FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

Originally posted by MikeVet

Originally posted by IvanZana

IvanZana
posted on 2-1-2008 @ 02:29 PM
I wouldnt even go that far because i have yet to see a picture in context with the crater that show any metal what so ever.
so the scrap metal in the hole is bunk too.

A cruise missile wouild leave about that amount of parts.

Great point mike. Cruise missile parts.

and incase you missed it. Here is what i believed crashed in shanksville

A cruise missile wouild leave about that amount of parts.

Great point mike. Cruise missile parts. .

So I agree, It really looks like a CRUISE MISSILE was responsible for the Missile Crater in Shanksville and not a massive fully fueled commercial airliner nose diving at 40 DEGREE ANGLE INVERTED.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Bunch
easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash.

Oh like that explains 2 seperate, distinct debris fields.

So was it the explosion and wind that casued the multi ton engine to be 1/4 mile away ?

By the way Popular Mechanics has been debunked and is not a legal or legit investigating agency for 9/11.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

In this next picture. Can you identify this plane?

No?

Thats because it's not a plane. It's a cruise missile. Like the one allegedly used to create the Shansksville crater.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana




So you were wrong about there not being photos presented with metal in them, but when you're shown your own photo, with metal in them btw, we're supposed to trust your judgement about anything?

You got owned by your own photo and by your own words.

Repost your missle/bomb photos and point out the metal debris and black marks in them for me, since that's what's seen in both your photos.

EDIT:
Also, where are the id numbers on those parts. You're saying they're from a cruise missle. Where are the serial numbers? I want you to id those parts THAT YOU NOW SEE and show me where, exactly, they are on that cruise missle. WHat part of the cruise missle are they? What type is the missle? Where did the missle come from?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MikeVet]

Originally posted by MikeVet

Youve lost all credibilty in just trying to convince people with the above pic that a Boeing 757 crashed there.

Obvious now inst it? See where the wings extend? see no wings? see no fuel, see no fire, see grass unbroke.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The scorching of the trees seems more consistent with the detonation of ordinance as is the brief light-colored smoke plume that was photographed.

Exactly.
Now for those who want to argue that a bomb or missile would not have the accuracy to lock on and hit a ground taget such as a pre exsisting coalmine strip minning scar.


And here is the cruise missile that could be mistaken for a "small white jet" "screaming like a missile"

Notice the explosion matches eye witness reports and the decription of a missile and or bomb cannot be denied.

Coincidently, part of the terror drill of 9.11 were to intercept 'foriegn' cruise missiles such as this.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by IvanZana
In this next picture. Can you identify this plane?

No?

Thats because it's not a plane. It's a cruise missile. Like the one allegedly used to create the Shansksville crater.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Why is the photograph labled "Boeing757"

Dude...it was a plane...people died....

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by IvanZana
In this next picture. Can you identify this plane?

No?

Thats because it's not a plane. It's a cruise missile. Like the one allegedly used to create the Shansksville crater.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Why is the photograph labled "Boeing757"

Dude...it was a plane...people died....

To trick people like you. its from this video

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Debunked by who? Conspircy whackos? HA!, the PM articles rounds up more experts, scientist, goverment officias than all conspiracy guys can cite in a lifetime. Sorry.

Originally posted by Bunch Debunked by who? Conspircy whackos? HA!, the PM articles rounds up more experts, scientist, goverment officias than all conspiracy guys can cite in a lifetime. Sorry.

So why didn't you answer the following question, Didn't PM know the answer

So was it the explosion and wind that casued the multi ton engine to be 1/4 mile away ?

Also please show me where it states that PM is a 9/11 investigating agency?

In case you did not know the FBi and NTSB are the main investigators.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by IvanZana

Youve lost all credibilty in just trying to convince people with the above pic that a Boeing 757 crashed there.

I don't need that photo to convince anybody. I have radar tracks, human remains, FDR's, eyewitness testimony, plane parts, first responder reports, etc to prove it.

Your photo is to prove that you're severely confused.

It's YOUR credibility that needs a little scrutiny, sir....

