Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Oct 26, 2014.
Now for the 10 million dollar question.
Why would he lie?
7 Private messaged me that he "can't explain the psychology of the event," but he thinks that "it involves using TV to brainwash many of those on the ground."
7 Believes there was a massively complex plan to brainwash people en masse that involved confiscating private videos and digitally altering some of them with fussy images in order to trick people into believing a plane crashed into a building so that they could simulate a plane crashing into a building with something other than a plane crashing into a building. That's not just Wile E. Coyote nuts. That's Rube Goldberg nuts.
How deep in denial does someone have to be to come to such a conclusion? It's not just a fantasy, it's a complete denial of everyone else's ability to perceive reality. The real psychological question here is, how insane do you have to be before you see a blurry image, and that confirms for you that the majority of everyone else is crazy?
The reality is, those private images were not altered by a conspirator to add in fuzzy aircraft. The very thought is ludicrous. 7 must think so too, because even he isn't consistent with his claims, sometimes wanting to claim the images were blurry because they were intentionally altered to insert an aircraft, and sometimes wanting to claim the images are blurry because they depict an "orb" that impacted the building.
He also stated in his private message that I'm too smart for this.
Yeah. I am. That's why your claims get nowhere with me.
We are all too smart for this. I love how the CTists assume everyone is a brainless automaton...is it ego?
I'm sure the reasons are varied. I think for many of them, the problem is actually insecurity. The fantasy offers an escape from a chaotic world that they have little control over. It gives meaning to the seemingly meaningless. It is a refuge from the terror of a place where a small group of guys with primitive tools can successfully attack a powerful nation, or a lone guy with a rifle can assassinate the president, or a kid with autism can murder innocent 5 year olds. Bill Whittle described the process like playing with a train set in the basement. The fantasy becomes better than the real world because it is of their own construction. Each tree just so. Each bridge the train crosses in the landscape exactly the right length. Each little character posed perfectly in a way that pleases the designer.
I'll ask you again. Why doesn't your tan flight path reflect your belief that the orb/plane flew between the towers?
It is complete fantasy to look at that field in Pennsylvania and believe that it contains a wrecked airliner.
It is a complete fantasy to look at that field and consider the statements of the men who walked through that field and were unable to find a wrecked airliner, and believe that it contained a wrecked airliner.
That my friend, is fantasy.
I'm going to need more than just 'you said so'
And of course they couldn't find an airliner,it was then in thousands of pieces from slamming into the Earth at high speed....
Are truthers so bereft of common sense?
You can't base a description of reality on the absence of evidence. The so called official record of the day is not based on the difficulty of locating an airliner in a photograph. It's based on the analysis and research involving tens of thousands of man hours logged by people who actually witnessed the event, physically touched the evidence, or have expertise in the requisite fields involved.
On the other hand, no two truthers' theories are the same because they base their understanding on misinterpretation of very superficial observations. Looking at a photograph and not seeing a plane is somewhat akin to looking at the moon, seeing holes, and assuming it must be made of cheese.
Nobody witnessed the event. Susan McIlwain witnessed an airplane flying over very close to the field, but it wasn't an airliner. She did not witness any impact, only a flyover. That evening she related to 2 FBI agents in her home what she had seen, and it was not an airliner, but a much smaller airplane. The agents wanted her to change her story to make it an airliner, but she would not.
Why would federal agents want her to say it was an airliner?
The county coroner walked the field with his assistants and could not find anything even closely resembling a wrecked airliner or its passengers. He told several TV cameras exactly that, and I saw his statements to the press.
It's quite a story, all the details of federal witness tampering, and there was no airliner there. So they made a movie and put in a monument of some sort. I guess you saw the movie.
Years later, analysis of the ACARS data showed that the unit that was Flight 93 that day was still airborne and in the ACARS system 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed in PA--it was somewhere in Illinois.
The fantasy is that an airliner crashed in that field. It sounds like you believed the movie, eh?
I'll give you some free advice in critical thinking. Consider it my gift to you. In your search for truth, the objective is not to look at once piece of evidence and determine how it doesn't fit. The objective is to look at all the evidence and determine how it does fit.
To start with, let's take a look at a very blatant issue with your course of logic. Airline employees and security at the airport witnessed the event. People monitoring air traffic witnessed the event. Technology both off and on the aircraft witnessed the event. Both the hijackers and the hijacked on the aircraft witnessed the event. Family members who spoke to their loved ones witnessed the event. Family members who lost loved ones witnessed the event. Emergency responders and locals witnessed the event. Investigative crews, hazmat crews, and other cleanup crews witnessed the event. You even go on to name someone who witnessed the event. Wouldn't you say it's a little...illogical... to claim that no one witnessed the event and then immediately discuss someone who witnessed the event?
Now, let's discuss your witness. First off, you got her name wrong. Her name is Susan McElwain. At first blush, it's a minor mistake, but these types of errors tend to magnify when you're dealing with people who's concern is a meticulous pursuit of a fantasy rather than a meticulous pursuit of the truth. The person's name changes, the person's testimony changes, their personal opinion changes, etc, all at the whim of people interested in proving a fantasy rather than piecing together facts.
What does Susan say? According to her testimony she was driving home when she witnessed a small white aircraft with rear engines flying low in the direction of the crash. She was unaware of the crash until she got home and saw the report on the news. Critical to the testimony is time, direction, and distance. How far from the crash was she when she witnessed an aircraft? What time was it when she witnessed the aircraft? In her testimony she notes that the aircraft she witnessed was flying in a direction that was different from the reported direction of flight 93. Was she in a position to see flight 93? Could 93 have already have crashed by the time she witnessed the aircraft she saw? What did she hear? What else did she see? What does she think now?
And the coroner? What does he maintain now? Does he still believe there was no evidence of passengers in the field?
Great! Some unsolicited advice on critical thinking from a guy who 14 years later still believes the official story. Truth is stranger than fiction.
From a guy who can look at an empty field and see an imaginary wrecked airliner that was still operating within the ACARS system 30 minutes later.
Wow Fangbeer, I'm really impressed. Critical thinking at its best.
So you have no actual argument then?
If 93 transmitted an ACARS message 30 minutes after it crashed, I'd sure like to see it. In fact, you're welcome to look for it here:
http://www.warrenstutt.com/General Files/5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf
Isn't Warren Stutt the same guy who claims that flight 77 was being flown at like 100 knots over Vne while in ground effect by a man who had never flown such an airplane before? Sorry, that is not an argument, that is a foolish statement.
Miller the county coroner in Pennsylvania made 2 statements to the media. The first was that he found nothing at all in the field looking like it came from a crashed airliner with humans onboard.
The second was that he did.
Only one of those statements can be correct. Judging from all the pictures and the statements of others on the scene, the first statement was correct.
The second statement was obviously meant to uphold the silly official narrative, just as Susan was pressured to make HER statement uphold the official story.
I'm thinking some of us are more perceptive than others, less gullible.
And it isn't you,all you've done is what truthers have done for nearly 15 years....misinterpret what was said by the coroner
By the way,Vne means 'never exceed 'speed,NOT will not exceed
One of the men involved in the ACARS issue goes by "Woodybox" and has a blog.
This link will explain their methodology regarding the comments by a United Airlines dispatcher and his supervisor regarding the data from UA93 on that day.
This data corroborates the comments of Miller and others and the many photos and videos taken that day--UA93 did not crash in Shanksville PA
Yes it did....And you cannot prove otherwise
More truthers taking comments out of context
On the contrary, taking comments very much IN context. A man, the coroner, comes out of a field, tells the TV cameras he found nothing out there.
Then, hours or days later he issues a statement the exact opposite of what he was videoed on TV saying, because I saw the footage. The mayor is on record too, as saying there was no crashed airliner there. It was a hoax. I also saw the footage from overhead news choppers. There was nothing there resembling a wrecked airliner. Everybody on scene agreed.
So, he makes 2 statements. Which one is accurate, and why?
Actually, I erred in calling it Vne. Technically it is Vmo, max operating. 100 over Vmo by a rookie pilot is absurd.
they are both accurate,but you took them out of context
mostly fact. mostly.
that is proven when capable people get into the meat of the matter, gubmint supporter posers always dodge the bullet and defer.
- - - Updated - - -
time to start suing new media. people can (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan and cry all they want and things will only get worse. money talks.
And I thought I had already read the dumbest thing on the internet today. What a stupid statement, and no doubt designed to inflame.
How old are you?
I simply state facts.
I heard that people sometimes get inflamed when they simply come face to face with certain facts.
Thats usually a form of anger disorder associated with self hatred.
Doesnt change my point that nothing will change till we start suing the media for all the reporting they do that misrepresents matters and they do it as a standard course of business.
You have never stated facts you have only stated valid claims which are consistently proven false
here is a fact: you cannot show me 400 tons of scrap plane debris
Here is a fact.
One can never assemble an entire plane from a crash site.
Your fact is rooted in an idiotic false premise
Separate names with a comma.