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

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Aw not this game again.


Not a game when looking for the truth.

I have seen no reports matching parts to planes from doing research.

I have sent e-mails to get information from the last known owners.




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
Aw not this game again.


Not a game when looking for the truth.

I have seen no reports matching parts to planes from doing research.

I have sent e-mails to get information from the last known owners.



What about that little report from the NTSB's Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division, signed by him stipualting as to the authenticity of the FDR from Flight 93? Hmmmm?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What about that little report from the NTSB's Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division, signed by him stipualting as to the authenticity of the FDR from Flight 93? Hmmmm?


You mean the one that did have all the proper information, like the serial and part numbers that the report should have had?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

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?



Because you want to deceive me? I don't know.

The point is that I'm using the same level of trust that you yourself use for anything that disagrees with your ideas. Effectively you're telling me that something is classified and asking me to believe you. This is laughable given that you would use the same criteria to judge the authenticity of a document yourself.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The point is that I'm using the same level of trust that you yourself use for anything that disagrees with your ideas.


I have shown proof that the document exist and is classified. You just do not want to accept and admit to it.

The NSA responded to my request for a declassified copy of a document. The NSA would not have repsonded to a request for a declassified document if the document did not exist and was not classified.

In case you did not know the FOIA request is an official request to a government agency.





[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
You an your Goddamn Documents! take it from me the Hole is to small! end of story! an yea dont need no Documents to prove that!



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The point is that I'm using the same level of trust that you yourself use for anything that disagrees with your ideas.


I have shown proof that the document exist and is classified. You just do not want to accept and admit to it.

The NSA responded to my request for a declassified copy of a document. The NSA would not have repsonded to a request for a declassified document if the document did not exist and was not classified.

In case you did not know the FOIA request is an official request to a government agency.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]


In case you did not know, the government is requried to respond to all FOIA request. Period.

A response is neither an affirmation or denial. You have proved nothing except that you post an alleged response on photobucket.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
You an your Goddamn Documents! take it from me the Hole is to small! end of story! an yea dont need no Documents to prove that!


Well I, for one am glad this is finally settled. What time is the news conference?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Wanna talk some more? catch me at "The hippies were right allright"



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You have proved nothing except that you post an alleged response on photobucket.


Either show proof that the response from NSA is false or be mature enonugh to admit the document does exist.


Gee, now i guess you cannot read since the response from NSA stated they did have the document and other material i was requesting.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You have proved nothing except that you post an alleged response on photobucket.


Either show proof that the response from NSA is false or be mature enonugh to admit the document does exist.


Gee, now i guess you cannot read since the response from NSA stated they did have the document and other material i was requesting.
[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]


I'm sorry, the totality of your "evidence" is a link to an image posted on "photobucket" a public access site without any gateway protocols as to the veracity or authenticity of the images posted.

I am sure you would never accept something like that as evidence, would you?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I'm sorry, the totality of your "evidence" is a link to an image posted on "photobucket" a public access site without any gateway protocols as to the veracity or authenticity of the images posted.


The image is a scan of the response from NSA.

So please again either prove it is fake or be mature enough to admit the document exist.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I believe you that the document is real (although I'm sure you wouldn't believe a similar document if it disagreed with your ideas - you'd bang on about it just being a picture of something from a website, no proof of it being official etc etc).

But the fact is that it doesn't prove what you claim even if it is real. It just responds to your claim in a formal way, quoting something you said. It's worthless.

And your demand that we "prove" that it isn't what you claim it is - well, that's just moved you beyond parody. Now you can claim anything you like and it must be proved wrong to be untrue? Madness.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But the fact is that it doesn't prove what you claim even if it is real. It just responds to your claim in a formal way, quoting something you said. It's worthless.


So prove that it is not a official request for a official document.

You have the FOIA request number and i can give you the phone number to the FOIA office.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Can you really not grasp that you are employing a ludicrous double standard? Anything you bring forward is by default what you say it is, and unimpeachably true until proven false. Anything brought by anyone else - particularly stuff that seems to prove the traditional view of what happened on 9/11 - has to be proven to an impossible standard or is automatically untrue.

And your document still doesn't say what you think it does. As evidence for what you're trying to claim it is, I repeat, worthless.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can you really not grasp that you are employing a ludicrous double standard?


Can you really not grasp that you cannot post evidence to support the official story or to prove what i post wrong.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can you really not grasp that you are employing a ludicrous double standard?


Can you really not grasp that you cannot post evidence to support the official story or to prove what i post wrong.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by REMISNE]


I can and I have posted evidence in support of my arguments. Also, at the end of the day I don't approach 9/11 in the same manner as most in the Truth Movement - I am more easily satisfied because I don't have a terrible need to believe that it was an "inside job".

I don't believe what you would call the "OS" anyway. And furthermore I think it's a TM confection.

Your response is now really just basic trolling. You're not engaging with what's being said, either purposely or for some other reason. I don't need to prove what you post "wrong". By your own standard - the ones you apply so rigorously to everyone except yourself - your evidence is worthless.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I am more easily satisfied because I don't have a terrible need to believe that it was an "inside job".


I never stated it was an inside job, i am trying to find the truth.

Please be mature enough not to put words in my mouth.


I don't believe what you would call the "OS" anyway.


So you do not believe the 9/11 commission?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

I never stated it was an inside job, i am trying to find the truth.

Please be mature enough not to put words in my mouth.


I didn't. I wasn't referring specifically to you.




So you do not believe the 9/11 commission?


I believe certain aspects of it. Other bits are likely whitewash. Like most government inquiries.

What I do think is nonsense is the notion that the planes that crashed were not the ones we have been led to believe they were.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What I do think is nonsense is the notion that the planes that crashed were not the ones we have been led to believe they were.


Well i just have to make the statment that we do have most of the evidence or the official reports that state what planes crashed, no parts matching or serial numbers etz.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join