Evidence no plane crashed & buried in Shanksville; piles of dirt, but no piles of plane debris

Hooper, you have been shown over and over, i think for about 2 years now that flight 93 the Boeing 757 was not found to have caused the crater and was not found in the crater. This is fact but you pretend for some reason only known to a handfull of people that the official story is correct when there is no evidence to support it but more evidence to the contrary.



No evidence of a Boeing 757 let alone a crater made by a plane with the trajectory put forth.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Hooper, you have been shown over and over, i think for about 2 years now that flight 93 the Boeing 757 was not found to have caused the crater and was not found in the crater. This is fact but you pretend for some reason only known to a handfull of people that the official story is correct when there is no evidence to support it but more evidence to the contrary.

Well, now that you put it that way I fully understand why the whole world is up in arms and clamouring for a full explanation!

I am sure that you have "found" a lot of things over the years and I am sure you will keep on finding things as time goes on. I know that the only evidence that Flight 93 crashed in the reclaimed strip mine on the morning of 9/11/2001 is limited to data from the electronic recording devices on board the plane, the remains of the passengers and crew at the site, the remains of the plane itself and the impact crater. Weak, weak, argument. You, on the other hand are armed with your unswerving ability to declare everything that contradicts your conspiracy fantasy as either fabricated or staged.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by youngdrodeau

 

Atomize is clearly the best word used to describe Flights 77 & 93.

So they were reduced to a fine spray?.

Wow.Did you really just do that?You quoted the wrong definiton?Even though I pointed to it with arrows?

Why the avoidance?You scared of somethin?

No, I don't. Word usage is important. You are presenting a factual argument, not writing a love poem. .

Again,really?

Now wait, we just went from falling into their own footprints to being spread out for "miles". How can you make a judgement, factual or otherwise, with such a large range of deviation in your understanding?

Nothing wrong with my understanding.Just misspoke.Like I explained,without expert control,buildings collapses are much more messy.They tilt and fall over.FOR THE MOST PART,the majority of the towers,collapsed MORE OR LESS down into their own footprints.As neatly as possible given the circumstances.This is what I meant.But since I'm technically wrong,I conceded that you were right.

Yes, buildings will always fall into their own "footprint" unless otherwise acted upon. Things fall down. Or more precisely, except possibly on a cosmic level, gravity works in a straight line. Actually there are more than a few demolition experts out there. They are not a rare breed. And yes, many a contractor, charged with demolishing a building would love to just throw gasoline and a match on it and then haul away the ashes, but any thinking person could see some of the safety issues with that process. On a side note, did you now that a lot of the early Americans use to routinely burn down their log cabins before moving on to a new location? It was the easiest way to retrieve the very valuable iron nails used in the construction.

Buildings don't ALWAYS fall into their own footprint.Unless when you say "always" you mean "usually",in which case you're just beggin for me to mock you with "Word usage is important...".Remember,the only reason they USUALLY fall into their own footprint is because they USUALLY fall due to controlled demolition.And even then,they sometimes fall sideways,when the CD isn't successful.

And what are those safety issues any thinking person could see?

This is what happens when buildings collapse uncontrolledly

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Wow, you are going to really hurt yourself trying to twist out of that logic. It was unsuccessful because some of the material fell out and away from its footprint, but it was successful because they intended to have some of the material fall out and away. But nowhere do you accept the possibility that it was not a controlled demolition because of the uncotrolled manner in which it collapsed.

No twisted logic at all.The mission was to record the horrible images of the buildings crumbling from being hit by planes for shock value (And to destroy plane evidence),and do so with as little other property damage & human death as possible.So they had to blow it up from top to bottom.This is an abnormal demolition.Demo in reverse.Of course,in doing this there was no way to avoid debris flying.They could however avoid it tilting & causing unneeded destruction.So this was a successful controlled demo.

