NEW 9/11 VIDEO - FLIGHT 93 Fraud - #1 Smoking Gun evidence, page 2

Originally posted by nightmare_david
That photo clearly shows a scar in the same area that you originally pointed out in your earlier post of where the crash happened. You also said that was your "aproximate location" of the crash area. Meaning you knew you could be a little off on your guess

It's not in the same area. Neither of the "scars" are a part of the area where Flight 93 allegedly crashed.

Look at the top photo. See how close it is to the road?

Then look at the black and white photo. Look at the trees and how small they are.

You're not taking into account how high up that photo is. So something that is far away will seem closer on that image. Flight 93, or what ever else, crashed right by that road. That lighter colored "scar" is not even close enough to the road to even be considered.

And I said approximate because I know I can be off, but I'm not so far off that either of those "scars" could have anything to do with the impact crater.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
IMHO it looks like you're trying to change around what you said because someone came in and debunked your post.

No one debunked my post. That image is much higher up, therefore shows that second "scar area" is further away from the road than the impact crater of "Flight 93".

Originally posted by nightmare_david
But there's that smaller scar to it's left that just happens to be in that 9/11 crash area

I realize that lighter colored one is closer than the darker one being promoted by the video, but it's still not close enough to be considered the impact crater.

And please explain to me how you determined the lighter colored area is dug into the ground like the dark area or the Flight 93 crash site?

Originally posted by nightmare_david
You shouldn't be soo quick to debunk things and then brag that you debunked it.

It's not necessarily bragging. It's more of trying to spread the fact that it is debunked. And I shouldn't be so quick to debunk things? Is there some rule that I have to give it a certain waiting period?

Originally posted by nightmare_david
It's posts like that by the debunkers on here that get me upset sometimes. You guys are soo quick to debunk something and say that there's nothing more to talk about because you debunked it already and most of the time you people are clearly very wrong.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job. As I said before, I don't even fully believe Flight 93 crashed there. But it hurts our "cause" to accept a bunch of BS as truth. If it needs to be debunked, it's better that WE debunk it, rather than having the other side do it and knock one more chunk off of our unstable movement.

Isn't the motto of this site 'deny ignorance'? I wasn't wrong about what I said. It is very clearly in two separate locations. Yes, they're close. But they're not in the exact same locations.

If you want to promote the "is it just coincidence that they were that close" thing, fine. Do it. But don't just assume they're in the exact same location just because that's what you want to believe.