Flight 93 Never Crashed In The Empty Shanksville Field

[_Zap_]

Please point out the crashed 100-Ton Jetliner at your earliest convenience. Thanks a bunch . . .

This was already answered several times. You seem to be incapable of understanding, however, so I will be charitable and put it in simpler terms.

Airplane, fragile.

Ground, hard.

Big Airplane go very fast, zoom zoom.

Ground, still hard.

Big Airplane hit ground, very fast, zoom zoom crash.

Ground, still hard.

Big Airplane get all brokey. KaBoomy boom boom!

Airplane parts go woooosh

Airplane parts alllllllll over.

Big mess.

Airplane not big no more.

The other big problem I have with conspiracy theorists is that they only ever try to poke holes in things. They never offer a coherent alternative. It's the same with Creationists.

Technically, Creationists do have a coherent alternative.

It's just that the alternative, God did it, is completely worthless scientifically.

Now, I suppose a conspiracy theorist could say God did it. That would be a coherent alternative, but it would still be both silly and useless.

 

[Aerika]

Terral hasn't commented on the two posts by Btodd that show his theory is disingenuous. It is as if he doesn't care about the truth or he hopes we will not notice it.

 

[Terral]

Hi Zap:

You are absolutely correct.

Bush and friends decided that bringing down the World Trade Center, and killing thousands of people doing it, just wouldn't be enough to incite the American people to war.

Are we lost or what? This is where Zap cites anything at all from the OP to offer his or her advocating or opposing views using your own EVIDENCE. Flight 93 either ‘did’ crash into this empty field, OR it simply did not. Period. Rambling aimlessly about the World Trade Center has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING relative to this Flight 93/Shanksville case.

So they decided to crash a plane in the middle of freaking nowhere. Brilliant.

And then they proceeded to plant absolutely no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, despite the fact that the whole point setting up 9/11 was to go to war with Iraq.

Talk is cheap and Zap is here to hijack the topic to AnyWhereElseVille.

And sometimes crazy people are just crazy.

Yes! They run around claiming that 100-Ton Jetliners crashed into empty cotton picking fields!

Like the 9/11 troofers.

What is the matter, Zap, you cannot even spell 911Truther? :0) I suppose your 911LIES are a fair substitute for the 911Truth? Someone please explain why ‘the truth’ is something to make fun about, as if We The People are supposed to swallow LIES from people like you without a case for ANYTHING? These people come out to these 911Truth deliberations to try and muddy the water with nothing more than their arrogant STUPIDITY, as if there is something wrong about Americans seeking ‘the truth’ about the events of 9/11. Zap has avoided addressing ONE THING from the Opening Post to come out here to try and stand in the way of someone else searching through all of the evidence in order to draw well-informed conclusions. These are the kinds of DoD/FBI field operatives spreading disinformation and using pathetic ploys rather than even address the 911Truth Topic of the discussion.

Their theories make no logical sense. They are absolutely impossible. They involves tens of thousands of people telling outright lies in order to cover it up. The sheer number of people who would need to be payed off means that the payout to the people would have only been a couple hundred dollars.

First of all, you ‘are’ willing to believe Senor Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld claiming that 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals pulled off ‘all’ of these related 9/11 atrocities, even though Zap has NO EVIDENCE to support that ridiculous NONSENSE. The Official Government Cover Story MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE at all, but Zap runs to believe that rather than conduct his own 911Truth Investigation so that these things ‘will’ make sense. If Zap really wants to stand and defend the Official Bush Administration Cover Story, then he is invited to begin hauling out HIS EVIDENCE anytime he gets good and ready. Then we shall see just how much ‘logical sense’ comes from his report. :0) We are all waiting . . .

Do you really think so little of Americans that they would cover up mass murder for 200 dollars?

200 dollars? What in the heck are you ‘talking’ about? We are talking about over 10,000 dollars stolen on 9/11 for every man, woman, child and illegal alien foreign national running around inside the USA right this moment as we speak (2.3 Trillion Dollars story).

Missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars

The intention was to create a “New Pearl Harbor” (story) to deceive America into invading the Middle East . . .

New Pearl Harbor

Bah, whatever. Arguing with twoofers is a waste of time. There's no point arguing with people who are unable to form a single rational though.

