only "critical" of it. Keep on lying you useless ****.

What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was?

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.

You are a dumfuk. I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives. Try to pay attention.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says? He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period. Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.

No, YOU pay attention fuckhead.

For all of us here to see, please state the conclusion as you understand it, that NIST has made that Dr.Q disagrees with.