1988 F-4 Crash Test Faked? Apparently, 9/11 had a LOT of planning…

March 20th, 2008
submit to reddit Share

One of the biggest arguments which keeps coming up amongst the 9/11 conspiracy crowed is that the sites of the terrorist attacks did not appear to have large, immediately recognizable pieces of aircraft such as fuselage or wing sections. The counter argument (fact) which has been brought up is that aircraft often are reduced to relatively small pieces of debris during violent crashes.

In order to make this point, one of the most dramatic graphic displays of just how an aircraft can be completely destroyed is a 1988 test conducted by the SanDia National Laboratory. Even before 9/11, the test has been nearly iconic in the way it displays what happens to an airframe when colliding with a solid surface. The test involved an F-4 phantom airframe which was mounted on a rocket sled and slammed into a large block of reinforced concrete.

The original intent of the test was to gauge the impact forces of an aircraft moving at full speed and impacting a structure. The data collected would later be applied to nuclear security such as containment dome designs, storage casks and similar structures which are designed for even the most extreme catastrophic events. Although the F-4 is smaller than the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks, the principle is the same and the event is so visually dramatic that it has been a thorn in the side of the whole 9/11 “Troof” movement.

So how to deal with this problematic demonstration of what happens to an aircraft during a full-speed head-on crash? Just claim it’s fake. Yes that’s right. Claim its fake. A few pages have now come out claiming that a plane could never be “atomized” by a crash. Of course, the plane was not atomized but was indeed reduced to fragments. The following comment from one of the pages pretty sums up the mindset of these clowns:

ZOMG!!11eleventyone!111!!!!

Huge smoking gun dude. The video is obviously faked. Proof that 9/11 was being planned over a decade ago.

Great find. Can’t wait to see it in court to bring these bastards down!!!!

Mind you, this was in 1988. So why was this done so far ahead of time? Well aside from the possibility of decades-long planning for 9/11, it’s claimed that it was done as part of the nuclear energy industry’s attempt to provide inflated data on the safety of plants. Of course, this would be ridiculous in any case, but it’s worth noting that the crash was not into any existing containment structure but rather just into a block of reinforced concrete. It was not to test any single structure but to gauge the forces one might be subjected to in such a crash.

The reality:

Aircraft are designed to be lightweight. For this reason they’re built primarily out of aluminum sheetmetal. The structures are more than strong enough to contend with aerodynamic forces and the occasional rough landing, but comparatively speaking, they’re not that solid compared to a steel structure. Even when colliding with soft ground, an airliner moving at a large fraction of the speed of sound is easily ripped to shreds like tinfoil. Add to this the fact that aluminum metal can actually burn (no it won’t burn if you take a match to a chunk of aluminum, but when the temperatures are high enough it can be reduced back to aluminum oxide), and it’s not hard to see how an aircraft crash could result in a debris field that, at first glance, looks nothing like an aircraft.

Don’t believe me? There are plenty of historical examples. Here are just a few:

AeroMexico Flight 498

In 1986, an AeroMexico DC-9 collided in mid air with a general aviation Piper Archer and crashed in Cerritos, California while on final approach to Los Angeles International Airport. A subsequent investigation found the pilot of the Piper had suffered a heart attack and the plane then strayed, uncontrolled into the AreoMexico flight’s approach path. The crash resulted in 67 fatalities, including 15 on the ground. Most of the aircraft was reduced to small debris and the largest pieces recovered included the engines turbines and some structural components of the wings and mid-fuselage. The largest structural components were only a few feet long and most were much smaller

Valujet Flight 592

In 1996, a DC-9-32 operated by Valujet crashed in the Florida Everglades. The crash would later be determined to be the result of an onboard fire sparked by oxygen generators which were being shipped in the cargo hold despite being improperly secured. Initial wittinesses to the crash reported seeing an aircraft go down and then seeing “no sign of the aircraft” on the surface. The only immediately visible signs of the crash were scattered metal fragments, a deep pool of water in the otherwise swampy area and a slick of jet fuel. The recovery operation pulled pieces from the deep mud of the Everglades. Most of the structure was reduced to small fragments. Only the landing gear struts and parts of the engines remained relatively in one piece.

