Activism Discussion: 50+ Worth Of Half-credits (a Mix Of Full And Half-credits); I'm Surprised You Plucks From The Genius Tree ...

50+ Worth Of Half-credits (a Mix Of Full And Half-credits); I'm Surprised You Plucks From The Genius Tree ...
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Zookumar Yelubandi
2007-08-26 10:11:05 EST
... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.

For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)

Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.

-zookumar-
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Animal05
2007-08-26 12:07:35 EST
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
> over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
> took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
> courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
> Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
> Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>
> For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
> the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
> to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>
> Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
>
> -zookumar-

Troofer personality trait #1 - narcissism

Cardinal Chunder
2007-08-28 05:02:13 EST
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
> over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
> took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
> courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
> Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
> Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>
> For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
> the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
> to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>
> Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.

Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
drop-out.

Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
claim you may have qualified for.

What will this prove? Your posts are still moronic and fundamentally
flawed either way.

Zookumar Yelubandi
2007-08-28 09:15:26 EST
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
> > over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
> > took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
> > courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
> > Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
> > Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
> >
> > For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
> > the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
> > to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
> > Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
> Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
> physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
> drop-out.

Hi Blunder. So, how do you rate History Channel's version of
the events of 9/11? Accurate? Minorly inaccurate? Majorly
inaccurate? Or naked yellow journalism?

> Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
> access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
> claim you may have qualified for.

No. I don't expect that at all. But I know that's what your
kind does, you know, dig up things on messengers to try and use against
the message. Just thought that since you duckwits have the expertise in
that area, that perhaps you wouldn't mind helping out by finding some
information for me. Of course, I really couldn't care less. My genius
or lack of genius doesn't hinge on my university background (which I
have since disavowed).

I *am* interested in your explanation of the physics of 9/11.
Choose any node. Twin towers. WTC7. The Pentagon. Flight 93 and the
significance of an 8-mile wide debris, specifically, how it pertains to
the OCT. Etc. Put up your implied excellent grasp of physics against
my "very poor grasp of physics and other sciences". Or waddle away.

> What will this prove? Your posts are still moronic and fundamentally
> flawed either way.

Conservation of Linear Momentum. Let's discuss that first (both
in general terms, and then in the specific case of 9/11). Then we'll
get into the Conservation of Torques. Then, if there's anything left
of you, we'll discuss surface tension and its role in creating iron
spherules (as discovered by Steven Jones); what that means to the
temperature lid; consequently, what that means to the OCT.

And if we still have time, and you still have intellectual mass
left that is capable of delivering momentum, we'll do things by
scientific method, you know, proceed from observations to conclusions.
We'll start from the observed "pyroclastic debris clouds" of the twin
towers and look at all realistic possibilities for their origin (here,
we'll not waste time with lexical gymnastics that require volcanoes in
the heart of Manhattan ... such will automatically be an admission of
intellectual bankruptcy).

So, make your opening volley, papered prince of the high
colleges. You've quacked the quack; now waddle the waddle.

-zookumar-


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Vandar
2007-08-28 09:23:09 EST
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> We'll start from the observed "pyroclastic debris clouds" of the twin
> towers

HA! Thus zookie proves to the world yet again that the has no fucking clue.
Pyroclastic!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA...


Al Dykes
2007-08-28 09:32:41 EST
In article <OdVAi.3472$Pd4.804@edtnps82>,
zookumar yelubandi <zookumar@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> > ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
>> > over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
>> > took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
>> > courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
>> > Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
>> > Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>> >
>> > For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
>> > the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
>> > to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>> > Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
>> Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
>> physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
>> drop-out.
>
> Hi Blunder. So, how do you rate History Channel's version of
>the events of 9/11? Accurate? Minorly inaccurate? Majorly
>inaccurate? Or naked yellow journalism?
>
>> Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
>> access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
>> claim you may have qualified for.
>
> No. I don't expect that at all. But I know that's what your
>kind does, you know, dig up things on messengers to try and use against
>the message. Just thought that since you duckwits have the expertise in


