3 Strange Facts About Flight 93

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Not to mention, if Associated Press was interviewing Mr Cramer in the days following 9/11....why do you think that Mr Felt's phone call was being "supressed"??




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Nope.
I don't find it strange at all



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Yes, of course you wouldn't find it strange at all. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I think I have already stated that by the time relatives heard Ed Felt's call recorded, the tape had already been in the hands of the feds. Long enough for them to clean it up so no "inconvenient" things would be heard. That does not surprise me.

Cramer did not "read a transcript" he was listening in on the call. He probably was not told to shut up about it until the feds realized he had heard it. When they first seized the tape, they were probably unaware.

regardless, I've already gone over all this already.

Next, please?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Hm, if you mean 'circular reasoning' I disagree, what I'm trying to say is what may be merely an insignificant coincidence to you or I, may, in actuality be a planned and deliberate act using methods and means that we are unaware of. Are you an expert in the fields I mentioned above? me neither, but the malevolent forces that carry out the assasination of Presidents, believe me are.


Bad logic. You made the unproven claim there was some secret conspiracy involved behind the 9/11 attack, then made the unproven claim that this unproven conspriacy was committed by some "murky underworld", and then you made the unproven claim that the unproven conspiracy committed by the unproven murky underworld coordinated it by numerology and astrology. NOW, you make the unproven claim that this unproven murky underworld is expert at assassinating presidents, so they surely should experts in pulling off other conspiracies.

Thus, this is circular logic. You're making an assumption which can never be proven true, then you make more and more additional assumptions which can likewise never be proven true in an attempt to show the first unprovable assumption is true. You not actually proving anything- all you're really doing here is repeating the original statement in different terms.

The question is, are you doing this to try and convince *me*, or are you really doing this to bolster your *own* convictions that there was some secret conspiracy behind the scenes, in the face of crushing evidence that there wasn't?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Several ground witnesses saw another plane in the vicinity of the crash, before and after. The mystery white jet.



It can't be too much of a mystery jet if I could find out what it was in a thirty second google search...

"A Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands, was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft." "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on.""

I said it before and I'll say it again- these damned fool conspiracy websites are in an all out campaign to deliberately spead disinformation and trick people into believing what they themselves want to believe. I say it's deliberate becuase distorting "a nearby jet was asked to investigate a possible crash site" into "a mysterious white jet was seen nearby" cannot be something accidental or unintentional, especially for anyone professing themselves as a member a "truth movement" who should know better.

I'm not blaming you, Elf. You're simply the victim in all this.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Bad logic. You made the unproven claim there was some secret conspiracy involved behind the 9/11 attack, then made the unproven claim that this unproven conspriacy was committed by some "murky underworld", and then you made the unproven claim that the unproven conspiracy committed by the unproven murky underworld coordinated it by numerology and astrology. NOW, you make the unproven claim that this unproven murky underworld is expert at assassinating presidents, so they surely should experts in pulling off other conspiracies.

Thus, this is circular logic. You're making an assumption which can never be proven true, then you make more and more additional assumptions which can likewise never be proven true in an attempt to show the first unprovable assumption is true. You not actually proving anything- all you're really doing here is repeating the original statement in different terms.

The question is, are you doing this to try and convince *me*, or are you really doing this to bolster your *own* convictions that there was some secret conspiracy behind the scenes, in the face of crushing evidence that there wasn't?


You know, I was going to let this slide, put you down as one of those people that is so overly fussy, pedantic and quite frankly, trivial that you get caught up on HOW people argue and NOT WHAT they argue. So I'm going to humour you (and to some extent me as well).

First point, all I said was there are two flight 93's in history involved in terrorist attacks


The Dawson's Field Hikackings 1970, involved a Pan Am flight 93. Probably means nothing, but is weird none the less!


Okay, see the last part, no mention of a conspiracy, no theory, sit down and read it, then take it in, then we can move on.

Okay, still with me, secondly:

You reply about the Kennedy and Lincoln coincidences, good reply, I retort:


Immaterial yes, as these coincidences had no bearing on the outcome, but were these similarities by chance? Some would say otherwise, the mirky underworld that was responsible for these acts surely believes in the occult, numerology and astrology, so there may be more here than you think!


NOTICE, NO THEORIES, no arguments, just a simple statement that the assasins of Presidents must be dodgey characters (or do you think they were fine upstanding citizens) and being such, were perhaps into the kind of practices that would make simple coincidences more meaningfull.

Then this peach:


Using a unproven theory to support more unproven theories is circular logic.


Okay;

The Dawson's Field Hikackings 1970, involved a Pan Am flight 93. Probably means nothing, but is weird none the less!


is NOT a theory!

And;

Immaterial yes, as these coincidences had no bearing on the outcome, but were these similarities by chance? Some would say otherwise, the mirky underworld that was responsible for these acts surely believes in the occult, numerology and astrology, so there may be more here than you think!


is NOT a theory!

And as for this:


Bad logic. You made the unproven claim there was some secret conspiracy involved behind the 9/11 attack, then made the unproven claim that this unproven conspriacy was committed by some "murky underworld", and then you made the unproven claim that the unproven conspiracy committed by the unproven murky underworld coordinated it by numerology and astrology. NOW, you make the unproven claim that this unproven murky underworld is expert at assassinating presidents, so they surely should experts in pulling off other conspiracies.


You either need to learn how to read my friend, or have such a high opinion of yourself that you just don't listen to other people.

FYI: 3 STRANGE FACTS ABOUT FLIGHT 93 read this again and find where I say ANYTHING about a conspiracy. Like I said my friend....3 STRANGE FACTS!

C'mon buddy, stop arguing about HOW people argue, noone here claims to have a PHD in debating, read a thread, try to discern what people are trying to say, if you agree say so, if you don't say so, but don't waste your time making petty arguments

Peace, seriously.







[edit on 21-4-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Then using your logic, there would never be an acceptable recording from any of the airliners, because they would all be in the hands of the "government" before anyone got to hear them. So in other words, no matter what evidence you are presented, you will never accept it.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join