"Flight 93" Eyewitnesses Prove No Boeing 757 Crashed In Shanksville on 911.

Originally posted by hooper
The alleged response letter is quoting your alleged FOIA request, so it is just a repitition of your request.

Do you have proof the response letter is fake, YES or NO?

[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
The alleged response letter is quoting your alleged FOIA request, so it is just a repitition of your request.

Do you have proof the response letter is fake, YES or NO?

[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]

I have no evidence one way or the other hence the use of the word allege. At least I am nice enough to use the word allege. You would just call yourself a liar.

Originally posted by hooper
I have no evidence one way or the other hence the use of the word allege.

If you have no proof the letter is fake then you must be mature enough to admit the original must be classified or i would not have requested a declassified copy.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I have no evidence one way or the other hence the use of the word allege.

If you have no proof the letter is fake then you must be mature enough to admit the original must be classified or i would not have requested a declassified copy.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Uh, no. I do have an understanding of the written English language and when they put the word classified in quotes in the allege response letter means that the word is used by someone else, allegedly you.

Still absolutely no proof that the document exist or that it is classified, except, of course, your word on the matter which we know now is not good enough for you.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can you prove that the original document is classified?

Why would i request a declassified copy if the original was not classified?

Are you really that immature that you cannot understand that?





[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]

So if I ask you to provide me with a copy of your classified breakfast menu then what you had for breakfast is officially secret?

Originally posted by hooper
Still absolutely no proof that the document exist or that it is classified, except, of course, your word on the matter which we know now is not good enough for you.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So if I ask you to provide me with a copy of your classified breakfast menu then what you had for breakfast is officially secret?

So sad that you cannot even understand that the reason i reqested a declassified copy is that the original is classified.

Shows your maturity and intelligence level.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE


So sad that you cannot even understand that the reason i reqested a declassified copy is that the original is classified.

Shows your maturity and intelligence level.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]

You have no evidence for that, beyond the fact that you asked for it. I'm supposed to trust you without proof?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You have no evidence for that, beyond the fact that you asked for it. I'm supposed to trust you without proof?

Then tell me why would I request a declassified document through official FOIA request for a document that is not classified?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You have no evidence for that, beyond the fact that you asked for it. I'm supposed to trust you without proof?

Then tell me why would I request a declassified document through official FOIA request for a document that is not classified?

Yeah, you're right. We should just take your word for it.

On that note then, are you willing start taking other people's word for what they say, or does that only apply to you?

This is what should of happend in that field

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


What - there should have been houses there? Is that part of the conspiracy?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

What - there should have been houses there? Is that part of the conspiracy?

No just showing yea the Death an carnage an over all devastation a jet hitting the ground causes, forget about the houses man see the bigger picture here, im using this terrible tragedy only to emphasize the fact that on the news just after the so called jet crash in that field, the cameras on the helicopter showed only that little hole, and a few bits an pisces they later said were from the jet! and they even said they were surprised at the lack of wreckage in the area live on air!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


DCDAVE, I wrote this in response to you posting that exact same UTube vid in another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not just for you, it's for all to enjoy.

And to share.

Play nicely.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Well there is a difference between a plane blowing up in midair and breaking up, and a plane fully intact doing a nosedive at 450+mph into the ground.

The plane breaking up in midair will have its parts falling at nearly free-fall speed, which is slower than a full throttle into the ground while intact. had the PanAm flight been intact and full throttle into the ground, I'm pretty sure we would have seen something more similar to the Shanksville crash site.

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah, you're right. We should just take your word for it.

Please be adult enough to answer the question.

Tell me why would I request a declassified document through official FOIA request for a document that is not classified?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

Well there is a difference between a plane blowing up in midair and breaking up, and a plane fully intact doing a nosedive at 450+mph into the ground.

The plane breaking up in midair will have its parts falling at nearly free-fall speed, which is slower than a full throttle into the ground while intact. had the PanAm flight been intact and full throttle into the ground, I'm pretty sure we would have seen something more similar to the Shanksville crash site.

Now hang on here! are you telling me that the little Hole in Shanksville was the result of a passenger Jet hitting the ground a high speed! if you belive that its the end of this conversation,

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Well lets check some facts:

Multiple eyewitness accounts put a 757 AA in a nosedive at high speed into the ground, nearly inverted. Many also saw the impact and or the fireball. 757 parts were recovered, including many human remains (mostly shredded). So yes, there was a plane that impacted the ground there. A 757. And it isnt a really "tiny" hole now is it? Hell from the air, everything looks tiny. So no, how about the investigators and first respodners that reported on the scene the aftermath? Are they all mistaken or fooled into thinking that a plane crashed there? If so, please explain in detail how, and explain how a 757 AA didnt crash there.

Originally posted by GenRadek
757 parts were recovered,

Please show proper evidence of parts and that they match the plane.

reply to post by REMISNE


Aw not this game again.
Remisne, time and again you have been shown the debris, the aircraft parts, the engines, the parts of the fuselage. Hows about calling up the airline which is holding the debris and asking them yourself? I'm pretty sure you didnt overlook putting in an FOIA to them?

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

....that the little Hole in Shanksville....

"little"?

How 'little' have you been "told" it was?

Not all components of the airplane entered the crater, there was debris scattered all around it, too. Problem is, for 'truhters', is that there are only the few photos, that float around on the Web. You have to do more research, and go past the first page of Google to learn more about it.

Still, the very fact that the Flight Recorders were found, deeply buried, throws off the whole "faked" argument anyway.