And yes I have accepted the slim possibility that it wasn't a CD a long time ago,but since the evidence points away from that,I've ruled that out.There are other buildings that have been hit by planes.None of them came anywhere near collapsing at all,which would lead me to believe that plane crashes can't make buildings to collapse.But on the other hand,there arent enough cases of plane/building crashes to say for certain that planes can't on the basis of consistancies.So while there's good reason to believe plane crash/fires can't make buildings collapse,I can't say for certain based on comparison.So,I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.I can however say for certain based on consistancies & comparison to ample other cases,that steel framed buildings can't collapse due to fire.They can due to CD.Building 7 had all traits of a CD.That alone is good reason to suspect CD.Add the fact that 100s of witnesses reported explosions live on TV & a few explosions were even heard..and there you have it.And if Bldg 7 was a CD,so were the Towers.Simple logic...Really shouldn't have to explain all this.Its simple logic.
Building collapse + Explosions witnessed = Controlled demolition

So, you admit that you do not have any way to know, yet somehow you're sure enough that you feel obligated to repeat it.

Yes.I said from the get go "I may be wrong" & repeated it.It was an assumption.A reasonable assumption,but assumption nonetheless.

And you still haven't provided me with the sources that gave you the idea that those kinda exercises were normal as you claim.So when you said "You need to do some more research" it appears,you're just saying stuff.

Can you direct me to ONE link to prove me wrong?

World Trade Center Building #7.

Exactly.Building 7,the only steel framed building ever to collapse due to fire.Just like I said.

Didn't kill the whole staff?Not too sure about that.

Then why say it?

Cuz that's what any normal person would make of someone saying "All the people in that area were killed."

Again,stop knitpicking at wording & using strawmen.Point still stands,alot of the staff were wiped out.Possibly the whole staff.That's nowhere near BS.Here's what a Pentagon worker had to say.You be the judge.

"Your Mom is dead"!
"Oh my God, how did she die, what happened"??
"Well, she's not dead, but she doesn't feel very good"
"Then why did you say she died"?
"Oh quit knitpicking"

Totally false comparison.Its more like:

"Everybody at my job is mad at me."
"You mean..Every single person on the staff?"
"No.Not every single person.Jenny & Greg aren't.But everybody else is."
"Then why did you say "Everybody."
"Hey,F off already."

Ok, seriosuly, you've got to do a little more reading about this issue. No one ever said that they lost 2.3 trillion dollars in one year.

Yes.Indeed they did.
"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."-Donald Rumsfeld

"Lost" has multiple meanings.It can mean misplaced,unable to be found temporarily,unable to ever be forever,gone,etc. All of the forementioned apply.

And for the last time,stop knitpicking at language & making strawmen and address the actual "meat & potatoes" of the argument.

My assumptions are not unreasonable. I've seen just about every fact, pseudo fact and rumor involving the events of 9/11 turned into threads of a conspiracy.

Yes,you're assumptions are unreasonable.You assume the OS,which is based on pseudo science (Such as that steel framed buildings can collapse from fire),is true...Furthermore,you haven't said anything that suggests that you've actually researched much at all.

Seriously man,if you've gotta resort to avoidance,petty grammar Nazi-ism,strawmen arguments,etc,to defend your position,than maybe its time you start questioning how much YOU actually believe the OV.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

1)I don't get ANY info from conspiracy websites & have said nothing to suggest I do.I get my info from official,confirmable sources & the OS,as I know the best way to catch a liar is to use their own words against them.Stop ASSuming things.

"ANY?" Then tell me with all your wisdom... what happened to flight 93? You claim to have read all the confirmable sources and the "OS" and accused them of lying.

Please point out, with evidence the lies the "OS" told regarding flight 93.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

2)Well,seeing is believing,isn't it?Live footage is the most damning evidence there is,right?And isn't your case for there being plenty of wreckage found based on pictures you've seen?Now,whats more convincing?....Live video footage from minutes after the 'crash' or a few snap shots taken days & weeks after the fact?

Were televison cameras allowed at the crash scene? No.

This is where the information I posted becomes important. You talk to those that were there! There were THOUSANDS of people. The first responders are mostly volunteers. Were they all in on it too? Don't listen to me, contact those that witnessed everything first hand!