Sometimes the dirt is relevant to judge the credibility of the
author. For instance, the fact that you believe in perpetual motion
when you write about anything more complex than a light switch.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Al Dykes
2007-08-28 09:39:19 EST
In article <OdVAi.3472$Pd4.804@edtnps82>,
zookumar yelubandi <zookumar@yahoo.ca> wrote:


>We'll start from the observed "pyroclastic debris clouds" of the twin


A pyroclastic flow (also known as a pyroclastic density current) is
a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The
flows are fast-moving currents of hot gas, ash and rock
(collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the
volcano at up to 700 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of
up to 1000 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and
travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity, their speed
depending upon the density of the current, the rate that the
volcano provides new material to it, and the gradient of the slope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow


Nothing like the above happened at WTC on 9/11.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Cardinal Chunder
2007-08-28 10:31:40 EST
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>> ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
>>> over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
>>> took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
>>> courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
>>> Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
>>> Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>>>
>>> For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
>>> the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
>>> to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>>> Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
>> Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
>> physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
>> drop-out.
>
> Hi Blunder. So, how do you rate History Channel's version of
> the events of 9/11? Accurate? Minorly inaccurate? Majorly
> inaccurate? Or naked yellow journalism?

As accurate as can be expected in the time allowed. More time would have
allowed many more of the varied kook klaims to be debunked.

>> Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
>> access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
>> claim you may have qualified for.
>
> No. I don't expect that at all.

"you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at Dalhousie and
Guelph if you want to get the entire story. "

Seems pretty clear that's what you do want. Or rather you want to shift
the goalposts so far as to somehow put the question of your "genius"
beyond all doubt despite it being very much in doubt.

> But I know that's what your
> kind does, you know, dig up things on messengers to try and use against
> the message.

My kind? You mean non-narcissistic, clear thinking, non-kooks?

> Just thought that since you duckwits have the expertise in
> that area, that perhaps you wouldn't mind helping out by finding some
> information for me.

Why can't you do it yourself. It's your claim, not anybody elses. You're
claiming that your "genius" somehow qualifies you to make grand
pronouncements on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, not anybody else.

> Of course, I really couldn't care less. My genius
> or lack of genius doesn't hinge on my university background (which I
> have since disavowed).

Ooh, you "disavowed" your university background. That sounds so much
more noble than saying you're a drop-out.

> I *am* interested in your explanation of the physics of 9/11.
> Choose any node. Twin towers. WTC7. The Pentagon. Flight 93 and the
> significance of an 8-mile wide debris, specifically, how it pertains to
> the OCT.

8 mile wide debris? Not that kook klaim again.

> Etc. Put up your implied excellent grasp of physics against
> my "very poor grasp of physics and other sciences". Or waddle away.

I've implied nothing since I'm not the one making kooky klaims such as
"Law of conservation of linear momentum singularly *PROVES* 9/11 was an
Inside Job". That's your stupid klaim. No need to shift the burden of
proof onto me.

>> What will this prove? Your posts are still moronic and fundamentally
>> flawed either way.
>
> Conservation of Linear Momentum. Let's discuss that first (both
> in general terms, and then in the specific case of 9/11). Then we'll
> get into the Conservation of Torques. Then, if there's anything left
> of you, we'll discuss surface tension and its role in creating iron
> spherules (as discovered by Steven Jones); what that means to the
> temperature lid; consequently, what that means to the OCT.

Oooh, let's not until you have something valid to say.

> And if we still have time, and you still have intellectual mass
> left that is capable of delivering momentum, we'll do things by
> scientific method, you know, proceed from observations to conclusions.
> We'll start from the observed "pyroclastic debris clouds" of the twin
> towers and look at all realistic possibilities for their origin (here,
> we'll not waste time with lexical gymnastics that require volcanoes in
> the heart of Manhattan ... such will automatically be an admission of
> intellectual bankruptcy).