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I already posted the answer that you seek, if you dont happen to agree then is because you simply dont want to, and you are entitled to that, to me the explanation given makes sense, and if you give to choose between experts and ATS posters, I rather choose the expert.

Originally posted by Bunch
I already posted the answer that you seek, if you dont happen to agree then is because you simply dont want to, and you are entitled to that, to me the explanation given makes sense, and if you give to choose between experts and ATS posters, I rather choose the expert.

NO, you did not post any actual evidence about how the engine got 1/4 of a mile away from the crash site. Just some statements from PM.

Also you did not post any actual evidence about the 2 different debris fields. Just some statements from PM.

I can also quote several experts that show PM to be wrong.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Then do, thats why we here for, isnt? Look im not trying to engage you in a meaningless arguement for nothing, as I have posted before if someone here tries to refute the official story of the vents, and by official story I dont only mean what the government put out, I mean eyewitness, independent investigation like the one PM' put out, you need to do better than them, IMO poking a hole here and there to claim that this particular theory or that other theory is right, just wont cut it for me.

It wont work guys. lol. Oh well call in some more people. You wont win this arguement coz there is none.

Youve been trying to prove a plane crashed in Shankville and i must add most unsuccessfully. Ha ha.

Real plane crashes need no proving anyways, except for the one your elected to try to hide. thats fine.

Hey mike i dont know where you've been but I think its been settled already that no plane crashed in shankville.

Mabey start a thread to try to prove the crazy conspiracy that a plane crashed in that missile crater in Shanksville.

"Conspiracy nut jobs" are trying to prove that a MASSIVE Boeing 757 crash is all compacted in this little hole. Notice no parts around the engine?
Notice no wings? notice the soil is pretty clean, notice no fire, did i say notoice no parts.



98 points for NO PLANE at Shanksville
2 points for scoring off mis-quotes and bad sources. pro-crash conspiracy wack-os

I guess the CRUISE MISSILE CAUSED the SHANKVILLE MISSILE CRATER
there was no Boeing 757 that crashed.

Flight 93 myth is Busted. Cruise Missile to be investigated.






[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Bunch
Then do, thats why we here for, isnt? Look im not trying to engage you in a meaningless arguement for nothing, as I have posted before if someone here tries to refute the official story of the vents, and by official story I dont only mean what the government put out, I mean eyewitness, independent investigation like the one PM' put out,

Well so far you have not posted any real evidence from PM about how the engine got so far away from the crash site.

I do not know if you really want to challenge a discussion with me, i am a government analyst and have lots of good resources. Like professional and government research sites.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I dont want to engage you in anything, if you see than Im making a wrong statement because im misinformed and you think that you have something that might enlight me, I will please tell you to do so.

Im not here to brag of were I work or what my education is, at the end of the day that proves nothing. Read my avatar and you will know where im coming from.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by MikeVet
reply to post by DrZERO

 

Somehow, I have the impression that you will never do an honest "analysis" of the USGS map cuz this will force you to retreat from your position of "I don't know for sure what it is, but I know for a fact a missle hit there".

Whatever.

I will post my findings on the map when I have finished.

Please show me the post where I stated that "I don't know for sure what it is, but I know for a fact a missile hit there."

I have never said this. All that I have maintained is that the impact site looks like a round blast crater that was formed over an older, weathered scar. This is my opinion.

While your searching thru my posts for this quote that I never made, why don't you take the time to read some of the other questions, points and statements I actually did make and comment on them.

I look forward to your apology and from here on out will infer from you non-response to said questions, points and statements that you are in agreement with my point of view.

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

Read my avatar and you will know where im coming from.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

\



Too bad Denial is a form of ignorance.

Originally posted by Bunch
I dont want to engage you in anything, if you see than Im making a wrong statement because im misinformed and you think that you have something that might enlight me, I will please tell you to do so.

So where is your evidence from PM about how the engine got so far away from the crash site ?

reply to post by IvanZana


Please be kind, because you are dealing with an admitted neophyte when comes to military war machines. Could that missile in the video be an AGM-86 cruise missile with multiple warheads?. I am looking at a diagram in a book explaining various parts.