No link?.... Why am I not surprised?Here is a hint. it's not on FOX News .com lol
No link?.... Why am I not surprised?Here is a hint. it's not on FOX News .com lol
It was shot down??????????? By whom and from where?
CF-18 pilots from Bagotville.It was shot down??????????? By whom and from where?
Can any of you medicated types point me to the wingbox and landing gear for flight 93 if the ones off their meds can't?
Anyone who thinks this was not a set up is retarded.
Any engeneer, steel worker or construction worker knows building's don't
go down like that even if you had launched a missile or something
even bigger and stronger then a plane.
The early bird gets the worm.So another puzzlement ........why at that time of morning when so much more
death and destruction could have happened at either mid morning or mid
afternoon. Someone was not going for the maximum "kill"...
Nada. Wing boxes and landing gear don't burn to char.Read this....might answer some questions for you... The Truth about United Flight 93
To tell the truth, I liked it better with NORAD losing by 3-1. Oh in 4 isn't a great statement....Read this....might answer some questions for you... The Truth about United Flight 93
The wing box is the stronges piece of an aircraft. It holds up both wings, landing gear and the engines. They don't just ****ing vanish into char."My instinct was to run toward it, to try to help" said Nina
Lensbouer, Tim's Lensbouer's wife and a former volunteer firefighter.
"But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly,
it was charcoal."
Poof. Like magic! the strongest 1/3 of an aircraft never to be seen again.The wingbox, a cantilevered beam that carries the wing to the fuselage and
supports leading- and trailing-edge devices, control surfaces, engines and
landing gear, represents a portion of the wing section that begins at about the
center of the airplane and stops at approximately one-half of the span of the
wing, or ~50 ft/15.2m. The structure measures ~18 ft/5.5m at its widest point
and weighs 55,000 lb/24,947 kg, including a great deal of test-only hardware and
instrumentation.
:lol:To tell the truth, I liked it better with NORAD losing by 3-1. Oh in 4 isn't a great statement....
Nada. Wing boxes and landing gear don't burn to char.
I suggest you learn about the wing box and what it does.:lol:
That doggone plane must have taken off without a wing or landing gear and an explosion that can be felt miles away cant destroy landing gears or wing boxes...oh well?
It would have fallen over to one side. lol
Even NIST changed from the "pancake theory".What that MEANS is that when the steel supports extending from the central
structure failed under the heat, the entire floor collapsed onto the next one,
around the central core, which directed the fall straight down, one floor into
the next. It would have been almost impossible for the WTC to "have fallen over
to one side"
I suggest you learn about the wing box and what it does.
Go for it. Show me. Prove it. You should have no problems whatsoever.Where does it say that they never found it? or part of it....and what are you trying to prove if it wasn't found?
Anyone who thinks this was not a set up is retarded.
Any engeneer, steel worker or construction worker knows building's don't
go down like that even if you had launched a missile or something
even bigger and stronger then a plane.
I don't know about 'engeneer's, but many engineers who understand steel structures can understand exactly why the buildings fell down. I know that when I turned on the tv and saw the first tower in flames, I knew it was coming down very very soon.
Now, maybe your structural classes were different, I don't know.