More shifting the burden of proof. It's your kooky klaim that the towers
were brought down by whatever the hell it is, not mine. It is up to you
to demonstrate the towers could not have collapsed by fire and massive
structural damage. Write a paper about it. Publish it in a scientific
journal.

> So, make your opening volley, papered prince of the high
> colleges. You've quacked the quack; now waddle the waddle.

I don't recall at any time boasting of being a genius, or of putting my
qualifications up for scrutiny, or even implied that my genius means I'm
qualified to make expert pronouncements on the collapse of the towers.
You have though. And you've had your ass handed to you for it. Over and
over again.

Al Dykes
2007-08-28 10:55:47 EST
In article <fb1bll02rue@news2.newsguy.com>,
Cardinal Chunder <cchunder_S_P@A_M.foiler.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>>> ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
>>>> over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
>>>> took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
>>>> courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
>>>> Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
>>>> Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>>>>
>>>> For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
>>>> the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
>>>> to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>>>> Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
>>> Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
>>> physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
>>> drop-out.
>>
>> Hi Blunder. So, how do you rate History Channel's version of
>> the events of 9/11? Accurate? Minorly inaccurate? Majorly
>> inaccurate? Or naked yellow journalism?
>
>As accurate as can be expected in the time allowed. More time would have
>allowed many more of the varied kook klaims to be debunked.
>
>>> Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
>>> access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
>>> claim you may have qualified for.
>>
>> No. I don't expect that at all.
>
>"you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at Dalhousie and
>Guelph if you want to get the entire story. "
>
>Seems pretty clear that's what you do want. Or rather you want to shift
>the goalposts so far as to somehow put the question of your "genius"
>beyond all doubt despite it being very much in doubt.
>
>> But I know that's what your
>> kind does, you know, dig up things on messengers to try and use against
>> the message.
>
>My kind? You mean non-narcissistic, clear thinking, non-kooks?
>
>> Just thought that since you duckwits have the expertise in
>> that area, that perhaps you wouldn't mind helping out by finding some
>> information for me.
>
>Why can't you do it yourself. It's your claim, not anybody elses. You're
>claiming that your "genius" somehow qualifies you to make grand
>pronouncements on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, not anybody else.
>
>> Of course, I really couldn't care less. My genius
>> or lack of genius doesn't hinge on my university background (which I
>> have since disavowed).
>
>Ooh, you "disavowed" your university background. That sounds so much
>more noble than saying you're a drop-out.
>
>> I *am* interested in your explanation of the physics of 9/11.
>> Choose any node. Twin towers. WTC7. The Pentagon. Flight 93 and the
>> significance of an 8-mile wide debris, specifically, how it pertains to
>> the OCT.
>


Zook; everything you "know" is wrong.

Flt93 dug a hole a little larger than itself and 95% of the mass of
the jet was recovered in the hole or very close to it, as were the two
black boxes.

The "8 mile" figre is bogus. That's the milage by road. As the wind
blows, it's 2 miles. The material found by the lake was papers, not
aircraft parts.

Most or all of the pasengers were identified by DNA found in the hole.



The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a
40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35
m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no
survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were
killed by the impact or had been previously killed during
flight).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Here's a link to all the literature that shows how all te bodies were
identified by DNA and small property fond with the bodies.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301victimsidentified#a091301victimsidentified


Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft
was recovered form that hole including both black boxes.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html

CNN.com

FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe

SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its
investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field
here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks
continues.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of
United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over
Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder
and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI,
according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a
6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four
windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan,
weighing about 1,000 pounds.

Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe
the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been
destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where
the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the
Capitol.

Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have
praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions
in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy.

People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked
say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade
Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers.

And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it
shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as
desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers.

