Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gee, this is shaping up to be useful. 
Didn't think my simple questions would be so complicated to understand, especially since I said "Describe it how you would see it in an NTSB crash report."
Why would you expect anyone here to be able to describe the debris field at the level of detail of an NTSB crash report? That doesn't seem serious.
Since you described how it allegedly came in (563 mph, rolled to the right, 40 degrees), start with what part of the plane supposedly struck first and then continue from there.
Now I'm even more lost. In what respect would my speculative response to your still unexplained inquisition resemble an NTSB crash report?
If one is trying to debunk the official story, one needs to know what the official story is, agreed?
That's bizarre. Why would one be "trying to debunk the official story" without even knowing what it is? For that matter, why assume that there even is an "official story"? If you don't think what struck first can be deduced from the black box data (which, I suppose, you suspect was rigged), then why would you expect any of us to know?
It seems to me that if you were actually interested in establishing the truth about what "allegedly" happened in Shanksville, you would do your own research instead of demanding that other people do it for you. Am I wrong? If so, how?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read