throbber Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It all but proves that what ever crashed in the field in Pennsylvania on that fateful day wasn't a plane and that the government were covering something up on the day. You're going to have to elaborate I'm afraid ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 You're going to have to elaborate I'm afraid ! You only need to look at the pics of the 2 crash sites for it to be plainly obvious!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 You only need to look at the pics of the 2 crash sites for it to be plainly obvious!!! So you intend to explain your point by having me Google images of aircraft crash sites !? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 So you intend to explain your point by having me Google images of aircraft crash sites !? Yes sir - i CBA posting the pics maself a've got work to do!! Having a busy day as it is but still enough time to blow the lid on a conspiracy theory, thats the sort of guy i am 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Supposedly this is linked to Putin's visit to South American nations next week and a spate of high ranking bankers all connected to the JP Morgan group and the Rothchilds(sp?) commiting suicide over the last 6 months... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) It all but proves that what ever crashed in the field in Pennsylvania on that fateful day wasn't a plane and that the government were covering something up on the day. So what happened to the plane, and the passengers it was carrying? Edited July 19, 2014 by MONKMAN 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Yes sir - i CBA posting the pics maself a've got work to do!! Having a busy day as it is but still enough time to blow the lid on a conspiracy theory, thats the sort of guy i am One was hit by a missile at 33,000 feet whilst the other was hit by the ground at zero feet ... the Ukraine crash site is, and of course should be, totally and absolutely different from the Flight 93 crash site Your claim that this crash somehow "proves that what ever crashed in the field in Pennsylvania on that fateful day wasn't a plane" is complete hokum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 So what happened to the plane, and the hundreds of passengers it was carrying? Not sure now, I'm only one man who was only 14 at the time i can't possibly know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 One was hit by a missile at 33,000 feet whilst the other was hit by the ground at zero feet ... the Ukraine crash site is, and of course should be, totally and absolutely different from the Flight 93 crash site Your claim that this crash somehow "proves that what ever crashed in the field in Pennsylvania on that fateful day wasn't a plane" is complete hokum. I admit to being a bit OTT but it sheds light on the grey areas of the 9/11 official explanations. Surely a plane that was hit by a missile 33000 feet in the air would leave less of a wreck than a plane that wasn't hit by anything and just crash landed? surely there would be more left of the 9/11 plane? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I admit to being a bit OTT but it sheds light on the grey areas of the 9/11 official explanations. Surely a plane that was hit by a missile 33000 feet in the air would leave less of a wreck than a plane that wasn't hit by anything and just crash landed? surely there would be more left of the 9/11 plane? What 'grey areas' ? the aircraft was high-jacked and subsequently crashed - if you believe that something else crashed into that field then so be it but please accept a hearty and enjoyable point-and-laugh at your expense from my general direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleMoo Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I admit to being a bit OTT but it sheds light on the grey areas of the 9/11 official explanations. Surely a plane that was hit by a missile 33000 feet in the air would leave less of a wreck than a plane that wasn't hit by anything and just crash landed? surely there would be more left of the 9/11 plane? I'm not sure the 9/11 plane 'crashed landed' as such. My understanding was that it was flown into the ground like a dart at nearly 600 mph. As a result the wreckage was very localised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I admit to being a bit OTT but it sheds light on the grey areas of the 9/11 official explanations. Surely a plane that was hit by a missile 33000 feet in the air would leave less of a wreck than a plane that wasn't hit by anything and just crash landed? surely there would be more left of the 9/11 plane? No, a plane hitting a solid object like the ground would localise the wreckage and destroy it, particularly if it was flown down into the ground. A pressurised plane being hit by a missle would leave more wreckage 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinkerbelle Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Stupid yet maybe not so stupid question time............ ''If' an airline announced that they would attach a parachute to every seat with Oxygen mask etc, and charged £50 more than their competitors for the same route per seat, would you fly with them? I understand that doesn't help if the plane is whole when it hits the deck, but would the extra £50 make you change your carrier? Flights are way way way too cheap anyroads, might be a good 'earner'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Stupid yet maybe not so stupid question time............ ''If' an airline announced that they would attach a parachute to every seat with Oxygen mask etc, and charged £50 more than their competitors for the same route per seat, would you fly with them? I understand that doesn't help if the plane is whole when it hits the deck, but would the extra £50 make you change your carrier? Flights are way way way too cheap anyroads, might be a good 'earner'. Given planes are safer to travel in than cars, buses and trains the answer would be no. Aside, there is no guarantee that having a parachute or oxygen mask would make the difference between life or death. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Given planes are safer to travel in than cars, buses and trains the answer would be no. Aside, there is no guarantee that having a parachute or oxygen mask would make the difference between life or death. I never said it would work ffs, but generally wondered if that given flights are so very cheap, would you pay £20, £50 or £100 for a chute on your seat? Even a fiver? I also know re the safer stats, but would also point out that after the first Malaysian flight went awol, statistically they would be the safest carrier to fly with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Given planes are safer to travel in than cars, buses and trains the answer would be no. Aside, there is no guarantee that having a parachute or oxygen mask would make the difference between life or death. Well they aren't though, are they. If you have an accident in a plane, you'll pretty much die. Cars, buses and trains less so. It's only if you measure accidents per miles traveled that a plane is safer. In reality it's significantly more dangerous and statistically less likely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 You're going to have to elaborate I'm afraid ! i think our chum is slightly confused. I believe the fruit loops believe that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was shot down, and that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. Our chum has just made a mess of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.