What did I say about nervous agitated laughter? Here's a great example from a man who thinks man rode dinosaurs before Noah.

No, I didn't.

I'm not arguing with anyone, dumbass. Read the thread. I have not posted ONE post calling their theories about the incident wrong or dumb. Others are arguing with me. I'm just pointing out their personal motivations.

You just argued.

Frankie, if you stop acting like you're smarter than everyone else while posting proof of the complete opposite, maybe people wouldn't laugh at you so much. It's nothing personal, man.

You honestly thought BossChief's post was serious? You didn't detect even a hint of sarcasm? When people started to make fun of your uninformed, sensationalistic claim in OP (which was obviously based solely on the picture), you made up an argument that didn't exist (the "indestructible" part). I'm trying to help you understand why people don't give you the credit you think you deserve.

The only argument I remember having with you was about your extremely selfish posting style (when you come back and reply post by post to a thread that has already moved on beyond that point) so I don't know where this whole "agenda" against you theory is coming from, at least as far as I'm concerned.

This is EXACTLY what he meant by arguing with half-wits.

He's beating people with logic and debate, that's not arguing. It's something other than arguing.

I believe his word of choice was actually "witless."

4321

Well, I give you more credit than he does. You're at least a half-wit.

Check post 107.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...43#post7699943

I know you do and, for that, I thank you.

Ummm, not everyone else. Just you and the usual cavemen like you who can't handle a "ferner" who is smarter than them. Case in point this very thread. I think and most reasonably logical people agree:

1- Airplanes, as well designed and aerodynamic as they are built are subject to incredible forces in flight.

2- Airplanes do get old. Most wind tunnel tests about their integrity are done with a certain number of flight factored in.

3- Total immaculate maintenance is necessary to keep them safe. Not all airlines do this. Especially if they are owned by countries like Trinidad or Iran.

4- ALL theories expressed here about why this particular accident happened hold water. To totally dismiss one is mega stupid, especially if one does it calling the other person dumb. You see what I mean? The very reaction speaks of one's lack of logic or purposeful and personally motivated condescension.

5- This thread and it's subject is not important enough to have a debate on. Starting one is personal assholery and enduring ass-hurt dating back to some other debate.

6- (1+2+3+4+5) = Frankie is the logical one in this unnecessary debate and you* are an asshole with a chip on your shoulder.

(* = Applies to all assholes in this thread who qualify via 4 & 5. You are welcome.)

Somebody please tickle the rest of us so we can laugh here.

Hey Iovagian, I have noticed too many half-wits of the CP have laughed at your mostly unfunny lines over the years and it has gotten to your head. Hate to break it to you dude, but you are not FAX or Rain Man. In fact quite the opposite.

Frankie, no one is arguing that aircraft are indestructible. They aren't. But no commercial aircraft has EVER experienced a complete fuselage failure like the one shown in the OP while in flight.

Do you understand now?

Thanks man. But no "OUT" is needed.

Also thank you for admitting that you are wrong. I'm not saying that your theory about this incident is wrong. I'm saying to hold steadfastly to ONLY your theory being right is wrong.