All passengers and crew perished in the crash. The total fatalities were 110. The recovery of human remains was difficult due to the fact that most bodies were reduced to fragments of bone and tissue. Many would require DNA or other forensic tests to confirm the identity.


FedEx 727 Crash in 2002

In 2002, a Federal Express 727 crashed shortly after takeoff in Talahasee Florida. Failing to climb rapidly enough, the aircraft clipped several trees and then crashed in a field resulting in moderate damage to the aircraft. However, an ensuing fire destroyed most of the aircraft’s midsection. Despite a rapid response by firefighters, the only parts of the aircraft to remain mostly intact were the tail section and parts of the wings. The three crew members narrowly escaped with only minor injuries. Within minutes of their escape the cockpit was engulfed in flames.

This crash is a dramatic example of the damage which fire along can do to an aircraft, as the aircraft was in one piece and only moderately damaged when it struck the ground.

Air Inter Flight 148

In 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320 crashed in the mountains near Strasbourg Airport in France. The crash was ruled to be due to pilot error. An investigation concluded that the pilots were not adequately experienced with the flight controls and navigation system of the A320, which was different than aircraft the flight crew had been accustomed to. Most of the aircraft structure was completely destroyed, however a small part of the aircraft’s midsection was intact enough to allow for 9 of the 96 on board to survive, although with serious injuries.

A few others:
Nigerian Airlines 737 Crash in 2006
1994 USAir 737Crash Near Pittsburgh PA
1994 Crash of an American Eagle AR-72
1980 Crash of a 727 in Brazil
1984 Crash of a Japan Airlines 747 Following a Catastrophic Depressurization
1979 Crash of an American Airlines DC-10 Near Chicago
1970 Crash of an Air Canada DC-8

Sorry guys. You loose. Fail. Pwned. The whole “there was no aircraft” at the pentagon crash site is nutty enough, but now that some conspiracy theory nuts are claiming that even the World Trade Center crash which was witnessed by hundreds of thousands in one of the largest population centers in the world was smoke and mirrors or a hologram… Well, now it’s getting (more) ridiculous.

Seriously though. As a native of New York, an Americana and a human being, I have no more respect for the 9/11 troofers than I do for holocaust deniers. Their opinions may be protected, but is my opinion of them.


This entry was posted on Thursday, March 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Not Even Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



68 Responses to “1988 F-4 Crash Test Faked? Apparently, 9/11 had a LOT of planning…”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 51
    DV82XL Says:

    Can you imagine the hurt this kind of talk causes the people that lost a loved one in these attacks? It’s bad enough to deal with an untimely death under normal circumstances, it must be terrible in the face of accusations like these.

    I do hope that the survivors are not being pestered by these nut cases.


    Quote Comment
  2. 52
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I know someone who was at the Pentagon when it happened and was involved with seeing the aftermath and aiding those in it. He does not talk about it and asks that it not be brought up or questioned. He has some PTSD from it and I know he has avoided any confrontation with the conspiracy theorists. It is obvious that he is still very effected by it, but he’s a person of amazing character which helps.

    Also, as an employee at the pentagon I would imagine he would be even more of a target to those who are conspiracy theorists (since the military and government and all were involved). Anyways, I know he’s been called some nasty things on discussion boards and such hence I think he’s not one who will really even mention it any more.

    Like I said, a person of good character so that helps. He actually used to be a commander of Minuteman III nuclear missiles (yeah you have to figure that they screen the guys who do that stuff pretty well for emotional stability). Obviously this would also not help the whole conspiracy theory thing.

    If I saw someone come up to him or to anyone who lost loved ones or experienced the events I don’t know I’d be responsible for my actions. Personally, I lived in New York much of my life and had been to the towers more than a few times. My father worked in the South Tower for a couple years when I was a little kid, actually. When I saw it happen I could reconize the streets and backdrop where people were running and I knew them well. I also was in New York only a couple weeks afterward when the debris pile was still smoking. I remember vividly the pictures of lost relatives hanging up in Grand Central station some with rewards of thousands of dollars for any information.

    I still do not enjoy looking at the scenes from that day and I change the channel when a show about it comes on tv. I wasn’t even there and I didn’t know anyone who died. So I have to figure my memories are very very pal comparisons to those who lost more.