All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the
ground.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Vandar
2007-08-28 11:27:30 EST
Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <fb1bll02rue@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Cardinal Chunder <cchunder_S_P@A_M.foiler.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>>Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>>
>>>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... missed that obvious mental typo. So ... that's somewhere
>>>>>over 25 full credits *granted* collectively by the two universities. I
>>>>>took about 30 credits worth of courses in a mix of half and full credit
>>>>>courses; failed about 5 credits worth (due to my truancy, of course).
>>>>>Anyways, you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at
>>>>>Dalhousie and Guelph if you want to get the entire story.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, I have disavowed them all; only mention it now for
>>>>>the purposes of accuracy. Still, I must be someone of some importance
>>>>>to have set your pond in a gyre. ;^)
>>>>> Duckwits, pluckwits, and me.
>>>>
>>>>Your posting history suggests you are a kook with a very poor grasp of
>>>>physics and other sciences. This is not surprising for a self-confessed
>>>>drop-out.
>>>
>>> Hi Blunder. So, how do you rate History Channel's version of
>>>the events of 9/11? Accurate? Minorly inaccurate? Majorly
>>>inaccurate? Or naked yellow journalism?
>>
>>As accurate as can be expected in the time allowed. More time would have
>>allowed many more of the varied kook klaims to be debunked.
>>
>>
>>>>Yet to prop up your dubious claims of genius you expect people to obtain
>>>>access to and search through two archives to find what colleges you
>>>>claim you may have qualified for.
>>>
>>> No. I don't expect that at all.
>>
>>"you bevy of duckwits will have to chase the archives at Dalhousie and
>>Guelph if you want to get the entire story. "
>>
>>Seems pretty clear that's what you do want. Or rather you want to shift
>>the goalposts so far as to somehow put the question of your "genius"
>>beyond all doubt despite it being very much in doubt.
>>
>>
>>>But I know that's what your
>>>kind does, you know, dig up things on messengers to try and use against
>>>the message.
>>
>>My kind? You mean non-narcissistic, clear thinking, non-kooks?
>>
>>
>>>Just thought that since you duckwits have the expertise in
>>>that area, that perhaps you wouldn't mind helping out by finding some
>>>information for me.
>>
>>Why can't you do it yourself. It's your claim, not anybody elses. You're
>>claiming that your "genius" somehow qualifies you to make grand
>>pronouncements on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, not anybody else.
>>
>>
>>>Of course, I really couldn't care less. My genius
>>>or lack of genius doesn't hinge on my university background (which I
>>>have since disavowed).
>>
>>Ooh, you "disavowed" your university background. That sounds so much
>>more noble than saying you're a drop-out.
>>
>>
>>> I *am* interested in your explanation of the physics of 9/11.
>>>Choose any node. Twin towers. WTC7. The Pentagon. Flight 93 and the
>>>significance of an 8-mile wide debris, specifically, how it pertains to
>>>the OCT.
>>
>
>
> Zook; everything you "know" is wrong.
>
> Flt93 dug a hole a little larger than itself and 95% of the mass of
> the jet was recovered in the hole or very close to it, as were the two
> black boxes.
>
> The "8 mile" figre is bogus. That's the milage by road. As the wind
> blows, it's 2 miles. The material found by the lake was papers, not
> aircraft parts.
>
> Most or all of the pasengers were identified by DNA found in the hole.
>
>
>
> The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a
> 40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35
> m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no
> survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were
> killed by the impact or had been previously killed during
> flight).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
>
> Here's a link to all the literature that shows how all te bodies were
> identified by DNA and small property fond with the bodies.
>
> http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301victimsidentified#a091301victimsidentified
>
>
> Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft
> was recovered form that hole including both black boxes.
>
>
> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html
>
> CNN.com
>
> FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe
>
> SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its
> investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field
> here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
>
> The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks
> continues.
>
> Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of
> United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over
> Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder
> and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI,
> according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.
>
> Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a
> 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four
> windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan,
> weighing about 1,000 pounds.
>
> Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe
> the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been
> destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where
> the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the
> Capitol.
>
> Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have
> praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions
> in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy.
>
> People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked
> say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade
> Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers.
>
> And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it
> shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as
> desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers.
>
> All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the
> ground.

Just as an addendum, the remains of flight 93 are being kept in Iron
Mountain, PA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkJrqV2qkQ

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron