Where is the proof that the airliners existed at all?

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Oct 26, 2014.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wouldn't matter if koko were shown 400 tons of scrap debris.


    he'd hand wave it away like so much other evidence that proves him wrong.
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, just to compare, from TWA800 they filled an entire hangar with the debris, and that had to be fished from the Atlantic Ocean. But they did it.

    Compare to 911 airplanes in which very damn little debris was recovered, and none of that was open to public inspection. All of it was hidden away in some secret underground location.

    Big difference.
     
  3. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    The airliners on 911 hit objects not water and hangers were filled with debris and the investigation was as public as any other.

    Those are long established facts and you willfully ignore them
     
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You live in a special world Soupnazi, apparently with many fantasies.

    Water is actually "hard" enough to ricochet other solid objects. Under high pressure it can cut through metal.

    Airplanes striking water at the right angle and velocity can be destroyed by the water. The point is that TWA800 debris filled a hangar, and that the debris from the 911 airplanes was pretty much invisible, or at least way too sparse to suggest a loaded airliner crashed there.
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,922
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They filled a hanger with TWA800 debris to determine the cause of the crash in order to learn whether some intervention or repair to existing airframes and propulsion systems was required to prevent a possible future crash.

    The cause of the crashes on 911 were not consistent with a mechanical failure of the airframe or propulsion system.
     
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, they began the investigation of TWA800 in accordance with normal NTSB procedures. For some strange reason, the FBI was placed in charge of that investigation. It was the lead agency in that investigation, even though the official story was that it was an accident.

    Why was the FBI put in charge of an accident, when no criminal acts were suspected? We can only read between the lines to attempt to answer that question, but it seems obvious that something was unusual even though the White House claimed there was nothing unusual. Strange.

    As for the 911 airplanes, normal NTSB procedures were NOT followed. The NTSB reports were extremely short, just several pages, and really did nothing but support the official story.

    Politics drove both cases, but the fact remains that with TWA800 they filled the floor of a hangar with the debris, yet with all the 911 airplanes there was not enough debris to fill the back of a truck, and that debris was hidden away from public view.
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Big BIG differencethe cause of TWA800 was unknown......not so with the planes on 9/11,so there was no need for systematic collection of debris.
     
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly, you are not familiar with how the NTSB does business.

    Except for 911, the NTSB always follows the same protocol and procedures.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    only if the cause of the crash is unknown...NOT like 9/11



    And there was NOTHING 'hidden',everything went to fresh kills and was examined
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The purpose of any NTSB investigation, planes and trains and any other mode of public transport, is to discover what caused the accident, even if, for example, it is obvious the airplane flew into the side of a mountain or came up short of the runway. We learn from accidents and the NTSB is a vital part of that process.

    So your claim that "oh, we already knew what happened" is simply nonsense. The system does not work that way. Compare ANY accident investigation by NTSB to those for the 911 planes and the differences are obvious. Political interference all the way.

    BTW, the airplane parts did not really go to Fresh Kills, except for maybe a few random parts. From the other 2 accidents, no parts were sent to Fresh Kills.
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry,but you're wrong,the planes om 9/11 were NOT accidents....they were a deliberate act


    And EVERYTHING went to fresh kills and was sorted...cars ,,trucks, fire engines, ambulances,and yes,plane parts,,,
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On that we agree LS--they were deliberate acts.

    You say the perps were 19 arabs with box cutters, I disagree.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    !9 Arabs using box cutters,phony explosives and strong arm tactics such as murder to control the passengers

    Your 'disagreement' is based on incredulity,NOT facts,and is therefore ignored
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Replying to a post is not ignoring a post, duly noted.
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not the brightest bulb in the string,are you?
     
    usda_select likes this.
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,979
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    how cool is that!

    Got pics of the mountain of aircraft parts from each crash site yet? Man I have been looking for those for years! About 4 warehouses worth right!
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ua 175:

    6.jpg

    1.jpg

    2.jpg

    3.jpg

    4.jpg
     
    usda_select likes this.
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,979
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    after damn near 15 years and all these guys can find is 20 pounds of debris and the wrong engine. LOL Only 99,880 pounds to go!
     
  19. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Can you prove the wreckage I posted of UA175 was planted? Can you demonstrate the artefact I posted to be fraudulent?

    Btw, the wrong engine canard was disproved ages ago. You need to catch up.
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All koko seems to want to do is throw smelly red fish in the discussion
     
    usda_select likes this.
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The correct engine and plenty of physical debris to prove you wrong.

    You are crushed and your argument has been shredded by evidence as always
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,979
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have a rolls royce speedometer, so according to the [IL]Logic in the above post I therefore also have a rolls royce.

    I also have a bridge in florida, just happens to be on sale, wanna buy it, first ten thousand takes it?
     
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    2,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't a better question be "can you prove that the pictures you posted are actually the aircraft that was UA175 that day?" In other words, how does one KNOW that those pictures show the correct aircraft?
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not up to US to prove that....Airline say yes,boeing says yes,what more do you want?
     
  25. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No, as he has the burden of proof. If he doesn't believe the part is in situ, he has the burden of proof. Can you show everyone that the part is fake? No.
    I've demonstrated enough for you now. You have the burden of proof if you choose not to believe it, and I doubt you can prove anything in that regard, so the original hypothesis stands until you can.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If you don't believe the part to be authentic, you have the burden of proof to show otherwise. I know you can't.
     

Share This Page