If 911 is viewed as a crime instead of a terrorist attack, it becomes clear...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

I think I understand the source of so much of your vitrol - you are deeply invested in your very own set of facts. A engine a mile away? Mid air break up? Maybe if you stuck to the facts, rather than making up your own conspiracy friendly reality, you would feel a less anxious about the whole situation.

Depends on WHICH official story you read and when, I suppose.

Is the official story now ONLY a collision with the ground, or do they talk about it breaking up and THEN slamming into the ground. SOMETHING has to explain the debris found in other areas while the main impact site was mostly a small crater and disintegrated plane.

Forgive me if I'm not commenting on the OFFICIAL description of events -- I'm going by the story prior to 2003, before they REFINED it.

>> Google about the plane engine found over a mile away -- that's a pretty big BOUNCE for an impact with the ground.

I posted this video on the previous page but it appears that you guys missed it, so I'll post it again here.

video.google.com...

Please watch and then let me know if this mystery of one of flight 93's engines being found over a mile away might be explained by the fact that it was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney, of the "Happy Hooligans" Air Command of North Dakota (who obviously didn't get the memo to stand down for "drills" that day), being given an award for his heroics in the video. (He truly is a hero, as he probably prevented flight 93 from hitting the Capitol, which would have enabled G Dubya to declare himself Dictator.)

Honestly, can anyone look at the plane-shaped hole that was dug out of the ground in Shanksville, with barely enough debris in it to fill up a single dump truck, and say that they see a 747?

Compare those pics with the debris at the Pentagon. A few guys carted off just about all of it by hand in about 20 minutes.

Now look at the painstaking reconstruction of Flight 800 at a hangar in Brookhaven Long Island. Don't the "aircraft" involved in 911 deserve the same investigation?

Not if you don't want the truth being discovered and you have the power to cover it up.

What kind of drugs are people taking?

What kind of Kool-Aid are they drinking?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I posted this video on the previous page but it appears that you guys missed it, so I'll post it again here.

video.google.com...

Please watch and then let me know if this mystery of one of flight 93's engines being found over a mile away might be explained by the fact that it was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney, of the "Happy Hooligans" Air Command of North Dakota (who obviously didn't get the memo to stand down for "drills" that day), being given an award for his heroics in the video. (He truly is a hero, as he probably prevented flight 93 from hitting the Capitol, which would have enabled G Dubya to declare himself Dictator.)

Excuse me, but where did you get this "engine found over a mile away" nonsense? The engine was found 300 yards away in the direction of the plane's path and impact. 300 yards does not equal over a mile. I take it math is not a strong point of the person that wrote that crap for the truther website you took it from. Here are the facts:

Flight 93 engine FACT

Honestly, can anyone look at the plane-shaped hole that was dug out of the ground in Shanksville, with barely enough debris in it to fill up a single dump truck, and say that they see a 747?

Good job! It wasnt a 747. It was a 757. MUCH smaller. And yes, the hole fits the size of the plane.

Compare those pics with the debris at the Pentagon. A few guys carted off just about all of it by hand in about 20 minutes.

Really? I have yet to see this. I havent seen anyone cart them off 20 minutes. Where are you pulling this tripe from?

Now look at the painstaking reconstruction of Flight 800 at a hangar in Brookhaven Long Island. Don't the "aircraft" involved in 911 deserve the same investigation?

Not if you don't want the truth being discovered and you have the power to cover it up.

What kind of drugs are people taking?

What kind of Kool-Aid are they drinking?

edit on 4-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: addition

I'd like to know where you got all that nonsense from first. What was the person(s) that created this crap smoking when they came up with all this BS about engines amile away and 747s crashing? You have a lot of work to do in getting the facts straightened out.

Originally posted by GenRadek

I'd like to know where you got all that nonsense from first. What was the person(s) that created this crap smoking when they came up with all this BS about engines amile away and 747s crashing? You have a lot of work to do in getting the facts straightened out.

And of course you completely ignored the point of the whole post, which was to point out that flight 93 was shot down, and you attack the trivial details. This is typical. Has the government changed its official story, or are they still dishing out the "Let's Roll" nonsense?