Arguing with anyone is a waste of time, but what can Zap cite from the OP and prove errant using his own evidence? Nothing at all! Zap cannot actually ‘debate’ a ‘real 911Truther’ on any of these related 911Truth Topics, because he has NO CASE for anything. :0)

If twoofers had any capacity for using basic reasoning skills, they wouldn't be twoofers.

That is the reason why Zap ignores the substance of my arguments to come out here and ‘talk, talk, talk’ about basic reasoning skills. :0)

But then again, what do I know. I'm just a CIA disinformation agent.

Please forgive, but Zap is whining and refusing to even address the Flight 93 case from the Opening Post of this thread. A real DoD/FBI FO (field operative) would at the very least have a case FOR SOMETHING. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Dup post, please delete. :0)

 

[Terral]

Hi NewWorldMan:

I was beginning to wonder when the NewWorldMan would finally show up. I see you have no pictures of Flight 93 crashed anywhere and obviously skipped right pass the Opening Post to begin ‘talking’ . . . as usual . . .

You obviously have no idea of the kinetic energy involved in an object travelling at several hundred miles an hour smacking into solid ground.

Listen here NWM, maybe you want to go start a thread on Kinetic Energy, but we are looking for your evidence that Flight 93 crashed ANYWHERE. If you see one thing errant in the Opening Post of this thread, then by all means “quote >>” that and offer your opposing explanations right along with YOUR EVIDENCE. I am very confident that my science knowledge trumps yours by about 1000 percent, if you really believe sufficient energy to transform 100 tons of Jetliner into thin air was released in this empty field and in this empty hole!

Your hypothesis says that 100 tons of high grade aluminum/titanium Jetliner was transformed from a ‘solid state’ to a ‘liquid state’ AND THEN into a gaseous state to completely vaporize into thin air, when you have no evidence of ANYTHING like that anywhere in this empty Shanksville field. What energy source are you prepared to introduce into this equation in order to create the MASSIVE temperatures required to carry out that kind of matter/energy transformation? :0) We do realize that E=MC2! Right? Okay then. We are talking about over 100 TONS of "M" (Mass) and your job is to show us where the "E" (Energy) was released! :0) The "C" (speed of light = 186,000 mps) must be 'squared' (34596000000) and multiplied by the "M" (Mass = 200,000+). Right? Holy cows! And that massive number gives you the amount of energy released in ONE SECOND!! You certainly have a LOT of explaining to do. :0)

Where are all the signs of melted aluminum/titanium alloy from the solid physical matter that did not completely go through the 'solid to liquid to gas' vaporization process that ‘you say’ came about by the introduction of simple hydrocarbon fuel (Jet fuel is only kerosene)? Do not sit there and condescend to our collective intelligences and pretend that 100-Ton Jetliners simply vaporize into THIN AIR, because the NewWorldMan cannot produce one picture of Flight 93 crashed ANYWHERE. :0) If you are going to sit there and prove that two 6-ton engines vaporized into NOTHING from impacting the ground (heh), then by all means grace us with those calculations . . .

Ever see a really bad wipeout during a NASCAR race?

Did you ever see a picture of Flight 93 crashed anywhere? No and neither has anyone here. Please check the OP Topic and try again IF you ever develop a real working hypothesis using evidence based somewhere in this universe. GL.

One second, you've got an intact racecar, and three seconds later you've got spare parts strewn across a couple hundred yards of racetrack? A jetliner's airspeed at impact is about four or five times that of the racecar. You do the math.

On second thought: Just keep coming out here to embarrass yourself with this kinetic energy and racecar NONSENSE, if that seems a good thing to do for TheNewWorldMan . . . We can all use a good laugh . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd!:

Well, well. Look who showed up to the Flight 93 Debate. :0) My distinguished 911Truth debating adversary is here to try and prop up the Official Cover Story no matter what anyone says or does in these deliberations. That is all fine and good, so let’s see what you have to support Senor Bush’s Official Version of the story . . .

Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville, and that is the official explanation of where all of the passengers of that flight went.

Went? First of all, nobody on this planet but Todd thinks that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. All of the pictures for this case were taken in this empty field outside Shanksville. Todd is not offering a rebuttal to anything in the OP of this thread, but seems content to offer this counterproposal instead. Great! Thank you for allowing everything in the OP to remain standing . . .

