Flight 93's missing proof

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    So, I ask again. If there is no proof of 93 crashing wherever, why should we take the hole in PA as being the site of the crash? It's a hole! Not much more. The proof being unavailable is more consistent with a shoot down out of high altitude. See...that whats happened. It was shot down. that's WHY no proof exists, and why the best shills can't counter the fact with anything, because there ISN'T anything. Next question. Why was it shot down and why did they have to lie about it?
     
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I refuse to reply to such a silly post that is outright ignorant.

    Can you prove nothing crashed there, or that it was shot down?

    There was enough evidence recovered, including the engines, that they know what plane crashed there.
     
  3. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can sort of see why we don't worry too much about the twoofers any longer. The commentary on their part is so sophomoric and jejune that commentary is seldom needed to point out the lack of logic, the lack of common sense, and, worst still...the lack of sensibility as we approach the 10 year milestone.

    Every shred of evidence supports the 9/11 Commission Report findings. That was the case on day one, it is the case on day 3,650. It will be the case on day, 36,500 as well.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No more than you can prove that something DID.
     
  5. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ten years since 9/11 and the skeptics still can't offer up any evidence a plane was in the ground. Maybe in 20 years... :bored:
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nah...twenty years, 30, or more. No proof. No offer or explanation as to why. No balz. Just shill marching orders, pretending there actually was proof.

    THERE WASN'T. THERE NEVER WILL BE BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY, BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!
     
  7. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There fixed it.
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey...anybody discover any of that "proof" yet? Haven't seen any yet and was just wondering.

    Mom? This is your son. You believe me, right?
     
  9. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hannibal claims to have some, but for some reason he won't post it. Guess he wants these conspiracy theories to go on forever.
     
  10. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://www.unitedflight93.com/

    Eyewitness accounts, photos, etc.

    Also examination of the conspiracy theories with logic and critical thinking. I
     
  11. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That what all that is? Solid source, no doubt.

    I was wondering....anything NOT close up or comparable to the landscape?
     
  12. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How about you look at the evidence presented and then attempt to refute it logically or with other credible evidence and just skip the smarmy one liners? They do nothing to prove your point. They just make you look like a desperate fool who can't refute the evidence.
     
  13. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From just skimming that page:

    - "Most plane crashes are with the plane trying to make a landing, even if it is in the woods. Few if any planes have ever impacted at a 90 degree angle. The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces."

    WRONG! Official story said 40 deg.

    - "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air. "

    WRONG! Officials said plane came to rest underground when it accordioned against the bedrock below and this supposedly happened so fast that:

    - "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away."

    WRONG! Officials said only lightweight pieces were found 8 miles away, carried by the mushroom cloud. He's basically saying the blast hurled weighty pieces 8 miles!!!

    - "It may have been even more powerful than 187 tons of TNT. The explosion created a huge fireball, which shows that the blast was not under the ground, that is it was not after the plane had gone into the ground, but was at the surface."

    WRONG! The non-burnt undamaged grass around the crater and hardly any dirt displaced from this "huge blast" disproves any huge blast at the surface. You can argue a moderate blast happened to the damaged forest section, but I still don't know how that could happen if the plane mostly buried.

    So obviously not much of a blast at the crater. How'd the forest get that way from not veering to far away from the official story?

    - "In the minds of some, the fact that the blast destroyed the plane and vaporized the passengers is evidence of a government conspiracy."

    How'd it do that when most of the plane buried "so fast it didn't have a chance to burn"?

    - "Perhaps the conspiracy believers' best witness is Susan Mcelwain, a 51-year-old teacher of special needs children... First, just how does a 51-year-old school teacher become an expert at identifying military aircraft?"

    Nice. He's calling this lady a liar.

    - "However, her description as given above, does exactly fit a Learjet 55."

    WRONG! She said it had not wings and the side fins were on the tail, not the wings cause she didn't see any wings. That's why she said "I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. "

    She was later interviewed again by truthers who showed her a photo of a Falcon 20 and said that was "NOT" what she saw. She said it wasn't an A-10 Warthog fighter either.

    Plus this alleged Falcon 20 supposedly didn't show up until many minutes later and only down to something like 1,500 ft. The white plane Susan and the dozen others saw was at treetop level seen BEFORE the alleged crash, not many later as this alleged Falcon 20 did.

    - "The conspiracyists even use something as trivial as the red bandanas that the hijackers wore as evidence that it was not a real hijacking or that the government was behind it."

    Why doesn't he bring up that the red bandana was perfectly intact as if it was bought right off the shelf? I think we know why. Hard to argue a 757 blew up into a "billion pieces" but miraculously a red bandana escaped unscathed.