    I live in Connecticut not far from New York City and I was born in NYC, so obviously I know people who were more involved. Actually a couple family friends were more close than myself. One person I know now works as a receptionist in my town and lives with her parents. She is about 35. She worked at a law firm in one of the towers and had a big high paying job. She was away on the 11th with a client or something and nearly everyone in the firm died. She moved back home and hasn’t worked the same level job or been the same since. Really, it’s a shame.

    Also, my best friend’s father has experience in enviornmental cleanup and was called to help with the cleanup of the debris afterward. It had an obvious effect on him as well. Also such people are often the target of CT’ers demands “Did you or didn’t you see signs of thermite?!?!?!” I don’t know if he has been questioned but I believe he has worked to avoid that as well.

    Anyway I never got more than 100 yards from the debris pile or anything. At least I didn’t until December 2001. It was unreal though. Fridge trucks from the morgue were there and when it was just afterward nothing was in place to work on the debris it was all impromptu. An incredible amount of dust. Absolutely everywhere. Stores had it about six inches deep and they had a lot of fire hoses and water trucks wetting everything down to try to keep it down and wash it away to some degree. Trucks leaving constantly full of concrete and steel. There was an overwhelming smell of grit, concrete dust, burning and diesel exhaust.

    The aeriest thing I think would be the remaining facad of the structure which if you knew the buildings at all had verticle beams which came down to about 20-30 feet above the ground and then had arches. It was strange because I remembered vividly walking past the buildings and looking up at that up the lines of the building to the sky. Also I had been in, though not in a few years at that point. I remember the downstairs had elevators in the center and there were high ceilings and light fixtures that were nice but slightly dated 1970′s-esq.

    Anyways, it’s really not an academic or theoretical question for everyone. It still hurts a lot of people.


    Quote Comment
  3. 53
    SluthForTruth Says:

    Your long winded appeal to emotion proves nothing. There is nothing better we can do to honor those who died that day than to bring the real killers to justice. You only oppose investigation because you do not want your faith shaken in your precious government and your fragile belief in the world which would come crashing down if you opened your eyes to the obvious.

    It is not worth saving people the pain of answering the tough questions if that denies justice to the victims of 9/11. If you had any confidence in your idea that it was just 19 hijackers you would not be trying so hard to fight any independent investigation into those events.

    I think a very large portion of the websites like this one are commissioned by the government to appear to be individually driven. I am not sure if this is one of them or if it is just run by someone who has their head in the sand.


    Quote Comment
  4. 54
    DV82XL Says:

            SluthForTruth said:

    Y
    I think a very large portion of the websites like this one are commissioned by the government to appear to be individually driven.

    I am not sure if this is one of them or if it is just run by someone who has their head in the sand.

    Well I know YOU have your head up your ass.

    Does it ever occur to any of you dummies that the fact that you can vomit your idiotic ideas here and everywhere else without getting the knock on the door is a pretty good indication you’re all wrong?


    Quote Comment
  5. 55
    Tunguska Boom Says:

    On comment 54: Well put and I don’t see it as an appeal to emotion. The event was something that had a big affect on the emotions (and lives) of many. That is not something you can change.

    If you want to talk about the science and the facts of it I think that’s well established and reviewed many times. Scientifically it is not necessary to continue to review it over and over. Socially, emotionally, morally, it is wrong to subject the survivors to that.


    Quote Comment
  6. 56
    RBR1978 Says:

    It was a very sad day indeed. Something which I think most people would agree was a big shock and which I have no doubt that those involved want to put behind them – even if that is not completely possible.

    I remember when I heard about it that there was a great fear in the UK, even from afar that terrorists had struck in such a devastating manner. Because it was so well coordinated (multiple planes in multiple cities) there was a great deal of fear even here that it could be part of an international multiple attack event.

    We have experienced terrorism here of course, the London Underground bombings and attacks at airports, but they have not been anywhere near the devastation of the 9/11 attacks. However, especially with the bombings in London there is a very unsettling feeling of helplessness. There is such shock because it comes from nowhere.

    I can sympathize with the trauma and I don’t understand why it has become acceptable to drag through this again and again.


