FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by IvanZana

Say you werent told that it was staged, you would have no proof it wasnt.

Are you saying that the emergency responders, who are trained to help injured people, would not notice that the injuries were faked? Brilliant.

Are you going to answer the four questions I asked you earlier?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Let me ask you. How many bodies or remains have you seen from any airline crash? Let me rephrase that... how many times have you seen the NTSB, the FBI, or the Airlines, release pictures of bodies or remains from any crash?

Did i ask for photos? I asked if you could post evidence of the bodies from flight 77 were in the Pentagon.

I guess you guy(s) multiple accounts will now attempt to derail the thread again.

where the MODS?


[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]

In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

So there is proof they were running crash exercises all over the u.s, Pennsylvania shouldnt be a streatch

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima, what type of evidence are you looking for ? Please tell.

reply to post by IvanZana

So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Shansville crash training site was not, and that a massive boeing crashed into the 10x20 ft wingless ,fueless, fireless crash simulation crater.

Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that has been presented to you. You came up with this crash being a disaster drill. So it is YOU that must provide the proof that shows this.

Ivan, ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

I trust you will ignore this past as you have all my others.

Nobody has been convinced a plane crashed in shanksville on 911 6 years ago, be foolish to think your making any headway now.

Your reaching now. PWned

here is some more information for the truth seekers out there.

Participants take part in a disaster drill for a staged plane crash at Ivalo airport in Finnish Lapland October 20, 2007.

In a plane crash simulation there are hundreds of eyewitnesses. The purpose is to make it real as possible for the agencies doing the exercise.
The fbi during these staged plane crashed go around and take statements from everyone. Some people are purposly told to tell conflicting stories to see how the investigators disseminate the accounts.

No suprise really, quite common.

So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Shansville crash training site was not, and that a massive boeing crashed into the 10x20 ft wingless ,fueless, fireless crash simulation crater.

I dont see how that will be possible since you 2 or 3 people have failed in every aspect to prove it thus far and i dont think any "new"evidence is coming out.

So the 911 cards were played and its a crappy hand at that....lol, we still have eternity to play our royal flush.


P.s
Whats brilliant about crash simulation exercises like the one in ShanksVille on 9/11, they dont tell the people they want to test , when or how it will happen. i.e Fire dept, Police, FBI, Military, FAA, ATC, Civilians, Hospitals, YOU.

One would have to be quite stupid to be swayed with faked evidence.

[edit on 1/6/08 by niteboy82]

Originally posted by IvanZana

In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

So there is proof they were running crash exercises all over the u.s, Pennsylvania shouldnt be a streatch

Emphasis mine; One of their buildings. not 3, or 4, but one. And it was a US intelligence agency, not a pair of large commercial buildings. And it also says a simulated accident. Not a plane at full speed into it, and accident.

oh, and:

I guess you guy(s) multiple accounts will now attempt to derail the thread again.

Where is there proof of multiple accounts? And why do you keep quoting yourself and adding nothing to the discussion?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by apex]

How do you figure an anonymous FBI report on a mainstream news channel is 'fact'? I wouldn't consider anything on CNN, or any mainstream news outlet, a 'fact'. Especially when the story supposedly came from an anonymous source connected to the perpetrators. You must be assuming people here are naive?

When we're shown that 95% that was supposedly recovered then you can call it a 'fact', until then it's just your opinion which doesn't became fact because someone says it is.

That's why your 'facts' are not taken seriously...

Let's all please remember that there is no need to excessively quote entire posts, especially those with multiple video/image links.

Any further excessive quoting will be removed immediately.

Thank you.

www.911review.org...
You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics?


[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, why are you just cut and pasting other posters comments? Just to let you know. You have been reported to SkepticOverlord for spamming and other violations of the ATS rules.

This thread needs to have civility, not constant repeats of your posts over and over.

Please try to play nice!!

Originally posted by IvanZana
So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Shansville crash training site was not, and that a massive boeing crashed into the 10x20 ft wingless ,fueless, fireless crash simulation crater.

I dont see how that will be possible since you 2 or 3 people have failed in every aspect to prove it thus far and i dont think any "new"evidence is coming out.

Which makes it hard for us, because we need some actual evidence to go on, to prove a plane crashed there we need a detailed amount of evidence of where things were found in that field, not a few pictures of a crater. Nor a small pictuires of bits of debris in plastic bags useful unless we can identify them and where they come from. Of course you need to see all the evidence too, otherwise you have no real proof nothing crashed there.

After all, so far most of your evidence seems to be "we can't trust the government, so anything they say must be a lie" and posting a picture of the crater (with debris in it) and writing, "NO PLANE CRASH HERE".

One would have to be quite stupid to be swayed with faked evidence.

Hey, for all I know, you're in the FBI or some other US agency posting disinfo cleverly and covering your tracks in that other thread by pretending to be a conspiracy theorist, and it's you with the faked evidence. So we could also be quite stupid to be swayed by what you say, too.

reply to post by IvanZana

How do you figure an anonymous FBI report on a mainstream news channel is 'fact'?

That is an excellent question.

Where did you come up with the 10 x 20 crater size? Fox News if I'm not mistaken.

Where did you come up with all the accounts of simulated aircraft crashes that you try to use as proof that flight 93 was also simulated? Mainstream newspapers if I'm not mistaken.

I'm starting to understand how this works now. If the news accounts support your theory, they are valid. If they do not support your theory, they are invalid. That's called confirmation bias.

Are you going to answer the four questions I ask you earlier?

Ease up. lol

This is no big deal.

I offered evidence and theories for others to consume.

What you believe and what people know are always going to differ.

The viewers of ats, I am sure, are pretty aware of the official stories as are you. I have read and researched everything such as you and have broaden my scopes and mind to research even more and have obviously have come to a more understanding scenario to some of the mysteries.

Btw, I not once said the government was responsible for the terror attacks, i dont have proof of that, who do you think i am?

I think some people would like to see some new refreshing insights, which i believe i provide. no?

I am a mere conduit of information. You can disagree or you can agree. If you want the final word thats fine.

I hope you understand that people will investigate all claims in this thread and come to their own conclusion.

reply to post by IvanZana


Thank you Ivan... your toned down version is much eaiser to have a mature discussion with.

That being said. You have been asked to provide measurement of the photographs you post over and over.

I would also like your feedback on the vast amount of information that has been supplied to you that supports the crash of flight 93 in shanksville.

Its pretty amazing how detailed the terror drills can get.

This one drill was in russia. If i didnt see the captions, I would believe them to be real.

SOURCE

reply to post by IvanZana


..........:sighs: and once again you avoid questions asked.

Yes we all know disaster drills take place. Never in the United States to the extreme that you have mentioned in Russia.

Thats your theory. In order for it to have a bite, you have to have some evidence. Showing pictures of a Disaster drill in Russia does not prove that there was one on 911 in Shanksville.

Once agian, please let us know the measurements of the plane and the crater in the field.

Thanks

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by IvanZana

 

That being said. You have been asked to provide measurement of the photographs you post over and over.

I didnt answer because i didnt see the the importance in it for it was meerily used to show how ridiculous it really is.
Here is a rough pic i made just for you. Give or take 10 feet wouldnt change the lack of evidence. imo. ok?

The scale on the height of the airplane is about 2-4 feet off.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Thank you for your attempt. The picture of the crater you are using is a tad bit misleading... don't you think?

What about this picture?



LEt me know how your drawing would fit here.