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

3)I've seen Flight 1771.Not impressed.I suspect that was PSYOPS pre-testing.Too coincidental that the few times this happens,it's always been in some secluded dirt field in some small town with a tiny population.Also,very coincidental that this took place in '87,around the end of the Cold War,which is when the military industrial complex would wanna start planning the next big war......
But even if I'm wrong,

PSYOPS Pre-testing? Wait... what? If you did proper research, you would have known the FACTS surrounding flight 1771. Suggesting this was anything but a disgruntled employee who committed suicide is pathetic. Your accusations are baselss and unfounded.

Originally posted by hooper
I know that the only evidence that Flight 93 crashed in the reclaimed strip mine on the morning of 9/11/2001 is limited to..., the remains of the passengers and crew at the site

Can you please show me an official report that states passenger remains were found, like you'll only except an official report stated the crash details?

the remains of the plane itself and the impact crater.

Please show us the remains of the plane that supposedly buried. We've only been asking for a month now on this thread.

.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

the electronic recording devices on board the plane, the remains of the passengers and crew at the site, the remains of the plane itself and the impact crater.

Where do YOU see all this stuff.Its clearly not in any of the footage from that day.Its clearly nowhere to be seen.Hell,the first responders & reporters there didn't see it.Are you tellin me that YOU believe that there was plenty of debris,but it all happened to go somewhere out of the view of the camera,first responders & reporters?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
If you did proper research, you would have known the FACTS surrounding flight 1771.

How much of 1771 buried and how much of it was later recovered?

reply to post by youngdrodeau

Buildings don't ALWAYS fall into their own footprint.Unless when you say "always" you mean "usually",in which case you're just beggin for me to mock you with "Word usage is important...".Remember,the only reason they USUALLY fall into their own footprint is because they USUALLY fall due to controlled demolition.And even then,they sometimes fall sideways,when the CD isn't successful.

No I meant ALWAYS. And like I said "unless otherwise acted upon". That was the complete sentence. Buildings, apples or any other object are going to fall in a straight line unless otherwise acted upon.

And what are those safety issues any thinking person could see?

Uh, buring buildings have this bad habit of starting other things on fire nearby. If you doubt that Google "move", "philadelphia" and "mayor goode".

No twisted logic at all.The mission was to record the horrible images of the buildings crumbling from being hit by planes for shock value (And to destroy plane evidence),and do so with as little other property damage & human death as possible.So they had to blow it up from top to bottom.This is an abnormal demolition.Demo in reverse.Of course,in doing this there was no way to avoid debris flying.They could however avoid it tilting & causing unneeded destruction.So this was a successful controlled demo.

Wow, you got it all covered there. And not a fact to be seen for miles. What is so funny is that one of the most popular arguments for controlled demolition amongst the truthseekers is that the collapses looked like controlled demolition, but in your case your argument for controlled demolition is that it didn't look like controlled demolition. Gauranteed never to be wrong when you are only limited to your own imagination.

And yes I have accepted the slim possibility that it wasn't a CD a long time ago,but since the evidence points away from that,I've ruled that out.

Evidence? Now you got evidence?

There are other buildings that have been hit by planes.None of them came anywhere near collapsing at all,which would lead me to believe that plane crashes can't make buildings to collapse.
But on the other hand,there arent enough cases of plane/building crashes to say for certain that planes can't on the basis of consistancies.So while there's good reason to believe plane crash/fires can't make buildings collapse,I can't say for certain based on comparison.So,I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.I can however say for certain based on consistancies & comparison to ample other cases,that steel framed buildings can't collapse due to fire.

But were not talking about unknowns here. We don't need examples to calculate the effects of heat on materials and constructions. Its either possible or not. Your argument is that if hasn't happened before it will never happen.

They can due to CD.Building 7 had all traits of a CD.That alone is good reason to suspect CD.Add the fact that 100s of witnesses reported explosions live on TV & a few explosions were even heard..and there you have it.And if Bldg 7 was a CD,so were the Towers.Simple logic...Really shouldn't have to explain all this.Its simple logic.
Building collapse + Explosions witnessed = Controlled demolition

No wait, "they" purposely make the controlled demolition collapse of the towers not look like CD but then for some reason they make Bldg 7 look like a CD??? Oh and by the way, hundrerds of witnesses did not report explosions and also, believe it or not, building 7 was not the first time in history that explosions were heard while a building was burning. I mean just the other night I was at a friend's house when we heard a loud pop from the fireplace, we assumed it was knot in the wood or some pine sap but obviosuly it was controlled demolition.

Cuz that's what any normal person would make of someone saying "All the people in that area were killed."

Yeah, if they were reporting five minutes into the event, not ten years later when all the fatalities are known.

"Everybody at my job is mad at me."
"You mean..Every single person on the staff?"
"No.Not every single person.Jenny & Greg aren't.But everybody else is."
"Then why did you say "Everybody."
"Hey,F off already."

Yep, excellent example. Misuse of language and hyperbole is just another way of lying. If your not called out on your misuse then you get away with purposely misguiding someone, if you are called out then you simply accuse the other party of being a "grammar-nazi". Win, win.

Yes.Indeed they did.
"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."-Donald Rumsfeld

And where in there is the term "in one year"?

"Lost" has multiple meanings.It can mean misplaced,unable to be found temporarily,unable to ever be forever,gone,etc. All of the forementioned apply.
And for the last time,stop knitpicking at language & making strawmen and address the actual "meat & potatoes" of the argument.

Nope. You want to make statements that are wholly misleading like "atomize" and "in one year" without any support and I will call you on that. We are not talking about punctuation or spelling (by the way you should double space between sentences, it makes it much easier to read).

Yes,you're assumptions are unreasonable.You assume the OS,which is based on pseudo science (Such as that steel framed buildings can collapse from fire),is true...Furthermore,you haven't said anything that suggests that you've actually researched much at all.

Sorry, but the idea that a building, because it has a "steel frame" is somehow or another impervious to the effects of energy is the pseudo science.

Seriously man,if you've gotta resort to avoidance,petty grammar Nazi-ism,strawmen arguments,etc,to defend your position,than maybe its time you start questioning how much YOU actually believe the OV.

Sorry, when I hear someone say "they lost 2.3 trillion in ONE YEAR" and I ask them to back that up, I don't think that is a strawman argument. When you say a plane atomized even though there are photos of debris, thats not petty grammar correction.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

"ANY?" Then tell me with all your wisdom... what happened to flight 93? You claim to have read all the confirmable sources and the "OS" and accused them of lying.

What?Are you asking me to repeat every single factoid of the OV of Flight 93?Or are you asking me my theory of what really happened?Cuz it seems like your asking the former.And in that case,go jump in a lake.

Please point out, with evidence the lies the "OS" told regarding flight 93.

The lies -That it crashed in Shanksville,buried itself into a small plane shaped hole and/or atomized on impact (Depending on what debunker you're talking to) & that they found all the debris.

The evidence - Common sense,20/20 vision,great hearing,pictures to the contrary,witnesses to the contrary,etc.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Were televison cameras allowed at the crash scene? No.

No but pictures were taken.And aerial footag was taken.And just in case ya think your eyes are messing with ya when ya see no debris,reporters & first responders made it clear that they didn't see anything.

This is where the information I posted becomes important. You talk to those that were there! There were THOUSANDS of people. The first responders are mostly volunteers. Were they all in on it too? Don't listen to me, contact those that witnessed everything first hand!

Yeh there were witnesses who totally debunk the OV.Why don't you listen to them too.

PSYOPS Pre-testing? Wait... what? If you did proper research, you would have known the FACTS surrounding flight 1771. Suggesting this was anything but a disgruntled employee who committed suicide is pathetic. Your accusations are baselss and unfounded.

Wikipedia
Psychological Operations (United States)
Process

"In order to create a successful PSYOP the following must be established:
1) clearly define the mission so that it aligns with national objectives
2) need a PSYOP estimate of the situation
3) prepare the plan
4) media selection
5) product development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>6) PRETESTING - determines the probable impact of the PSYOP on the target audience
7) production and dissemination of PSYOP material
8) implementation
9) posttesting - evaluates audience responses
10) feedback"

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

What?Are you asking me to repeat every single factoid of the OV of Flight 93?Or are you asking me my theory of what really happened?Cuz it seems like your asking the former.And in that case,go jump in a lake.

Read it again. You claimed to have read all the confirmable reports. So please, tell me what happened to Flight 93.

The lies -That it crashed in Shanksville,buried itself into a small plane shaped hole and/or atomized on impact (Depending on what debunker you're talking to) & that they found all the debris.

I asked for lies from the governemnt. NOT storiess from debunkers. Tell me what the government said that was a lie.

The evidence - Common sense,20/20 vision,great hearing,pictures to the contrary,witnesses to the contrary,etc.

So, you have no evidence. There are witnesses to the plane crashing, you do know this?

No but pictures were taken.And aerial footag was taken.And just in case ya think your eyes are messing with ya when ya see no debris,reporters & first responders made it clear that they didn't see anything.

For someone to have claimed that they have read all the OS reports and confirmable reports, you are not very good at comprehending things.

Again, this is why I gave this thread information on the first reposnders. Call them! Write them! Ask them what they saw. Plenty of witnesses saw plenty of debris and body parts.

Yeh there were witnesses who totally debunk the OV.Why don't you listen to them too.

You are not very good at this are you? Try reading this:

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing By MATTHEW L. WALD
www-psych.stanford.edu...

In part:

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: "How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire."

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.

There were several witnesses whos statments closely matched the FDR data.

Wikipedia
Psychological Operations (United States)
Process

Paranoid personality disorder

Overview
Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric condition in which a person is very distrustful and suspicious of others.

Alternative Names
Personality disorder - paranoid

Causes
Personality disorders are long-term (chronic) patterns of behavior that cause lasting problems with work and relationships.

The cause of paranoid personality disorder is unknown. It appears to be more common in families with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia and delusional disorder, which suggests genes may be involved.

Symptoms
People with paranoid personality disorder are highly suspicious of other people. They are usually unable to acknowledge their own negative feelings towards other people.

Other common symptoms include:

Concern that other people have hidden motives
Expectation that they will be exploited by others
Inability to work together with others
Poor self image
Social isolation
Detachment
Hostility

health.google.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Originally posted by youngdrodeau

You claimed to have read all the confirmable reports. So please, tell me what happened to Flight 93.

What?You think I'm gonna sit here & type everysingle detail of the 93 fairytale to you?Get lost.

I asked for lies from the governemnt. NOT storiess from debunkers.Tell me what the government said that was a lie.

Already answered that.Not gonna do it again.

The evidence - Common sense,20/20 vision,great hearing,pictures to the contrary,witnesses to the contrary,etc.

So, you have no evidence. There are witnesses to the plane crashing, you do know this?

There are also witnesses to the contrary.Do you know this?

No but pictures were taken.And aerial footag was taken.And just in case ya think your eyes are messing with ya when ya see no debris,reporters & first responders made it clear that they didn't see anything.

For someone to have claimed that they have read all the OS reports and confirmable reports, you are not very good at comprehending things.

Insulting me doesn't make the proof go away.

Again, this is why I gave this thread information on the first reposnders. Call them! Write them! Ask them what they saw. Plenty of witnesses saw plenty of debris and body parts.

Again,there's plenty of witnesses to the contrary.Call them.Write them.Ask them what they saw.

Yeh there were witnesses who totally debunk the OV.Why don't you listen to them too.

You are not very good at this are you? Try reading this:

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing By MATTHEW L. WALD
www-psych.stanford.edu...

In part:

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: "How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire."

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.

There were several witnesses whos statments closely matched the FDR data.

Wow.You just totally ruined your own argument.You can't keep bringing up the OV witnesses & say that witnesses accounts are meaningless.

Wikipedia
Psychological manipulation
Vulnerabilities exploited by manipulators


According to Braiker[1], manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities (buttons) that may exist in victims:

the "disease to please"
addiction to earning the approval and acceptance of others
Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion)
lack of assertiveness and ability to say no
blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)
low self-reliance
external locus of control
According to Simon[2], manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities that may exist in victims:

naïveté - victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is "in denial" if he is being victimized
over-conscientiousness - victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things in which they blame the victim
low self-confidence - victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.
over-intellectualization - victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.
emotional dependency - victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he is to being exploited and manipulated.
Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victim.