They never came home, so please tell me your explanation of where those people went, and the evidence for your explanation.

No sir. “This” 911Truth Debate is about whether Flight 93 did OR did not crash into this empty Shanksville field. Go right ahead and start ‘your’ 911Truth Topic about the whereabouts of anyone you wish. The fact that people did not come home is evidence that their Jetliner crashed ‘somewhere,’ but does NOT place their Jetliner in this empty field.

We have one, and DNA evidence to support it, along with flight data, and multiple phone calls from multiple passengers of the plane on record.

Todd!! Listen up! You either ‘do’ have pictures that place ‘your’ crashed 100-Ton Jetliner in this EMPTY Shanksville field OR Todd DOES NOT. Period! The OP thesis here is VERY PLAIN and VERY SIMPLE and involves Flight 93 NEVER crashing in this empty field! Period! Another related hypothesis is that the Bush Administration orchestrated these attacks ‘and’ planted whatever evidence they needed to prop up THEIR COVER STORY. However, that complicated hypothesis is something we can discuss once the evidence is presented to place a crashed 93 IN THIS EMPTY FIELD or ‘NOT’ in this EMPTY FIELD. Yes. Everyone on board Flight 93 was KILLED by someone ‘and’ DNA evidence has been presented to support that aspect of the story. The fact that everyone died on the Jetliner does NOT place Flight 93 in this little 20-feet diameter hole, which is what ‘this’ discussion is all about!

Your fault is in assuming that there should be big parts of 93 lying all over the place, which isn't so.

Holy Molies . . . Flight 93 had 2 massive 6-Ton engines (pic) that ‘you’ are required to show us from ‘your’ images of Flight 93 crashed in this empty field! The evidence shows NO PARTS (pic and pic) at all anywhere! Yes, some little pieces were PLANTED over in the trees somewhere, but no debris trail from this little hole even leads us in that direction! What debris!!?? :0)

It hit the ground at around a 40 degree angle going around 500 mph. Expecting there to be large parts lying around is simply absurd.

No sir. Expecting the entire 100-Ton Jetliner to vaporize into thin air is ridiculous! I can admire the fact that you really want to believe Senor Bush, Dick Cheney and their 9/11 cohorts, but the evidence simply does NOT match their Official Story. Period. 100-Ton Jetliners crashing into the ground leave tons and tons and tons and tons of EVIDENCE.

Most of the plane would disentigrate into thousands of small pieces due to the force involved. Here are some photos for you, some of specific parts of the plane, and some are general shots to show scattered, small debris:

You are still missing about 100 tons of crashed jetliner. Todd believes Flight 93 crashed into this empty field, because Senor Bushie said so. The contents of all your pictures can still fit inside the bed of a single pickup truck. :0) That is funny . . . Todd really is the comedian represented by his avatar . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Gremlins]

Um, is it just me who can quite clearly see bits of aeroplane in that crater? Granted, the bits aren't very big and look more like clinker than anything else, but that is basically what one would expect. Planes go very fast, carry a lot of very combustable fuel, and are made of pretty flimsy, lightweight stuff.

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd!

Todd’s Pic

That's the engine pic I promised you. From the very same trial you are getting some of your pics from, too.

No sir. That is little tiny piece of ‘planted’ debris that is supposed to represent ‘two’ 6-ton Rolls Royce engines like this (pic). We can see how those ‘two’ engines fit into the larger picture by looking at a schematic of this 757-200 Jetliner:

Note the ‘two’ 6-ton Rolls Royce engines mounted under the ‘two’ massive wing sections mounted to the 60-ton aluminum/titanium frame. Try to count the 180 seats (wiki specs) and all the other componets making up a real 757-200 Jetliner. Where did the rest of Todd’s 100-Ton Jetliner go? :0) Again, all of the little parts added together in Todd’s pictures can fit into the bed of just one pickup truck! He is missing over 10 tons of engines, not to mention the rest of the Jetliner, but he sits there pretending to have a “Flight 93 Crashed Into This Little Hole” case! :0)

The story you just linked us to implies that the plane was shot down. The eyewitness testimonies directly contradict that, so does the flight data from the recorder, and unless you have positive evidence to support the claim, then it's another fantasy.

Any eyewitness testimony MUST be supported by THE EVIDENCE. There is no reason to ‘talk’ about the claims, evidence and conclusions of the OP, if Todd intends on IGNORING everything to just ‘talk, talk, talk’ about what he thinks some eyewitness said. Your ridiculous rhetoric is being snipped from this reply . . .

The plane isn't going to make an imprint in the ground that mimics wings and all. As has been stated several times, most of the plane disintegrated into thousands of small pieces. You cannot compare a plane crash at 500 mph almost straight into the ground with normal crashes in which direct impacts at full speed are not the case. Faulty expectation and faulty argument.

This is nothing but more nonsense. We have pictures of real Jetliner crashes (link) showing tons and tons of debris, but not for this Flight 93 case. Todd is out here just talking . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Aerika:

Terral hasn't commented on the two posts by Btodd that show his theory is disingenuous. It is as if he doesn't care about the truth or he hopes we will not notice it.

Where is Aerika's rebuttal or counterproposal to one word of the Opening Post? The fact is that you have nothing to support the Official Story any more than Todd. :0) Todd's two pathetic posts were answered in the order that the appeared in this discussion - just like your two-sentences of stone-chucking in my direction.

My duty to these 'unbiased' third-party readers (you are not among them), and this 911Truth Topic, was served by making the OP Presentation that Aerika does not have the courage or conviction to even address!

I am more than happy to offer up defending arguments to anyone with a 'supported' case for something else. Talking trash about the Topic Starter only assists these readers in defining Aerika, so please offer us another two sentences of attacks against my person to help that process along . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Aerika]

Hi Aerika:

Where is Aerika's rebuttal or counterproposal to one word of the Opening Post? The fact is that you have nothing to support the Official Story any more than Todd. :0) Todd's two pathetic posts were answered in the order that the appeared in this discussion - just like your two-sentences of stone-chucking in my direction.

My duty to these 'unbiased' third-party readers (you are not among them), and this 911Truth Topic, was served by making the OP Presentation that Aerika does not have the courage or conviction to even address!

I am more than happy to offer up defending arguments to anyone with a 'supported' case for something else. Talking trash about the Topic Starter only assists these readers in defining Aerika, so please offer us another two sentences of attacks against my person to help that process along . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Actually I did make a very important observation showing the weakness of your theory.

= Aerika

I implore you to consider the families of the Victems. Any credible conspiracy theory should make an effort to validate or invalidate the victems.

And you still have ignored the obvious and many other people bought it up. For your theory to have any substance, you have to address what happend to the passengers and crew.

Furthermore Btodd posted several pictures clearly showing wreckage . But the most damaging part of his post was

=btodd

First of all, if you had shown an overhead from even farther away, it would be even more difficult to see small debris. Perhaps a satellite photo of the earth will suit your purposes better next time; I certainly couldn't point out debris from that shot, either.

The other funny thing is that you're posting a pic from the Moussasoui trial, and you were telling us there isn't a single picture of Flight 93 parts anywhere on the net, yet the photos I posted above are from the Moussaoui trial, also. Did you miss them when you were choosing your photo, or are you simply very selective about which photos you show, and which ones you skip?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Terral has no grasp of reality. He makes things up as he goes and refuses to address pictures as evidence when they clearly show plane wreckage. Its like arguing with a wall, but the wall may actually have more sense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And sometimes crazy people are just crazy.

Like the 9/11 troofers.

Their theories make no logical sense. They are absolutely impossible. They involves tens of thousands of people telling outright lies in order to cover it up. The sheer number of people who would need to be payed off means that the payout to the people would have only been a couple hundred dollars.

Do you really think so little of Americans that they would cover up mass murder for 200 dollars?

Bah, whatever. Arguing with twoofers is a waste of time. There's no point arguing with people who are unable to form a single rational though.
If twoofers had any capacity for using basic reasoning skills, they wouldn't be twoofers.

But then again, what do I know. I'm just a CIA disinformation agent.


P.S. I tracked your IP. The black helicopters are coming any moment now.

Their theories make no logical sense is what I keep hearing. But what I never hear questioned is how much the official conspiracy theory makes logical sense. No body seems to be asking why the 9/11 Commission thought the funding of the most reknowned terrorist attack on home soil was of little significance... or why Philip Zelikow, basically a Bush intimate, was appointed the Commission's director, in charge of its lines of inquiry. Because, hey, that's exactly what America needed right... a non-independent investigation, that according to the analysis of Commission's Chair and Co-Chair's testimony, began with its conclusion. But hey... I just can't seem to form a coherent thought to question why so many architects and structural engineers question the official 'pancake' collapse theory or why the Commission thought the Pentagon lied in its initial testimony and why the Commissions Chair and Co-Chair stated the CIA obstructed its investigation, causing it to rely on third-hand evidence. Nope... no coherent thoughts there... no questions... no need for analysis or commentary... Thine holy 9/11 Commission has given us all the answers and we'd be 'tin-foil hatters' to question the validity and methodology of their findings.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The other big problem I have with conspiracy theorists is that they only ever try to poke holes in things. They never offer a coherent alternative. It's the same with Creationists.

First of all we must establish what a "conspiracy theory" is. A conspiracy theory is any theory which holds that a criminal activity resulted from a person or persons conspiring against another party. By that definition, the official story of 9/11 which contends that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network conspired to attack American, is a conspiracy theory. You, therefore, and everyone who ascribes to this belief is a conspiracy theorist. Are you therefore willing to liken yourself to Creationism?

It is also not such a thorough analysis to liken the entirety of the 9/11 Truth movement to Creationism. As this blog highlights (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/newest-ad-hominem-those-who-question.html), it appears that many people who adhere to Creationism "started with a religious belief, and then tried to make arguments which fit that belief." It is similar to beginning with a conclusion and then proceeding to search for evidence that affirms that conclusion. The 9/11 Commission, presumed by many to be a fact-finding body, according to the testimony of its Chair and Co-Chair, took on such a methodology. They write, "When we set up our staff teams, we assigned the subject of 'al Qaeda' staff team 1", assigning them the role of "tell[ing] the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks." David Ray Griffin perhaps puts it best when he writes, "If that does not provide a text-book example of starting with a theory, what would?" Aligning the entirety of 9/11 Truth to Creationism is unfair also because it does no consider that perhaps many who initially believed the official narrative came to become skeptical of it because of inconsistencies they saw within it, not because they held rigid dogmatic views that the government is evil and then tried to find the evidence that fits. Certainly, the faith of many in the official 9/11 narrative has been shattered by coming to terms with its inconsistencies... which is why numerous architects and structural engineers have come forth, risking their reputation, in questioning the orthodox 'pancake' theory. Does being skeptical of a theory because of its inconsistencies make someone a creationist?
A good theory, also, should be able to stand on its own, and if truthful even, it is self-sustained regardless of public support. Many 9/11 skeptics have found the official conspiracy theory to be riddled with holes, and much like a ship on water cannot float if it is taking on water, it sinks beneath scrutiny.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Their theories make no logical sense is what I keep hearing. But what I never hear questioned is how much the official conspiracy theory makes logical sense. No body seems to be asking why the 9/11 Commission thought the funding of the most reknowned terrorist attack on home soil was of little significance... or why Philip Zelikow, basically a Bush intimate, was appointed the Commission's director, in charge of its lines of inquiry. Because, hey, that's exactly what America needed right... a non-independent investigation, that according to the analysis of Commission's Chair and Co-Chair's testimony, began with its conclusion. But hey... I just can't seem to form a coherent thought to question why so many architects and structural engineers question the official 'pancake' collapse theory or why the Commission thought the Pentagon lied in its initial testimony and why the Commissions Chair and Co-Chair stated the CIA obstructed its investigation, causing it to rely on third-hand evidence. Nope... no coherent thoughts there... no questions... no need for analysis or commentary... Thine holy 9/11 Commission has given us all the answers and we'd be 'tin-foil hatters' to question the validity and methodology of their findings.

Dude get the foil off your head. I already showed you links where your tired ass assertions that Zelikow somehow compromised the investigations are utter rubbish as per the Dem. chairman so stop doing drugs and come back to reality. Crack is wack.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Dude get the foil off your head. I already showed you links where your tired ass assertions that Zelikow somehow compromised the investigations are utter rubbish as per the Dem. chairman so stop doing drugs and come back to reality. Crack is wack.

And I already showed you where the Dem chairman didn't even know whether his own commission investigated the funding of the attacks and where he thought the steel of the towers melted. And even then he "thinks" Zelikow didn't compromise the investigation, despite being virtually a Bush intimate. The Dem chairman "thinks" a lot of things apparently, and a lot of other people seem to think differently then him. So you can throw out your same old tired ad hom attacks, but know that ridicule is still lacking substance. You can also pretend that I have not provided any evidence, but deny all at your own will. I care not.

 

[jamesrwright3]

And I already showed you where the Dem chairman didn't even know whether his own commission investigated the funding of the attacks and where he thought the steel of the towers melted. And even then he "thinks" Zelikow didn't compromise the investigation, despite being virtually a Bush intimate. The Dem chairman "thinks" a lot of things apparently, and a lot of other people seem to think differently then him. So you can throw out your same old tired ad hom attacks, but know that ridicule is still lacking substance. You can also pretend that I have not provided any evidence, but deny all at your own will. I care not.

You cannot prove he compromised the investigation. No one involved in the investigation thinks he did so I will go with their judgement

 

[Btodd]

Hi Todd!:

Well, well. Look who showed up to the Flight 93 Debate. :0) My distinguished 911Truth debating adversary is here to try and prop up the Official Cover Story no matter what anyone says or does in these deliberations. That is all fine and good, so let’s see what you have to support Senor Bush’s Official Version of the story . . .

Glad to see you've started the circus act right off the bat. It's pretty easy to see why even your fellow Twoofers think you're a joke, and ban you from their forums, too. Getting banned from the Loose Change forums takes a VERY special brand of 'special'. Anyway, let's see if you provided any evidence for your claims about garbage piles and exploding ditches.

Went? First of all, nobody on this planet but Todd thinks that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

Huh? The vast majority of people think that; and you're arguing with several on this very forum. If I'm the only one who believes that, then what are you doing trying to convince others? You wrote your 'paper' before you met me, dearest. Try again.

All of the pictures for this case were taken in this empty field outside Shanksville. Todd is not offering a rebuttal to anything in the OP of this thread, but seems content to offer this counterproposal instead. Great! Thank you for allowing everything in the OP to remain standing . . .

Of course I'm offering a rebuttal. You said there were no parts of 93 on the internet ANYWHERE, yet the very pic you used to make your case is from the Moussaoui trial. I posted pics of the plane (the ones that you say don't exist), from the very same trial, and you simply referred to them as 'planted' or part of a 'garbage pile'. Again.....evidence please. Just making the wild accusation about planted garbage isn't going to convince anyone. If you can't produce any evidence for that claim, then you're wrong.

No sir. “This” 911Truth Debate is about whether Flight 93 did OR did not crash into this empty Shanksville field. Go right ahead and start ‘your’ 911Truth Topic about the whereabouts of anyone you wish. The fact that people did not come home is evidence that their Jetliner crashed ‘somewhere,’ but does NOT place their Jetliner in this empty field.

Fine, I will note that the Twoof Movement has no explanation for where Flight 93 and all of its passengers went, while the official version does. Thanks for playing.

Todd!! Listen up! You either ‘do’ have pictures that place ‘your’ crashed 100-Ton Jetliner in this EMPTY Shanksville field OR Todd DOES NOT. Period! The OP thesis here is VERY PLAIN and VERY SIMPLE and involves Flight 93 NEVER crashing in this empty field! Period! Another related hypothesis is that the Bush Administration orchestrated these attacks ‘and’ planted whatever evidence they needed to prop up THEIR COVER STORY. However, that complicated hypothesis is something we can discuss once the evidence is presented to place a crashed 93 IN THIS EMPTY FIELD or ‘NOT’ in this EMPTY FIELD. Yes. Everyone on board Flight 93 was KILLED by someone ‘and’ DNA evidence has been presented to support that aspect of the story. The fact that everyone died on the Jetliner does NOT place Flight 93 in this little 20-feet diameter hole, which is what ‘this’ discussion is all about!

First of all, exclamation points aren't going to help make your case, either. The piece of the engine that I showed you was being dug out of the 'hole' you are referencing, genius. And as has been stated to you many times, most of the plane disintegrated into small pieces. The fact that you expect all of them to be in this 'hole' is your own faulty premise, and that's where all your ridiculous conclusions come from. Garbage in, garbage out.