    I don't believe there was a shoot down, so most of his article doesn't apply to me, but of it that does apply is full of errors and holes.

    Oh btw, his article does nothing to change the fact that Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried.
     
  14. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,168
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Images of United 93 crash scene
     
  15. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, at least you read it. Kudos for that.

    He said "small pieces" like "lightweight". You said "weighty pieces".

    That's funny that you keep referring to "officials" to support your rebuttals of minute details. I thought the "officials" were all in on the conspiracy? Are you now conceding that the "officials" narrative is generally correct? That would be a step in the right direction.

    You're right. It doesn't apply to you.

    The title of this thread, in case you missed it is "Flight 93's missing proof"
     
  16. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He's saying the alleged huge explosion that miraculously didn't burn any of the grassy field surrounding the crater launched debris 8 miles. It would have to be pieces weighty enough to be launched that far, don't you agree?

    The official story says, and other skeptic sites agree, the pieces where lightweight pieces like paper and nylon that got carried in the wind:

    So where these pieces carried by the wind, or launched the whole 8 miles from the alleged huge explosion?

    The devil is in the details, right?

    You'd agree that the official story has to add up, right?

    That's right, proof that most of the 757 was buried is missing. :-D


    I left a few questions in my previous post. Care to attempt to answer any of them?
     
  17. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And miraculously, none have been posted on the internet for the world to see.

    Your claims are obviously:

    [​IMG]
     
  18. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We will try this again, since you have trouble reading for comprehension.

    What he said was

    which essentially means that the energy contained in the amount of jet fuel that Flight 93 was carrying when it crashed was powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away.

    Okay.

    He did not say. Again, lack of reading comprehension is getting in the way here, so I'll help you out. He is saying that the energy contained in the amount of jet fuel that Flight 93 was carrying when it crashed was powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away.

    Agreed. But since they had to piece together what happened after the fact from the evidence that is available, certainty of all the details can't be established. So the only alternative is to arrive at a logical conclusion after examining all the available evidence.

    It does. Would you agree that the truther's theories need to add up as well?

    That's not the subject of this thread. :mrgreen: Go back and read the title.

    Not really. Your objections are to minor details. It does nothing to change the fact that there is plenty of evidence that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.
     
  19. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Official" BS story swallowers can't get past a one liner. That would require actually LOOKING at the the fairy tale, and the evidence (or the lack of it).

    As soon as you get too close to anything specific, the shills swarm like bees with ridicule and other intentionally distracting comments. Then, the thread gets shut down.
    One liners seem to get left alone on occasion.

    Besides, I like the readers to actually look for themselves. Better that way.
     
  20. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting strategy. Saves you the trouble of having to provide any sources or citations for your claims.

    I don't think you will convince many people that way though. If your goal is to spread the truth about 9/11 I would think you would want to point folks in the direction of reliable sources.
     
  21. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I provide a starting point as often as possible. I can't walk the horse to the water, they gotta first want to actually KNOW the truth. The best way to do that is to try and coax the reader to actually LOOK for themselves, and many do just that, despite the shill nonsense.
     
  22. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You mean starting points like your other thread?

    Interesting approach you have for coaxing people into looking for the truth. It works, but not the way you expect.
     
  23. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um, I know. He's saying the explosion launched some pieces 8 miles (which would have to be weighty pieces to be able to be launched that far) not lightweight pieces, like paper and nylon, that were carried that far from the mushroom cloud and wind. Looks like the comprehension problem is yours.

    So you agree the details have to match the official story, or the OS is false, right?

    The guy's article doesn't. I pointing out many of his "factual" errors.

    Which part of my theory that the claim that most of the 757 buried is bogus doesn't add up?

    You're more concerned with technically being on topic with a thread title than exposing lies of the official story that led us into multiple wars, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people, destroying cities and towns, and costing trillions of dollars?

    Interesting priorities.

    I guess that's what I would say if I couldn't explain away my questions.

    If you were going to stage a plane crash would you:

    1) plant no evidence
    2) plant one piece of evidence
    3) plant a handful of evidence
    4) plant plenty of evidence
     
  24. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He's saying the explosion was powerful enough to launch pieces 8 miles.

    This is one guy's summary of the evidence. He is not an "official". He is summarizing facts. If he makes a typo or a grammatical error, it does not invalidate the "official" story.

    Do you have links to reliable sources to support that there are "factual errors"?

    Not the subject of this thread.

    They seemed fine to you when you were doing the same thing in this thread.

    You're questions are irrelevant and a distraction. They do nothing to disprove that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

    I would not stage a plane crash. Would you?

    Do you have any credible sources to support the crash was staged?
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    When folks avoid the shills, and look for themselves, they're rewarded with the truth. What they do with it is up to them.
     

Share This Page