    Quote Comment
  7. 57
    Earnest Iconoclast Says:

    I was going to leave a jokey response about how all those other plane crashes were obviously fake, too, but I see that the real truthers have already left dumber comments… and they are probably being serious.

    Heh.


    Quote Comment
  8. 58
    Elvis Oswald Says:

    Since you are completely sure that this video shows what happens to a plane that hits a concrete wall… and I am sure it does too… maybe you can tell me how the “plane” that hit the pentagon penetrated 3 concrete walls that were reinforced with kevlar???

    I’m not sure where you dug up these supposed “troofers” who claim the video is fake. If they are real… then I pity the movement.

    In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon???

    Newsmax posted this video and along with a gloating rant that claimed this would silence the idiots… and when I brought this up to them, they took it down.

    Will you take this down… or just delete my response?


    Quote Comment
  9. 59
    DV82XL Says:

            Elvis Oswald said:

    In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon????

    Since you seen to have some intelligence, I will explain. The problem with this sort of simple analysis is that it is simple. There are few things more complex than two complex structures impacting. There are so many variables involved that it cannot be modeled just by looking at tapes of other events.

    So in the end this proves nothing. Don’t fall into the same intellectual traps as the troofers.


    Quote Comment
  10. 60
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Elvis Oswald said:

    Since you are completely sure that this video shows what happens to a plane that hits a concrete wall… and I am sure it does too… maybe you can tell me how the “plane” that hit the pentagon penetrated 3 concrete walls that were reinforced with kevlar???

    I’m not sure where you dug up these supposed “troofers” who claim the video is fake. If they are real… then I pity the movement.

    In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon???

    Newsmax posted this video and along with a gloating rant that claimed this would silence the idiots… and when I brought this up to them, they took it down.

    Youre right in the respect that this video is not a perfect analog for the pentagon. This does demonstrate in a visual way how an aircraft can fragment but it does not show a situation which is comparable.

    First of all, the aircraft is hitting a fixed block of high density steel reinforced concrete and it’s actually a most of the force is used to both break apart the aircraft and push the heavy block somewhat backward. By pushing backward at a slower rate a much greater mass we have conservation of most of the momentum and the rest is dissipated by the aircraft fragmenting.

    The aircraft which hit the pentagon was considerably larger and hit a considerably thinner wall of concrete. Given, the pentagon is pretty strong but the walls are only so thick and do have windows and such. Armored windows in many cases, but still not comparable to several feet of reinforced concrete. When the aircraft hit no doubt it broke apart immediately but it would have also broken the concrete. The concrete is strong to compression but for “sheer” as in an impact event it is more limited.

    The fact that the aircraft was in pieces does not mean it stopped at this point. Since the first wall did not stay in one piece and solid it would not be completely deflected. The total mass of the aircraft still was moving forward, along with concrete it dislodged except in as multiple pieces and not one solid aircraft. Every fragment continued forward uintil the energy was expended. In the video of the F4 most of the fragments are still going at a high rate of speed but they’re deflected sideways when they hit the wall, because it doesn’t give.

    This is a bit like a fragmentation round or some penitraters like depleted uranium. When it strikes the armor it may not remain in one piece, but the cloud of aerosol and molten steel continues to move forward with the same extreme energy of the round.

    Now there also needs to be an understanding of building armor. The Pentagon did have ballistic armor and armored windows with relatively good laminated glass/acrylic. However the structure was not armored for all possible attacks. If you want to make the pentagon impervious to damn near anything you have to basically put it in the center of a mountain (Actually they did that.. it’s called Raven Rock)

    But all armor is going to be designed for a certain kind of threat in mind. With the Pentagon it would be the possibility of a car bomb, an attack with small arms or something like that. Kevlar, you mention, may have been used, but Kevlar is not the be-all end-all. Kevlar fabric is good ballistic material because it can deform and absorb a lot of energy without tearing and allowing a fragment through. But Kevlar fabric is not going to add structural strength. In reality, it isn’t even anchored down very well so if you push on it hard enough the whole panel will tear away as one piece.

    This is the thing: The pentagon was never armored in a manner anticipating a massive amount of force from a mechanical impact. Let me use an analogy for the armored windows and paneling. Lets imagine there is a line of men with bullet proof vests guarding me.

    They’re standing there shoulder to shoulder and I’m behind them. You shoot one of them in the vest. You might shoot him a bunch of times. He stays standing. He grunts and leans back, but the guy next to him grabs his shoulder to make sure he doesn’t go back too far. The bullet proof vests have protected the line of guards and I’m safe.

    Now lets say you have the same setup and you have a 300 pound football player run into the guards. He breaks through and nocks a bunch over and makes it to me. The fact that they had kevlar vests does not matter.

    Will you take this down… or just delete my response?

    No that’s never done here. Actually I’ve made a point of that.


    Quote Comment
  11. 61
    CBMTTek Says:

            WarOnManIsReal said:

    There are a lot of scholars, scientists and 911 families who support investigating it and proving the government did it.

    They come out eventhough they know it puts their lives in danger.

    You are safe by saying it’s not that way but you’re a coward for not standing up for what is right.

    Really!

    Let’s see. http://www.ae911truth.org/ says that 316 architectural and engineering professionals agree.

    IF every single one of them is actually employed as an engineer, then they are part of a pool of workers in the US that is 1,510,400 people strong. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

    Well, quick calculations mean that they represent a whopping 0.0209% of the working engineering population. Do you want me to tell the other 99.979% that they are wrong, or will you get that.

    If you consider only the structural engineers, that percentage shrinks even smaller.

    What about the population as a whole though? I like to go here every once in a while just for fun. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ I especially like page on the artists, entertainers and media professionals. I am sure that all that time spent waiting tables before they got their first staring role make them more then qualified to comment on the physics of the collapse.


    Quote Comment
  12. 62
    CBMTTek Says:

            SluthForTruth said:

    Your long winded appeal to emotion proves nothing.

    There is nothing better we can do to honor those who died that day than to bring the real killers to justice.

    You only oppose investigation because you do not want your faith shaken in your precious government and your fragile belief in the world which would come crashing down if you opened your eyes to the obvious.

    It is not worth saving people the pain of answering the tough questions if that denies justice to the victims of 9/11.

    If you had any confidence in your idea that it was just 19 hijackers you would not be trying so hard to fight any independent investigation into those events.

    I think a very large portion of the websites like this one are commissioned by the government to appear to be individually driven.

    I am not sure if this is one of them or if it is just run by someone who has their head in the sand.

    Actually, a very thorough and extremely independent investigation is currently going on.

    You are part of it right now.

    Information is available, theories are presented and debated, studies are published, and so on. And, all of it without spending a single taxpayer dollar. I love the internet.


    Quote Comment
  13. 63
    True Patriot For Truth Says:

            J Carlton said:

    There’s just one problem with your logic. None of the four aircraft involved in 9/11 were out of service long enough to have the kind if modifications made to them needed to convert them for remote control. Remote control is easy if you have access to all the parts need to make the modifications.

    Getting that access isn’t so easy as most of those components are long cycle maintainence items and don’t need to be accessed until the aircraft is undergoing a heavy rebuild where all of the things on top are replaced anyway. Here’s a link showing what it would take to modify a Boeing 757 or 767 for remote control:http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
    A commercial aircraft’s every minute is tracked in its log. If an airplane is not flying it’s not making money and that becomes expensive very quickly. An aircraft out of service long enough to have the modifications done would be noticed. With this in mind, the only possibilities left are that the pilots deliberately crashed the aircraft and their passengers into the WTC, which is highly unlikely or the planes were hijacked by Muslim Jihadis bent on suicidal destruction, which is supported by all the evidence available.

    Well, I know this comment is going to be deleted, but it’s complete bull**** that planes are always in the air. You don’t think planes sometimes need engines replaced or to be overhauled or checked for safety? Or painted? or refitted inside and out? Why do you think there are hangers at airports.

    Plus, even if it did take a long time they could have all the time they want to make a plane for this kind of thing and then pull off the old switcheroo


    Quote Comment
  14. 64
    DV82XL Says:

            True Patriot For Truth said:

    Well, I know this comment is going to be deleted, but it’s complete bull**** that planes are always in the air. You don’t think planes sometimes need engines replaced or to be overhauled or checked for safety? Or painted? or refitted inside and out?

    Why do you think there are hangers at airports.