The bottom line:

If Flight 93 was shot down, which the video proves, then it broke up in midair, and the airplane shaped cartoon-cutout in the ground is a hoax, done in the middle of the night with some junk dumped into it from a truck or two.
Kinda makes where the engine(s) landed a moot point, doesn't it?

reply to post by GenRadek
If there's anyone who needs to get their facts straght, it's you. We all know where you stand regarding the official 'fairy tale'. Obviously, you admit the said engine was found away from the crash site, and 300 yards is an awfully long way for it to bounce. Keep sticking up for the OS, it helps us.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

And of course you completely ignored the point of the whole post, which was to point out that flight 93 was shot down, and you attack the trivial details. This is typical. Has the government changed its official story, or are they still dishing out the "Let's Roll" nonsense?

edit on 4-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: omission of a word

edit on 4-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Actually I dont see the point of the post when there are SO many errors in it, that needed to be addressed.

There is NO evidence of a shoot down. NONE. It is not a trivial detail saying the engine was over a mile away. It is NOT a trivial detail the plane was a 747. Get the facts straight first, then open your mouth. The reason why this garbage of "shoot down" comes is because of such erroneous nonsense. What is it with Truthers and such gross errors?

Originally posted by GenRadek

There is NO evidence of a shoot down. NONE.

Here... maybe the abridged version might help.... 58 minutes is tough even for me to sit through.....

video.google.com...

Oh and I forgot.... can you explain how a cellphone works at 38,000 feet?

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GenRadek

 

If there's anyone who needs to get their facts straght, it's you. We all know where you stand regarding the official 'fairy tale'. Obviously, you admit the said engine was found away from the crash site, and 300 yards is an awfully long way for it to bounce. Keep sticking up for the OS, it helps us.

Let us see your math skills dillweed. How many feet is 1 mile? Now, how many feet is 300 yards? Is 300 yards one mile? That is called getting your facts straight.

Of course the engine was found farther away. It bounced like in other crashes. Why is it so hard to understand that in an impact so severe, engines can bounce far from the crash site? When Flight 587 crashed, its engines were found a few blocks away as well.Was it shot down?

Radek, have you ever stopped to ask yourself, out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of factors that are being questioned about 911, why is it that there isn't a single aspect of the OS that manifests itself clearly as what it is purported to be and doesn't have to be "debunked"? (As if you guys debunk anything, which you don't, but only in your own fantasy worlds where the laws of physics don't exist.)

reply to post by SimontheMagus


If you think UA 93 was shot down and broke up in the air how do you account for the fact that the recovered flight data recorder shows all systems functioning up to impact ?

How about the cockpit voice recorder, also recovered, giving the desperate hi-jacker voices talking of putting the plane in ?

What of the witnesses who saw UA 93 at low level shortly before impact ?

If it had been shot down can you suggest why it should be denied ?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by GenRadek

There is NO evidence of a shoot down. NONE.

Here... maybe the abridged version might help.... 58 minutes is tough even for me to sit through.....

video.google.com...

Oh and I forgot.... can you explain how a cellphone works at 38,000 feet?

edit on 4-1-2012 by SimontheMagus because: addition

Actually an AIRPHONE works at altitude. The cell phones worked when the plane was much lower. Wow, that video sure has a LOT of issues.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Radek, have you ever stopped to ask yourself, out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of factors that are being questioned about 911, why is it that there isn't a single aspect of the OS that manifests itself clearly as what it is purported to be and doesn't have to be "debunked"? (As if you guys debunk anything, which you don't, but only in your own fantasy worlds where the laws of physics don't exist.)

Another way to say this is "as long as I can type sentences with question marks at the end then the official story is in question". Sorry, but no physical laws were broken, nothing is question and this whole matter is now in the history books unless, of course, you can present affirmative proof that something is not correct. Not suspicion, not "doubt" and not questions. Affirmative.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Radek, have you ever stopped to ask yourself, out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of factors that are being questioned about 911, why is it that there isn't a single aspect of the OS that manifests itself clearly as what it is purported to be and doesn't have to be "debunked"? (As if you guys debunk anything, which you don't, but only in your own fantasy worlds where the laws of physics don't exist.)

Another way to say this is "as long as I can type sentences with question marks at the end then the official story is in question". Sorry, but no physical laws were broken, nothing is question and this whole matter is now in the history books unless, of course, you can present affirmative proof that something is not correct. Not suspicion, not "doubt" and not questions. Affirmative.

