Why can't it be Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri lying to the other to make it sound like their men did a better job then they really did?

Flight 93 was not shoot down. Just look for the shanksville stripmining scar.

911 was one big giant shock and awe based on deception meant to put america into a state of shock to make them accept whatever actions we took next.

In shanksville the USGS has the photographic survey of the area... it looks EXACTLY the same as it did on 911 minus one crater.

What you have is the news media lying.. If you know what CIA project mockingbird is then you know what I say has merit.

TV fakery is another proven fact. All of us that pushed record on 911 and seen the september clues videos have compared what they pointed out to our own videos.

What your left with is three explosions. Two in the towers and one in the pentagon. No video from the pentagon because their is no plane.

Passports that could survive plane crashes because their was no crash. Only explosions and lies.

No shoot down of flight 93 because it never existed. Just a an explosion in a strip mine and a lie.

To make things worse they gave us this scraps of this, tried to get us to argue about that. Lies piled upon lies to distract us from the heart of the matter.

No planes were used. The media lied in every aspect.... But you know in this aspect you can identify every major CIA agent from the produce/witnesses...

Of course the prosecutor said flight 93 was shoot down... That is what he has been fed and that is what we are supposed to argue about.

Fact is there was no flight 93. Just a stripmine with a crater blown into it and some debries spread around... but not enough to re-assemble...


[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]

Originally posted by titorite
Flight 93 was not shoot down. Just look for the shanksville stripmining scar.

So by chance are you smoking something? cause i want what your having..

Shanksville crash was an 8 mil debris field.. and There as been no wreck like it that i have ever seen.. so very lil pieces.

[edit on 7/23/2008 by ThichHeaded]

No, he's right.

there's images of shanksville BEFORE 911, that show a large dark scar,

Then, on 911, this large dark scar was supposidly an 'impact' scar from the plane.


the two photos together clearly shows, 'the supposid' plan did not infact make that scar!

and for an 8mile debre field?..

doesnt that lend credibility to the idea, that the plane blew up, IN the air? thus to create such a large field?

A plan coming down that fast and hard into the ground wouldnt continue travlling 'along' the ground for 8 miles...

maybe they thought, that plane was destined for the pentagon, and at the last minute realised it wasnt.

They had to destroy the pentagon, because all those records were there.. .and they couldnt let this one go, incase it did real damage to an unknown object... so, shoot it down, and send in a cruise missile.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by Agit8dChop]

just for those with poor reading comprehension , stone is quoting the defendant - not making his own statement or opining on it

I simply find it fascinating that the government is criticized for not having NORAD activated and not shooting down the planes... until the idea that maybe they did shoot down one of the planes surfaces and then they are still criticized. Here's a brand new rope, I believe you know what to do with it, even though we all know it will still not please you.

People say things improperly or inaccurately all the time, look at Bush. The only difference here is that you believe a notion that there is a conspiracy by the same government who went into Iraq believing there were WMD's there. You are making a mistake look as if it is hard evidence. You have no case until you put forth some substantial evidence.

Also on topic, how would bin Laden know it was shot down if we don't? I don't believe the hijackers were smart enough to look at the basic radar in the plane and say,

"Boogey on our tail!"
"Roger! Call bin Laden and tell him we were shot down"

And then have time to call... all in the few seconds that they had while a fictional missile was barreling at them. Or maybe bin Laden himself was standing in Pennsylvania to see it all go down. See I can do this to.

Originally posted by Neaux
The only difference here is that you believe a notion that there is a conspiracy by the same government who went into Iraq believing there were WMD's there.

You actually think they believed what they were saying? You still haven't noticed all the fake "evidence" presented by Colin Powell at the UN was basically fabricated? These are criminals. They lie to you, repeatedly, the same things, over and over, until what they say sounds normal. They deceive you on purpose, frankly because you're so easy to lie to.

The Nazis deceived millions of otherwise intelligent Germans through sophisticated psychological events. If you were a German citizen, you would have been one of the screwed ones.

Originally posted by Neaux
People say things improperly or inaccurately all the time, look at Bush. The only difference here is that you believe a notion that there is a conspiracy by the same government who went into Iraq believing there were WMD's there.

You are right. People do say things improperly and inaccurately all the time, but you generally do not see it much from politicians who are very accustomed to public speaking, and have their speeches written for them. It seems to me when they get off the script, thats when strange things get said such as Rumsfield "shoot donw" remark. Secondly... what you call improper and innaccurate, I call a Fruedian slip.

Also... our government KNEW there were no WMD's, that was the BS story they fed you to go along with their agenda. Looks like it worked out well for you.

You are making a mistake look as if it is hard evidence. You have no case until you put forth some substantial evidence.

Well how is this for evidence... show me the plane? If you can show me a plane or anything that resembles a plane crash in that field in Pennsylvania, I will keep mouth shut on the whole topic of 9/11. Just show me the plane. I'd imagine it should be pretty easy. I know I have NEVER had trouble finding the plane in any video or photograph of any plane crash ever. So it shouldnt be too hard this time right?

Also on topic, how would bin Laden know it was shot down if we don't? I don't believe the hijackers were smart enough to look at the basic radar in the plane and say,

"Boogey on our tail!"
"Roger! Call bin Laden and tell him we were shot down"

Well first off... according to the official story, we do know if the plane was shot down or not and the Government has always claimed that it was not shot down. They claim that the passengers of that plane stormed the cockpit causing the crash of flight 93 thus sacrifing their lives to save others. So how can you say "we dont know"?

Other than that all I can say is..Bin Laden? Hijackers?

You should consider an occupation in writing fiction. Your already off to a good start

[edit on 24-7-2008 by MrWendal]

[edit on 24-7-2008 by MrWendal]

Originally posted by Neaux
I should have said claiming and not believing, however, what reason did they invade Iraq for? Oil? It sure isn't showing up at the price of my local gas pump. But that is another thread...

It may be another thread but it's an illusory problem that stems from the same mistake: assuming you know what "they" want, or that "they" are looking out for you, etc. I assume neither. I'm just going off "their" actions recently. If it walks like the wolf, talks like the wolf (and the masking of the voice is part of talking like a wolf ), then it probably isn't going to be everyone's pet dog, as cute and lovable as Fido may have been.

Without considering what exactly we've done in the Mid-East, oil companies have suddenly started making ridiculous profits, record-breaking profits, in only the past few years. What a bizarre coincidence, right? I think Shell was the latest company in the news for shattering its old record for profits earned during a financial quarter, but the record it broke was only set a few months ago.

There is a difference between a half-baked war and this half-baked idea that we shot down our own jet.

There is no difference in the fact that you were lied to regarding both events, and both are directly related to furthering our fascist military conquests.

You see the war as "half-baked" now, as the vast majority of the country does, but it wasn't so "half-baked" when we first decided to start pouring the trillions of dollars into it, was it? Because this country was being fed lies the whole time but, for the most part, didn't realize it, because people are stupid.

Are you saying that the phone calls from the jet were fake? Or that the family members are a part of it?

Why do I have to make any positive statements about what did happen? You debunkers just don't feel right until somebody starts offering their own guesswork to supplement the credible investigation you utterly lack, huh?

The more people involved in an conspiracy the much hard it is to keep it a secret, and all you have is a misspoken word by Rumsfeld?

Actually, for me, it's the ridiculous crash site, but either way the pseudo-reason you just offered to contrast "all [we] have" is not the kind of logical reasoning you use to actually deduce something definitively.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by bsbray11]