The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

What's that got to do with Flight 93?

Nothing.

It demonstrates that ULTIMA lies, and continues to lie every time he defends this prior statement.

It shows a pattern of behavior, don't you think?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Wrong.

You have posted info that an F-5 has "some" steel. This is not in dispute.

WRONG,

I have proven that the F-4 (including internal engines) is mostly steel.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Since he cannot post evidence to support his claims he has to resort to other tatics and try to change the subject.

What claims have I made? RU lying again and putting words in my mouth?

Tsk, tsk.......

My original post was in response to your question about "showing you where you've ever made a false statement".

I provided you with one.

Now deal with the fact that I've shown you to have a habit of lying and get over it.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It demonstrates that ULTIMA lies, and continues to lie every time he defends this prior statement.

You mean the believers lie about knowing what happened on 9/11 since they have no actual reports or physical evidence to support thier claims or the official story.

It shows a pattern of behavior, don't you think?

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

WRONG,

I have proven that the F-4 (including internal engines) is mostly steel.

Lie.

But that's what I would expect.

Carry on with your trolling now.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I provided you with one.

WRONG, you made a statement that i made a false statement. You failed to provide any prove that i made a false statement.

So whos the lier now ?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Lie.

But that's what I would expect.

Carry on with your trolling now.

If your next post does not contain evidence that the F-4 including engines is not mostly steel it will prove who the lier and troll is.

I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

My point is this: it's useless to speculate on the details if we first don't agree on some initial, basic points.

Let's see what the crime scene has to show and let's try to describe what we see or we don't see.

I think right now we should come to a point where we all agree that the official flight93 crash scene is inconsistent with an airliner hitting the ground at high speed.

Once we are all ok with that, we can progress from here and go to the next step, whatever that may be, and end up determining what is more likely to have happened.

All I know is the SR-71 was clearly mostly lead, because its nickname was "Lead Sled". They wouldn't have called it that if it wasn't mostly lead.

Originally posted by _Del_
All I know is the SR-71 was clearly mostly lead, because its nickname was "Lead Sled". They wouldn't have called it that if it wasn't mostly lead.

Well you keep proving that you do not do research or you would know what the SR-71 is mostly made from.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Mirage,

You are claiming that none of the people from flight 93 existed?

Um, then all the people that went to the funerals of these people don't exist either?

The Mark Bingham Leadership Scholarship is for a person that never existed?

Alice Hoglan his mother does not exist? (I saw her on TV during an interview)

Mark also graduated from University of California, Berkeley. He was president of his fraternity, Chi Psi.

Does this college not exist? Does that fraternity not exist?

Larry Batina a friend of Mark's knew him... does he exist?

“I had seen him at a football game, a frat pre-game party, about a year ago, right before he moved to New York,” said Batina, a certified public account and business executive in Southern California. “I wished him good luck in New York. That was the last time I ever saw him.”

berkeley.edu...

They ALL existed and their families still exist.

Do I need to offer more proof of the existence of these real people?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

You claim that you work for NSA. That is a lie.

Unless you can back it up.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Unless you can back it up.

I can and have backed it up on this and other forums.

But a lot of beleivers still will not accept it becasue then they would have to accept what i post also.



[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


back it up here and I will post an apology to you for calling you a liar.

again, the mods will look at your credentials.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
back it up here and I will post an apology to you for calling you a liar.

Going by your prior posts i doubt that you will still accept my proof or post an apology.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well, you have my word. (in print)

I highly doubt you will do anything anyway. No biggie.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


How many people have actually been interviewed on camera as saying they knew the guy directly? You will find it is a very small number (if any?) outside of his immediate family. Anyone can set up a charity - that doesn't prove a thing.

Lots of people turn up for funerals of other people. Not everyone is going to know who a particular person was - it happens.

He is also only one person out of all those on the flight. Set up one big personality and the others disappear into the background. It's rather convenient when you think about it.

One thing all this is failing to do is prove the existence of Flight 93.

We have:

* an FDR that could be made up (see Pentagon FDR for details). See also the FDR relating to the Paris crash of the Airbus A320 in the late 80s IIRC (the Paris Airshow) - the FDR disappeared for 10 days, and when it finally got into the correct hands, it had already been opened and the last 8 seconds of the tape were missing (they were tapes back then, not SSMDs). FDR tampering happens.

* Phone calls that haven't been substantiated
* Possibly fabricated personas to make Flight 93 seem real
* Next to no physical evidence (where is the pile of 120,000 lbs of metal)?
* A very dodgy looking hole in the ground that looks very similiar to a scar near by
* A fake photo of the smoke plume allegedly emanating from the Flight 93 crash site immediately afterwards (proven a hoax)
* Vals own witness testimony is contradicting and full of holes
* Reports of bits of Flight 93 having been found over a mile away, when the aircraft allegedly buried itself completely under ground
* A strange fire in the woods (?!?!) when the aircraft and all its fuel went under ground complete with both engines and the APU (allegedly )

Need I go on?

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

Where is the APU, BTW (in both the case of Flight 93 and the Pentagon)? The APU FYI is a small gas turbine, that provides back-up electrical and pneumatic generation (hydraulics are fed from electrically driven pumps when on APU power, and pneumatics are for engine starts and supplying cabin air-conditioning/pressurization).

A lot is made of at least one engine from Flight 93, but nothing of the APU, itself quite a large, solid device.

Here's an APU from a 757: photos.airliners.net...

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Well, you have my word. (in print)

Well i have been told by believers like you that no matter what i posted they would not accept it. So i am very sceptical.

Probably becasue then they would have to accept what i posted.

It amazes me how absolutely clueless some people can be in terms of detecting and appreciating sarcasm.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
It amazes me how absolutely clueless some people can be in terms of detecting and appreciating sarcasm.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by darkbluesky]

Sarcasm is usually used by weak mined people.