I agree. Everyone knows it's been debunked, there is literally nothing to question about the events that day. Case closed.

I mean, how could anyone want to question it?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Really, how could you? You want to ask questions relative to national security policy, fine. You want to ask questions about what we are going to do, going forward, to not let ourselves be victims of terrorism, fine. But you really think asking "questions" about controlled demolitions, holograms and faked crash sites is going to get you anywhere?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Really, how could you? You want to ask questions relative to national security policy, fine. You want to ask questions about what we are going to do, going forward, to not let ourselves be victims of terrorism, fine. But you really think asking "questions" about controlled demolitions, holograms and faked crash sites is going to get you anywhere?

How bout let's stop derailing the thread into whether an engine can bounce in a plane crash onto land. Obviously the people on my side didn't read the OP where I stressed the HOW DOES NOT MATTER. The WHY is much more important. Detectives look for the motive first to point at the suspects. Think of it like a police investigation. No one read the link either apparently. And the debunkers are out in force here, with the usual tactics of focusing on one tiny piece of each post, like whether the engine bounced 300 yards or a whole mile, thinking that renders the entire post wrong.

That's in "Shill Basics 101".

This is not about the HOW, it's about the WHY. Exactly how they did it means nothing. It's obvious the OS has a million holes in it, and coverups are only done by those responsible for what they are trying to cover up. Logic 101, there. Anyone lying about anything when there are crimes involved is usually involved in it. Accessory after the fact at the very least.

After Watergate, "No one thought there WOULDN'T be a coverup." That's what you do when you are GUILTY.

The Bush Crime Syndicate has been guilty of dozens of the vilest transgressions for over FIFTY YEARS, starting with Prescott Bush trading with the Nazis. They keep fooling the chumps, though, thanks to the efforts of people like these debunkers here, and all the presstitutes in the media. Keep up the good work, fellas, you're doing great. 90 percent of the sheeple swallow everything hook line and sinker.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

Adding 10 million square feet of office space to an island that already had plenty of empty office space....

Yes, because we are all aware of the legendary low price of real estate in Manhattan. Really, who do you think you're fooling with this crap?

Here's shill 101 again. Picks one phrase out of the whole post.

And, uh, it was in the 70s. There was a little thing going on called the Oil Crisis, and a huge recession. Not as bad as the one now, though the govt is telling you it was worse than now. So, uh YEAH. The "legendary low price of real estate in Manhattan" was the exact issue. As in, they PAID a lot for the real estate, it COST way more than expected to build the things, and they were trying to RENT OUT OFFICE SPACE in the millions of square feet, at a time when there was PLENTY OF VACANT OFFICE SPACE. They were hemmorhaging money away hand over fist.

Not trying to "fool anyone with this crap". Obviously you are too young to remember what was going on in the 70s. And the FACT is the place NEVER got even close to full occupancy. EVER. For over FORTY YEARS it was losing money. So, uh, yeah, the price of real estate in Manhattan kind of does have a lot to do with it.

Read the OP you guys. It's not about the HOW, it is the WHY.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Col Rick Gibney, was decorated for flying to Montana, picking up the New York State Head of Emergency Management in an F-16D and flying him back to New York. Not for shooting down Flight 93.

Now, if you want to go with the shoot down theory, please tell us exactly what weapon was used? (so I can show you just how wrong you are)

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Col Rick Gibney, was decorated for flying to Montana, picking up the New York State Head of Emergency Management in an F-16D and flying him back to New York. Not for shooting down Flight 93.

Now, if you want to go with the shoot down theory, please tell us exactly what weapon was used? (so I can show you just how wrong you are)

Show me evidence of a 757 in the hole in the ground at Shanksville. What I see amounts to little more than a Piper Cub. They could have done better.......

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Prime example of CT101....someone knows the facts, so I will try and shift the argument to another subject. Believing that you cannot find evidence of the 757 that crashed there, only shows you havent bothered to do the research.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Looks like more than a Piper Cub here ....

Filled 10 of these with debris, some 60 tons

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts – seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal – from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United." –Wallace Miller

Does this look like piece off a Pipe Cub ?