I don't believe I ever claimed it didn't crash. The plane may have crashed there, but certainly not in the manner they suggest. It was shot down and crashed perhaps but the "official" story is retarded. Shot down, engine came off a half mile away. I can buy that. The plane being "mostly" recovered from the "hole" and the engine being a half mile away is nonsense. That's exactly why there are no photos of any parts of the plane coming out of the "hole", because it didn't. The plane was shot down. That explains parts scattered all the way to Indian Lake, that's the reason the engine was where it was, that's why the witnesses claiming it was coming apart in the sky...BECAUSE IT WAS. Plain and simple. Not the fantastic story of bouncing engines and 40 foot burials.
A half a mile would be 880 yards,not 300 yards where the engine part was reported to have been found,and light debris forced upwards from the blast concussion did make it's way to indian lake,1.5 miles away. Sounds like someone here knows a whole lot that just ain't so. And no,It's not me.
On the one hand, you have claimed that there was a stand down order. On the other, you claim UA93 was shot down. Which do you really believe?
Again. A 9/11 Denier adds unnecessary moving parts. If the conspiracy you claim exists did this, why was Flight 93 involved at all? Why put a plane in the sky just to shoot it down? And, if it really was shot down, why lie? Why would they want to portray themselves as more incompetent - so incompetent that a small group of motivated civilians did a better job of stopping an attack than the supposedly all-powerful government? The theme you're not getting here is that every one of your cockamamie "theories" involves far more complexity than what really happened. Every time you raise some supposed issue, a simple application of logic shows your theories, when taken to the logical conclusion, simply do not make sense.
No assumption. History dictates we as Citizens be dillegently critical of our governments activities. If I was mushroom, then getting fed **** and accepting it, would be a natural thing for self preservation.
Puhleeeease. Both could have easily occurred. Painting your own picture again I see. This must have happened, so this must have happened. The OP was on the rag magazine you referenced, wasn't it?
Explain how both could have occurred. The thread has been hijacked by the 'truther' squad, as most are. The facts are to uncomfortable for them to stick to.
So, since you wish to return to the OP: could you find any fault with the articles within? Show us your rebuttal to Mr. Thomas' work.
Still haven't explained why this supposed conspiracy would put a plane in the air just to be shot down. That would add a huge risk of being discovered and something going wrong - the infinite variables of being able to shoot down a plane and all. Why would this supposedly awesomely awesome conspiracy risk such a thing? Their supposed objectives would have been met in exactly the same fashion without UA93 taking place at all.
It's been referenced repeatedly. Now I guess you guys want to back up and claim there wasn't anything found ALMOST a half mile away? Pick a specific, and stick with it, instead of back peddling, shifting the focus, or the usual ridicule. Dane, dance, dance.
I don't see where anyone said anything was 1/2 a mile away. You made that up. It's your strawman. Anyway, Skeptical Inquirer is too late. 9/11 Deniers are fading fast. They'll get a small spike this year with the 10th anniversary, but no one is listening to their cockamamie bull(*)(*)(*)(*) anymore.
Yeah. It's fun and satisfying to prove that you're smarter than someone else, and people like the 9/11 Deniers make that easy. Debating them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Shooting fish in a barrel you find entertaining? You need to prove you're smarter than someone else? Sounds like you have issues dude.
You don't find it fun to laugh at stupid people? Eh, well, everyone's different. Anyway, as 9/11 denial is dying off, I guess I'll have to find other stupid people to laugh at.
Your link here doesn't go to this content.. I couldn't find it on the site either.. Can you link to this 9/11 content?
Who's "they"? Who picked these targets? I'd like to see your evidence about who picked the targets and why they chose those targets is the same motive you're claiming here.
You need help figuring out that WTC and the Pentagon are symbols of 2 different kinds of American strength? Sad, but unsurprising.