Holy Molies . . . Flight 93 had 2 massive 6-Ton engines (pic) that ‘you’ are required to show us from ‘your’ images of Flight 93 crashed in this empty field! The evidence shows NO PARTS (pic and pic) at all anywhere! Yes, some little pieces were PLANTED over in the trees somewhere, but no debris trail from this little hole even leads us in that direction! What debris!!?? :0)

Again, faulty setup. Parts of the plane are all over the place, you've already seen pictures of them, and you simply say they're 'planted garbage'. I'm still waiting on your evidence. Incidentally, this is why I wanted to set some parameters, so you would have agreed to produce evidence for your claims. I knew you would not do it, and you're proving me correct in standard Twoofer fashion. Thank you.

No sir. Expecting the entire 100-Ton Jetliner to vaporize into thin air is ridiculous! I can admire the fact that you really want to believe Senor Bush, Dick Cheney and their 9/11 cohorts, but the evidence simply does NOT match their Official Story. Period. 100-Ton Jetliners crashing into the ground leave tons and tons and tons and tons of EVIDENCE.

It did not 'vaporize', and nobody said it did. The very pics I already posted for you prove it was not 'vaporized'. Your continued attempt to frame this in terms of 'Senor Bush, Dick Cheney and 9/11 Cohorts' once again shows where your lunacy begins. This is the source of your confirmation bias, which is on grand display right now for all to see.

You are still missing about 100 tons of crashed jetliner. Todd believes Flight 93 crashed into this empty field, because Senor Bushie said so. The contents of all your pictures can still fit inside the bed of a single pickup truck. :0) That is funny . . . Todd really is the comedian represented by his avatar . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

To summarize, you said that there were no parts of the plane, anywhere on the net. There are, and you skipped over them when you pulled your near-satellite photo from the Moussaoui trial. Why did you skip over them? I know why. In any case, once I showed them to you, you casually dismissed them as 'planted garbage'. I'm still waiting on your evidence of exploding ditches, and perhaps a trash truck pulling up to the ditch and dumping 'garbage' in. Please produce it.

You also implied (by linking to the argument) that the plane was 'shot down'. I'm still waiting on that evidence, too. Do you ever post evidence for your claims?

Also, it bears repeating that the Truth Movement has no explanation for what happened to Flight 93 and all of its passengers, no explanation for the phone calls, no explanation for the flight data, no explanation for the DNA evidence, and no explanation for the eyewitness testimony.

I thought you knew a lot about this stuff?


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi Aerika:

Actually I did make a very important observation showing the weakness of your theory.

Weakness of my theory? :0) Stop deluding yourself! Aerika has cited nothing from the OP and has offered nobody one picture of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner.

And you still have ignored the obvious and many other people bought it up. For your theory to have any substance, you have to address what happend to the passengers and crew.

Bullony. For Aerika to challenge one thing presented in the OP of ‘this thread,’ then cite anything and show us ‘your’ evidence for something else. Someone obviously has far too much time (busybody) on their hands . . .

Furthermore Btodd posted several pictures clearly showing wreckage . But the most damaging part of his post was . . .

Furthermore nothing! Is this Todd’s sockpuppet or what? We agree that the real inside-job bad guys did indeed plant bits and pieces of evidence, but Todd is still short about 100 tons! Yes! The ‘deluding influence’ forcing MANY to believe “what is false” (2Thes 2:11) is very powerful indeed . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd:

Glad to see you've started the circus act right off the bat. It's pretty easy to see why even your fellow Twoofers think you're a joke, and ban you from their forums, too.

Pathetic delusion chatter is cheap and Todd has no case for anything. Guess what boys and girls? This is a picture of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner in Todd's universe:

Some of you see 100 Tons of twisted metal including two detached 6-ton engines, 200 seats, cargo, landing gear, wing sections, massive tail section and bodies scattered everywhere, but some of us see the empty cotton picking hole. :0)

Go away before you get me laughing out loud again . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Btodd]

Hi Todd

Posting that photo over and over isn't going to do it, Terral.

You have no explanation for Flight 93, its passengers, the DNA evidence, the flight data, the passenger phone calls, and eyewitness testimony. The official version explains ALL of those things. Your claim that there were 'no pieces of Flight 93 anywhere on the net' is also blatantly false. Your accusation of exploding ditches and trash dumping is also without a single shred of evidence.

Twoofer 101.


Btodd