    Plus, even if it did take a long time they could have all the time they want to make a plane for this kind of thing and then pull off the old switcheroo

    First you have absolutely no idea of how commercial aircraft are operated, the degree of complexity of the systems, or the way things are traced in the industry. They are not something you can file the serial numbers off of because every single part on the airframe and the engine has a FTN (Fulltime Tracking Number) which is assigned to a component when it is made and is retired when the part is destroyed. Since these parts come from all over it would be impossible to change aircraft without one of them being noticed.


    Quote Comment
  15. 65
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Fir

            True Patriot For Truth said:

    Well, I know this comment is going to be deleted, but it’s complete bull**** that planes are always in the air. You don’t think planes sometimes need engines replaced or to be overhauled or checked for safety? Or painted? or refitted inside and out?

    Why do you think there are hangers at airports.

    Plus, even if it did take a long time they could have all the time they want to make a plane for this kind of thing and then pull off the old switcheroo

    First, no your comment will not be deleted. Yes, there are times when an aircraft is pulled for service for an extensive overhaul and there are also times when aircraft are grounded for safety checks or just because there is not that much demand at a given time.

    However, there is a lot of documentation. Not only this, but every piece of the aircraft has a serial number from the time it is manufactured and it can all be traced. There are logs and records.

    It would be an enormous task to get every single person involved and every single record involved changed to fit in. There were pieces scattered all over lower manhattan. You would be very surprised how well documented aircraft designs are. You can trace a single fragment to a single production run of a given airframe and often to a single aircraft.

    There are far too many parts and too many individuals and records to ever hope to cover your tracks.


    Quote Comment
  16. 66
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    There are far too many parts and too many individuals and records to ever hope to cover your tracks.

    Not only that but a modern aircraft is more a corporation than a single entity. In some cases you will find that the airframe belongs to some Irish leasing company, each of the engines and each of the landing gears is the property of a different bank located in the Caymans, or Lichtenstein, the interiors belong to a another company, and the crew is from some other airline that the one who’s name is painted on the tail.

    Over the life of an aircraft units are robbed and different ones put in as the operation demands, and upgrades are installed, and so on and so on.

    Doc is right, it would be impossible to run all of these changes down, to make a switch and the ripple effect through the documentation would encompass dozens more airlines and aircraft.


    Quote Comment
  17. 67
    barry mead Says:

    WHAT a shame you obfuscate and twist. Is the test a fake? NO!
    Now what it means is that plus other tests done, indeed show destruction, perhaps it is your deliberate choice to ignore the fact of the concrete blocks size and composition, because had you looked at that you would wonder how a plane ploughs through 1 perimeter wall, 60 feet of steel and concrete, then a core wall, then several core columns, then another 60 feet of distance encountering at the least, office furnishings, then another perimeter wall. But just 3.7m of steel reinforced concrete obliterates 96% of an aircraft.

    Maybe then in comparing crashes you should compare impact number and explosion manner. Ie- which of your crashes had a impact of 1 or more walls? which of your crashes were actually bombs?
    Try lockerbie, try twa 800 and a FULL spread of what was recovered.
    THAT is what is not just fair but an accurate representation.

    The actual reality is, that any crash actually comparable that is JUST a crash into the earth has never before disintegrated bodies and swallowed a plane but regurgitated the evidence. No my friend, you have deliberately misled the point “often” made. Please review the misinformation


    Quote Comment
  18. 68
    DV82XL Says:

            barry mead said:

    The actual reality is, that any crash actually comparable that is JUST a crash into the earth has never before disintegrated bodies and swallowed a plane but regurgitated the evidence. No my friend, you have deliberately misled the point “often” made. Please review the misinformation

    Like every other idiot that thinks he understands what happened you are utterly ignorant of aircraft structures, building structures, and basic physics. You want there to be some conspiracy at work because it fits into your world view and you have only chosen to accept the opinions of those that reinforce your position. You simply do not know what you are talking about and you are too stupid and too lazy to do the hard work of really understanding what occurred in that event. like all of your kind, you instantly jump on the idea that any evidence that doesn’t agree with your position is ‘misinformation,’ implying someone is trying to hide something. Too bad people like you get to vote.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string QM5CJM to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam