Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 24, 2011.
That's still a great big "NOPE...I DO NOT"
The 93 crash site looks remarkable similar to other crash sites involving large aircraft.
Funny...I own original video of of the crash site and I don't recall seeing any of that. I'll recheck it though. Then, I'll comment on the creations.
I'm sure theres a logical explanation for all of that....likely it has a lot to do with it being the truth.
Only one of those images is of the 93 crash site. Tough to tell though....
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (U.S. v. Moussaoui)
The blog of a lying, e-stalking piece of garbage, who's been banned all over the net, and even been distanced by many of his fellow Truthers, would not fall into the category of what I would consider a favorite site. It's funny if you approach it like The Onion though.
You seem to like it suede. This wasn't the truth blogger that turned out to be a pedo was it? You never mentioned who you were referring to.
Before anyone clicks that link, I'd put surgical gloves on first.
I believe I used the term objective no? Based on your history of what YOU have submitted as evidence, I'm not encouraged by your ability to produce something that a rational person would consider credible.
There's always hope though. Pilots for Truth was a rough start, but I'm rooting for you suede.
Did those mostly bury too?
You seem really obsessed with that site. lol
Partly cause it irks you so much.
I thought you guys said I was lying about this?
LOL, and you guy's call us paranoid.
DDave said a site that links to mainstream sources and that's what I did.
Since we're going to play muddle the quotes.
Irk isn't the proper word here. I think derision would be a much better fit.
True, but I was giving you a chance to clear your "good" name. You were making the claim about some blogger, so one would assume you had someone in mind.
Considering this particular piece of crap blogger is the source of all these Shanksville theories, it stands to reason that...
More so than Pilots for Truth?
I think you better worry about your allies for that first.
Ask Hannibal, he knows who he slandered.
Groundhog Day 2.
Btw, why are you so concerned about this blogger's rep?
So . . . where is the proof that the crash was staged again? I see lots of conjecture, cherry picked quotes and innuendo.
Oddly enough, many of the links to outside news articles confirm that Flight 93 DID crash there. It's only when you cherry pick quotes out of several different articles and string them together that you build a story that conspiracy theorists rabidly devour and repeat endlessly on the Internet.
Where are the photos and eyewitness accounts of plane crash debris being hauled to the site for the photo op or however you guys seem to think it happened?
Can someone please clarify what proof is missing?
The problem is that some people seem to feel the need to live their entire lives with tinfoil hats.
If not everything lines up perfect, they claim it is some kind of conspiracy. If everything lines up perfectly, they then claim that this is proof that there is a conspiracy, because nothing ever goes perfectly.
I really love when they say that no crash has ever looked like this, without a huge visible debris field. Then you tell them about the Valujet Flight 592 from 1996, it makes no difference. I guess this conspiracy went all the way back to the first Clinton Administration.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eylDlokUpuw"]WSVN-TV "7 News at 10:00" "Crash of Valujet Flight 592" 1996 - YouTube[/ame]
In point of fact, no proof is missing.
The truthers are attempting to employ if not A then not B fallacy. They've latched on to a "claim" that a certain percentage of the plane was recovered from beneath the Earth. They demand proof of this claim, and then set the burden of proof so high that it can't be met. They then claim they've debunked the entire crash based on a "lack of proof"
1. They've yet to establish that the actual claim even exists.
- Sometimes it's that 95% of the plane was buried.
- Sometimes it's most of the plane was buried.
- Sometimes it's a claim made by the "official narrative."
- Sometimes it's a claim made by the FBI.
2. No one has posted any evidence that the claim is a key point or necessary to establish a plane crash in PA.
3. They've yet to establish or provide evidence for an alternate sequence of events.
- It has been suggested evidence was planted.
- It has been suggested that photos were "faked"
- It has been suggested that phone calls were "faked"
- It has been suggested that witnesses are lying or were under duress.
- It has been suggested that the plane was shot down with a missile.
- It has been suggested that the plane did not exist.
- It has been suggested that the plane was landed in a different area.
prove it didnt
burden of proof is on you,after all,it's your claim that what you say,actually happened
Well of course you do, you're a skeptic who's mind is made up that there was no inside job. I wouldn't have expected you say anything different.
ROLF!!! Yeah, the perps are just going to haul in debris to plant in broad daylight with outsiders watching.
You skipped my question. Did any of the other crashes you brought up mostly bury as Flight 93 supposedly did? If not, they are not comparable.
You finally have evidence most of 93 was buried?!!
BS, I lowered the burden of proof for you guys asking to show only about 20% of the plane was buried and you guys still couldn't do that.
Lots of things have been said back and forth, but if officials said most of the plane was buried and none turned out to be, wouldn't you be very suspect of the entire crash? yes or no
You calling Hannibal a liar?
Wow, you really got him this time. Oh wait . . . no one can prove a negative so your point is horse crap.
Actually I'm just someone who looks at the information logically. Since no one has presented me with any scenario that sounds more plausible than the version most people accept, what choice do I have than to believe the "official" BS fairy tale as Rightwngafraud likes to call it. It still makes more logical sense than any of the far fetched alternative theories I have come across.
That killtown site is a perfect example of someone finding carefully chosen bits and pieces of information that fit a forgone conclusion instead of looking at ALL the evidence and arriving at a conclusion based on the evidence. A lot of effort went into it but it's pretty worthless from an information stand point.
People can get caught doing sneaky things at night too. But what I'm guessing you are really saying is that no one has any proof that the debris were planted and that frustrates you so you are lashing out at me to hide your feelings of inadequacy.
Look back at my last post.
How do you prove that no one can prove a negative?
Well, since we're working within the truther definition of proof here, you make a YouTube video of someone saying that no one can prove a negative, with some really spooky sounding background music and then you post it on a blog site.
And to give it "credibilty you take a partial quote of someone else . . . yours will do . . .
and you offer that as an outside source that backs up your claim.
Separate names with a comma.