Shanksville Deconstructed - Part Two...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Rewey

I outlined very clearly above where the photo came from, and all the information which was provided with it.

IOW, you have no idea if the roughly horizontal slash mark there is a result of momentum, or the wings again, like in Shanksville.

Your inability to provide the justification for your "roughly left to right" opinion is duly noted.

you still have yet to answer Tezz's post and the rest of reweys questions/challenges to you... your evasions are so transparent its sad.

this is just more proof of your selective responses and cherry picking only what doesn't make your logic look insane

Originally posted by ATH911
if any part of the story is proven to be a lie, the entire official story is a lie.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by ATH911]

that right there is perhaps the single most important aspect of 9/11 most just can't seem to understand.

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by ATH911
if any part of the story is proven to be a lie, the entire official story is a lie.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by ATH911]

that right there is perhaps the single most important aspect of 9/11 most just can't seem to understand.

Is the oppposite true? If any part of the "official story" is proven to be the truth doesn't that make all the conspiracy fantasies equally false?

Originally posted by hooper
Is the oppposite true? If any part of the "official story" is proven to be the truth doesn't that make all the conspiracy fantasies equally false?

You've got to be kidding, hooper?

Let me just state a very definitive no to your false assumption.

If any part of the official government story is true, then it only proves that part of the official government story is true. You can not generalise the truth in the manner that you hope to do.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Is the oppposite true? If any part of the "official story" is proven to be the truth doesn't that make all the conspiracy fantasies equally false?

You've got to be kidding, hooper?

Let me just state a very definitive no to your false assumption.

If any part of the official government story is true, then it only proves that part of the official government story is true. You can not generalise the truth in the manner that you hope to do.

So it can then be true that terrorist took over a plane and crashed it into one of the WTC towers and then the tower collapsed due to the massive damage caused by the impact and fires but the other plane was remotely controlled and the other tower was rigged with explosives.

Originally posted by hooper
So it can then be true that terrorist took over a plane and crashed it into one of the WTC towers and then the tower collapsed due to the massive damage caused by the impact and fires but the other plane was remotely controlled and the other tower was rigged with explosives.

I don't know if that happened or not. I don't know why you're trying to steer this thread towards the WTC towers when it is about the hole in the ground at Shanksville.

Take a course in logic, similar to the one that I suggested both jthomas and trebor should attend, and you'll see why your initial statement was so very logically wrong.

What do you think happened at Shanksville, hooper? Do you believe the whole story was told truthfully?

Originally posted by Orion7911

you still have yet to answer Tezz's post

[snip]

and the rest of reweys questions/challenges to you

Such as?

He has an opinion that the roughly horizontal slash in the OP photo was because the plane was traveling left to right, and, if I understand him correctly, the fuselage/nose was the part of the plane responsible for making that gouge. He provides zero logical reasoning behind his opinion - he doesn't base it on anything other than his opinion that he is right. Just like he did in the first thread when he went on for several posts arguing that the crater was 50' wide. There's a pattern there of delusional thinking.

My opinion is that the wings made it, since there are no other wing marks there.

So what is there to discuss? In order to make an argument against the fuselage making the gouge, I'd have to search through the entire NTSB database to try and find the report. I'm not interested in that.

It's not worth the time arguing against someone's opinion when they don't provide any reason behind it that can be viewed unbiasedly.

The rational realize this.

Troofers will not be moved by it.

The heroes on Fl 93 figured out what was going on in minutes. 9/11 dolts have had 8 yrs and still can't figure it out. The sad thing is, in 8 yrs, a troofer could have gone to college, gotten a degree in aeronautical engineering, moved into flight crash investigations, built up personal experience on the subject matter, and then written a paper that refutes the "os" by now.

That just proves what kind of losers are in the TM.



Personal attack removed

[edit on 20/10/09 by masqua]

reply to post by Rewey


i really appreciate your work on this topic.

from day one, before i knew of any kind of conspiracy about 9/11 (which i wasnt aware of until i would say around 2005) the shanksville story just didn't rub me the right way. i saw the pictures and instantly said...wait..where's the parts, were are the bodies ya know? but being young and naive at the time i just took the story.

again, thank you. im not sure if the way you are presenting it is true, but it for sure educates

[snip]

I guess when Joey's flawed logic has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions, his only resort is personal attacks.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In order to make an argument against the fuselage making the gouge, I'd have to search through the entire NTSB database to try and find the report. I'm not interested in that.

There you go, people. Joey is not interested in searching for the truth. It's too much effort for him to find the official government reports that will support his claims.

Again, Joey has been outed for his poor research, lack of logic and his failure to support his claims using official government story documentation.



quote removed

[edit on 20/10/09 by masqua]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


this is starting to go a way that it is not meant to; personal attacks.

but to the point joey, i don't think, regardless of how much searching anyone does, they will find official gov. docs. that will support rewey's POV.

wanna know why?

if rewey is right, why would the gov leave a paper trail of it? he is trying to present science that proves his point. IE all of the talk about angles, and all of that stuff.

Kick the ball, Shanksvill Deconstructed, NOT each other, please.

Any further personal sniping will be removed as off-topic.

reply to post by masqua


Thanks for that, masqua... now - back on topic...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
My opinion is that the wings made it, since there are no other wing marks there.

...

It's not worth the time arguing against someone's opinion when they don't provide any reason behind it that can be viewed unbiasedly.

Hmmm... no hypocrisy there... move along, people...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
9/11 dolts have had 8 yrs and still can't figure it out.

That just proves what kind of losers are in the TM.

Originally posted by trebor451
Based on what I know of aircraft crash investigation, I have no doubt many of those data are out there, but most likely kept at the FBI since this is still an open case.

Hmmm... so if it's STILL an open case, the FBI must all be losers as well, huh?

I guess by your logic, the only WINNERS are those who lovingly, unquestioningly and blindly accept every word of the 'official story'.

Yep. Wish I was a winner like that.

Rewey

Originally posted by Rewey

Hmmm... no hypocrisy there... move along, people...

If you disapprove, you could always provide the info on the crash in this OP.

Then there could be an actual discussion. Otherwise, opinion is all there is. This would of course, be in violation of the goals stated in the Op, yes?

If you refuse to provide info, then that's an admission that you hold a weak position that can't stand scrutiny.

Be different than other truthers, Rewey. Man up.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you disapprove, you could always provide the info on the crash in this OP.

If you refuse to provide info, then that's an admission that you hold a weak position that can't stand scrutiny.

Joey, here's a newsflash for you... you're claiming that the official government story is true.

The burden of proof is upon you to support that claim. The only person who should be providing any official government story data is you.

Rewey has previously stated that despite his searching, he has not been able to find the official government data about the crash site.

Therefore, Joey because you refuse to provide the official government data, you're admitting that you hold a weak position.

Be different to other official government story supporters, Joey. Man up and support your story's scipt about the alleged crash site by providing the data, instead of your rhetoric.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Rewey has previously stated that despite his searching, he has not been able to find the official government data about the crash site.

About the crash site in the OP of THIS thread?

Keep up

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
About the crash site in the OP of THIS thread?

Yes.

Joey, your task is as follows: Produce all of the official government story data about the Shanksville crash site.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Rewey is not interested in searching for the truthful discussion. It's too much effort for him to find the official government reports that will support his claims.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In order to make an argument against the fuselage making the gouge, I'd have to search through the entire NTSB database to try and find the report. I'm not interested in that.

What??? More hypocrisy? Astounding.

Tell you what - I'll help you out. Here's the link.

What does it say there?

The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

How very helpful of them...

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause...

Hmmm... couldn't have investigated too much...

Rewey

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Rewey]