According to Kantor[3], the following are vulnerable to psychopathic manipulators:

too trusting - people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc. They rarely question so-called experts.
too altruistic - the opposite of psychopathic; too honest, too fair, too empathetic
too impressionable - overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the phony politician who kisses babies.
too naïve - cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world or if there were they would not be allowed to operate.
too masochistic - lack of self-respect and unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.
too narcissistic - narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.
too greedy - the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.
too immature - has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.
too materialistic - easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes
too dependent - dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something to which they should say no.
too lonely - lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.
too impulsive - make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or who to marry without consulting others.
too frugal - cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason why it is so cheap

reply to post by Six Sigma


Here's somethin else ya might wanna look at- Denial

Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [1] The subject may use:

simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalisation), or
projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.

She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.

Denial of fact
In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
What?You think I'm gonna sit here & type everysingle detail of the 93 fairytale to you?Get lost.

Once more for you.... allow me to reword it.

With all your research, what do you think happened to flight 93?

Originally posted by youngdrodeau

Already answered that.Not gonna do it again.

Go read it again. Your answer was about debunkers. I asked for evidence of the governments lies regarding flight 93. I dont want to hear about 20/20 vision and speculations. You are claiming the government lied about flight 93. Show me the facts and only the facts.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau


Wikipedia
Psychological manipulation
Vulnerabilities exploited by manipulators

This is your response to a paper from Stanford University? Really? So, witnesses during airline crashes are more reliable than FDR? and CVR? I will ask you once more to read it:

www-psych.stanford.edu...

Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. "Eyewitness memory is reconstructive, the biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there."




Now, instead of posting more paranoia, try posting some facts. So far, you haven't done very well.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

If you did proper research, you would have known the FACTS surrounding flight 1771.

How much of 1771 buried and how much of it was later recovered?

reply to post by ATH911


no one here has access to the OFFICIAL REPORT. it has never been released and probably wont.
there were reports done by FAA, NTSB, PSP. The lead agency was the FBI.
I still see we are debating this plane wreck, notice how I said plane wreck. Thats because thats what hit the ground, a plane. What do you think happens when a plane hits the ground at 500mph. Do you think there will be much left? I can tell you I am surprised they found anything.

Originally posted by surfnow2

no one here has access to the OFFICIAL REPORT. it has never been released and probably wont.
there were reports done by FAA, NTSB, PSP. The lead agency was the FBI.

But we do have access to the mainstream news, who normally get their facts from the above sources.

I still see we are debating this plane wreck, notice how I said plane wreck. Thats because thats what hit the ground, a plane.

Could you tell if a plane wreck was staged?

What do you think happens when a plane hits the ground at 500mph. Do you think there will be much left? I can tell you I am surprised they found anything.

You know the FBI said they recovered 95%, right? Far cry from being surprised they found anything.

Are you going to finally concede that the official story is at odds from your observation of the photographic evidence?

reply to post by ATH911

the photographic evidence?

The photographic evidence, or did you mean to say everything you can find on the internet?

There is a difference you know.

Have you contacted any of the first responders yet and gotten their first hand impressions?

Contacted the airlines and asked to see the remains of the airplane?

So if you ascribe a validity to a historic event based on the photograhs you can find on Google, well then, failure is going to be your constant companion.

thats a nice scattered debris field all over the forest! do you think it got that way from the plane plowing into the ground> or the plane being blown to piece in the air

That crater existed years before the supposed crashed. The supposed plane is supposed to have crashed straight in to that hole. If that was the case,I would expect the whole plane and it's contents to be fused into one or more giant chunks,instead of a bunch of loose refuse.

The plane did not have seats on the back of seats as was reported. Cell phone communication would have been imposable at the hight and speed of the plane.

**To embed pictures, you can use use tinypic.com,photobucket,com or imageshack.com. Requires you to download picture from original site and then you upload to the picture hoster.The pic host sight has how to topics and there is also a help forum on abovetopsecret.**

reply to post by amy2x

The plane did not have seats on the back of seats as was reported. Cell phone communication would have been imposable at the hight and speed of the plane.

***Should have said "phones on the back of seats."

Susan was one of the last people to see what caused the crater in Shanksville on 911. She describes it as being the size of her van, smooth, white, small.