Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: Salander


Are you now a no-planer, Sal?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon


Repeating government propaganda points is hardly "rigour and analysis".

Pffft. I'm going to skip quite a large chunk of your post here, because it's a claim that a load of incriminating material has been removed from the internet, which is simply not credible.

Miller's story to Christopher Bollyn explains how he ended up delivering two contradictory statements to the media, and that explanation came years later.

Bollyn is a fantasy-sodden nincompoop, who on one page of his website argues that 9/11 was planned as early as 1978 (based on the cover illustration of a popular novel). In any case, I've had a look at his site and can't find any such statement from Miller. Perhaps you could provide a link.

If you're really interested in "rigour and analysis", you should expose yourself to the story of Susan McIlwain, from that area of PA. Long story short, FBI agents wanted her to change her story to reflect an airliner instead of the much smaller airplane she saw.

Here she is, telling her story, in the first two minutes of this video.



She claims that she didn't see a passenger jet, but a 'small white plane' which she believes was 'the size of my van' (!).

She didn't have a clue what she was talking about, and the FBI agents (by her own account) told her as much to her face. She doesn't say that the FBI tried to change her story, by the way. It is not unheard of for people to get things completely wrong, or to just fantasise about what they saw.

But OK let's believe this one person (and there are no others) who thinks that a plane no bigger than a van (!) crashed at Shanksville. Do MOABs fit inside the average van?

Because that is the sort of explosion you would need to generate to account for the following:



No doubt, you will have a ready explanation for all this.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Salander


Are you now a no-planer, Sal?

Try learning some logic. Denying that the plane that hit the South Tower was Flight 175 is not logically equivalent to asserting that no plane hit the tower. It's only the same to someone who is intent on discrediting someone's beliefs about 9/11 by creating insinuations about what motivates these beliefs that are not justified by anything he has said.
Your antics to discredit by name-calling are transparent.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Salander


Are you now a no-planer, Sal?

Try learning some logic. Denying that the plane that hit the South Tower was Flight 175 is not logically equivalent to asserting that no plane hit the tower. It's only the same to someone who is intent on discrediting someone's beliefs about 9/11 by creating insinuations about what motivates these beliefs that are not justified by anything he has said.
Your antics to discredit by name-calling are transparent.

I merely asked Sal a question. Why are you so invested in his "beliefs?"

Are we back to secret strike planes wherein the actual flight was flown somewhere else, the passengers murdered, their DNA planted at WTC, etc., and other such contrived nonsense? This is out there with the "death rays from space" on the probability scale.

OK Mic, where is flight 175?

a reply to: audubon
Your arguments are false because they assume that the white plane the lady witnessed caused the visible explosion by crashing into the field. This lady was not the only person who reported seeing small white jets at the time in the area and so whether it was really there or not is not contingent on her veracity. A possible scenario is that the white plane was checking where the plane (or what was left of it after it had been shot down - something Cheney eventually admitted he had ordered) crashed. Her mistake was to assume that the plane she had seen was what crashed. Your mistake was to accept at face value her assumption.

a reply to: Salander

Long ago it was disclosed that there was a business jet in the area that was asked to do a flyover of the area. Again, just a wee bit of honest research.....

a reply to: micpsi

Your arguments are false because they assume that the white plane the lady witnessed caused the visible explosion by crashing into the field.

WTF? It's not me that believes that, it's Salander. I am arguing against that belief. Look again.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Salander


Are you now a no-planer, Sal?

Try learning some logic. Denying that the plane that hit the South Tower was Flight 175 is not logically equivalent to asserting that no plane hit the tower. It's only the same to someone who is intent on discrediting someone's beliefs about 9/11 by creating insinuations about what motivates these beliefs that are not justified by anything he has said.
Your antics to discredit by name-calling are transparent.

I merely asked Sal a question. Why are you so invested in his "beliefs?"

Are we back to secret strike planes wherein the actual flight was flown somewhere else, the passengers murdered, their DNA planted at WTC, etc., and other such contrived nonsense? This is out there with the "death rays from space" on the probability scale.

OK Mic, where is flight 175?

Still more false associations (mud-slinging) that have become the stock-in-trade of perennial 9/11 truth debunkers like yourself. Where is Flight 175? It's stuck in the mud of your imagination, together with the rest of the false scenario manufactured by elements of the American media and those in the US government involved in 9/11. I defend anyone whatever his beliefs if someone who cannot rebut his arguments stoops to asking if he is a no-planer when he has given no evidence that he might be. It's a tactic to undermine by insinuation, for we all know how stupid no-planers are, don't we? Heh! Heh! Once the question has been asked and the accused, of course, has denied it, the doubt is kept lingering in the minds of other posters because mud sticks. Call it an honest question as much you like. It's a tired, psychological tactic 9/11 truth debunkers use as a last resort to discredit by association someone's position on 9/11 that they cannot refute by rational means.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Salander


Are you now a no-planer, Sal?

Try learning some logic. Denying that the plane that hit the South Tower was Flight 175 is not logically equivalent to asserting that no plane hit the tower. It's only the same to someone who is intent on discrediting someone's beliefs about 9/11 by creating insinuations about what motivates these beliefs that are not justified by anything he has said.
Your antics to discredit by name-calling are transparent.

I merely asked Sal a question. Why are you so invested in his "beliefs?"

Are we back to secret strike planes wherein the actual flight was flown somewhere else, the passengers murdered, their DNA planted at WTC, etc., and other such contrived nonsense? This is out there with the "death rays from space" on the probability scale.

OK Mic, where is flight 175?

Still more false associations (mud-slinging) that have become the stock-in-trade of perennial 9/11 truth debunkers like yourself. Where is Flight 175? It's stuck in the mud of your imagination, together with the rest of the false scenario manufactured by elements of the American media and those in the US government involved in 9/11. I defend anyone whatever his beliefs if someone who cannot rebut his arguments stoops to asking if he is a no-planer when he has given no evidence that he might be. It's a tactic to undermine by insinuation, for we all know how stupid no-planers are, don't we? Heh! Heh! Once the question has been asked and the accused, of course, has denied it, the doubt is kept lingering in the minds of other posters because mud sticks. Call it an honest question as much you like. It's a tired, psychological tactic 9/11 truth debunkers use as a last resort to discredit by association someone's position on 9/11 that they cannot refute by rational means.

Of course, no one ever insinuates that those who accept all or part of the "OP" are gullible, do they?
"It's stuck in the mud of your imagination, together with the rest of the false scenario manufactured by elements of the American media and those in the US government involved in 9/11."

As an FYI, United Flight 175, a Boeing 767-200 tail number N612UA, hit the South Tower at 9:03 AM. No other planes hit the South Tower. No explosives were used.
Now, where was that false scenario?

a reply to: audubon


You might have faith that no incriminating statements or videos have been removed from the internet, you may believe that, but that's your right. As Huck Finn noted, faith is when you believe in something you know ain't true.

I know several items have been removed because they are no longer there, even though I watched them several times in years gone by. Just as the FEMA photographer who took so many pictures of WTC that clearly contradicted the eventual claims of NIST has gone into exile in South America, those who get to write history can be quite dishonest at times.

Just as the testimony of Rodriguez is public and seen by many, it was not included in the 911 Commission Final Report.

There is a reason for that: manipulation of the public perception AND the historical record.

a reply to: pteridine


Depends.

I am a white guy, however.

a reply to: Salander

Well, whatever. One of the big problems with the internet is that it's not inherently stable. Sites and resources, especially poorly- or non-funded ones, disappear all the time.

This is all a long way from Wally Miller claiming no plane crashed and no-one was killed, or that woman with the truck who reckoned it was a miniature aircraft that caused that huge pall of smoke. I mean, those statements are still available, even though you reckon they pose some kind of threat to the official story.

a reply to: audubon

They contradict the official story, but they corroborate the videos taken from the news helicopters--there was no visible sign of a wrecked aircraft in that field. Combine that with knowledge gained later in the discovery phase of the Moussaoui trial regarding the ACARS information, and all available facts contradict the official story. That's why they made a movie about it and put a marble monument there.

Susan McIlwain's story corroborates that the plane she saw was no airliner, and that the FBI agents attempted to coerce untruthful testimony from her, essentially the same sort of thing that FBI agents put on Miller when they asked him to "be a team player", which he did, which accounts for his two diametrically opposed statements. One was true and the other was a lie.

The official story is false.

a reply to: Salander

Grammatically, what you say is perfectly correct.

a reply to: audubon


Thank you. It is also factually correct.

a reply to: Salander

Ever produce those quotes from shanksville that you falsely claimed people stated there was no crashed jet or no human remains?

a reply to: Salander

And I don't think you ever explained how the jet wreckage ended up shoved into the ground, the large debris field, and how personal effects of passengers ended up at the crash site? Just because the look of the crash site was not to your liking. Explain again how there would be molten steel at the WTC for three months. Explain how nukes were used at the WTC? I think I'll pass on items endorsed by you......

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon

Susan McIlwain's story corroborates that the plane she saw was no airliner, and that the FBI agents attempted to coerce untruthful testimony from her

As you would say to the 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Mcllwain's testimony has responsible doubt. (Coerce? Or was the FBI just trying to make sense of her account? ) Another favorite by you if I remember? Was her account ever sworn testimony? Or just hearsay?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Falcon Business Jet owned by VF Corporation

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity—a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."—not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly

a reply to: firerescue

Falcon Business Jet owned by VF Corporation

Please don't muddy their conspiracy with facts.
They have enough trouble factoring all the undeniable facts into some grand conspiracy without you adding another one.