To all Believers of the Official Story:

reply to post by jfj123


I am saying an alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001 never crashed as alleged around Shanksville, PA. That has been clearly refuted in a discussion dedicated to that topic. The paperwork the Bush admnistration fed to the general public is going to hang them, when someone moves congress to investigate 9/11/2001 as it should have been done. This time it had best not end up like the bogus HSCA report on the JKF murder.

Not finding physical evidence and proving what was found belongs to all those alleged planes will cause paperwork to do them in. Just like it did Al Capone.

reply to post by jfj123


There is a problem. Some say there was. And other eyewitnesses say there was not. Now plow through all that inconsistent eyewitness testimony to determine who is telling the truth and who is not. Otherwise, people are rationalizing their way through 9/11/2001 because it is easier. It does not stress out the brains when rationalizing.

reply to post by Pilgrum


That is just it. That is not where debris is alleged to be found. Certainly not in the quantity expected at any aircraft disaster. Never in the history of recorded aviation has a crash site looked so devoid of any plane parts, passengers or luggage at all 4 sites on 9/11/2001. That is a fact if people bother researching FAA records on plane disasters investigations.

First responders did agree there was no sign of any plane when first interviewed. Media agreed there was no sign of any plane when first reporting. Even Fox reported the same, which is highly unusual when they report the truth.

People were looking all over for any aircraft debirs, bodies and body parts, and luggage and could not find any. Bodies do not get spread all over 70 acres when crash landing and not breaking apart in the air.

They found scrap metal as expected when a location is used for strip mining. But nothing resembling Boeing 757 plane parts, bodies, or luggage. Not even Walter Miller said they did in his first interview. I have seen several version of the Walter Miller story.

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123

 

See, you're not even trying to look at the evidence! How can you say that? It's the freaking mayor of the town saying there was no plane, on tv, and you don't even want to watch, or acknowledge that evidence?
Well, what more can I say, you have proven to be an ignoramus.

Irony is such a wonderful thing, especially when it bites those that throw the first punch. You really need to educate yourself. Since you don't seem to know what actually happened, allow me to share with you the truth:

Here is what actually happened:

As widely reported, when visiting the crash site Mayor Stull said

"there was no plane"

.
Viola!! A conspiracy is born. I'll give you a hint: only if you choose to ignore the whole story and context.

After the German press ran with that quote, the claim of no plane started appearing at sites like this and this, oh and of course this one.

Well, pretty solid stuff if Alex Jones said it! No? Could there be more to the story? Could Alex Jones, et al have a vested reason not to tell you the whole story?

Well, after the claim of "no plane" began circulating, Der Spiegel investigated and the Mayor said this:

"My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

The source for that quote

What? You say he was paid off? Possibly threatened by some secret cabal of agents? Opps, looks like Der Spiegel went and viewed the transcript of the Mayor's full comments:

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

.

The same source as above

So, educate yourself about what really happened and please don't call someone names again.

Context is a wonderful, enlightening thing.


[edit on 10-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

When I ask you to substantiate your statement, you do not turn around and ask me to substantiate your statements.....

You would do exceedingly well to follow your own advice. I have to admit, you catch on quickly though.

Could you apply your new standard to your own responses to my questions, about five pages ago, asking you to qualify your expert credentials to qualify your post-mortum forensic findings?

No offense to anyone so valiently attempting to circumstantially prove their points of argument. However, when all people have for proof is conflicting accountings, plus, he said/she said, there is no valid proof for either side. It is all in who believes whom and nothing more substantial than that. Who do you trust and why?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I do. I do not make points of argument, and then tell the opposition to prove my case for me. I know better than that. Now please present a specific case you allude to, rather than making general obscure statements proving nothing for yourself.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Hi Pilgrum, please allow me to offer some opinions on what has been said to you.

Never in the history of recorded aviation has a crash site looked so devoid of any plane parts, passengers or luggage at all 4 sites on 9/11/2001. That is a fact if people bother researching FAA records on plane disasters investigations

Ask yourself how he knows this? Never in the history of aviation? He alludes that if only others had bothered to do some research this would be common knowledge. The implication he has done research. Here is the key: it isn't and he hasn't. IMO, it's nothing but conjecture. He wont be able to provide you with even the slightest shred of evidence that what he said is grounded in reality. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, which this is. His assertion is an opinion, not a fact. Do some research as he suggests. Don't take my word for it, or anyone else's.

First responders did agree there was no sign of any plane when first interviewed. Media agreed there was no sign of any plane when first reporting. Even Fox reported the same, which is highly unusual when they report the truth.

Again, really? If that was the case, the evidence for that should be easily related. But it isn't because he can't, because they didn't say that at all. See a little earlier in this very thread where the whole story about the "no plane" conspiracy and decide for yourself. Again, don't take my word for it; check it out for yourself.

Honestly, there are so many "truth" web sites and "debunker" web sites you don't have to do any actual work, other than read through the works of others and form you own opinion.

People were looking all over for any aircraft debirs, bodies and body parts, and luggage and could not find any

I don't know how to address this than to say that's just an outright misrepresentation at best, and a flat out lie at worst. It just isn't true. Again, don't take my word for it. This one is easy: just Google "Flight 93 crash pictures" and you will get pages upon pages of pictures of debris. No you wont find body part pictures. This doesn't mean there weren't any. Read the eyewitness testimony, read the actual coroners words (again, mostly taken out of context and the source of yet another facet of the supposed "conspiracy").

Bodies do not get spread all over 70 acres when crash landing and not breaking apart in the air.

Now this will shock you and Orion: I think he's right. Personally, I think the plane started to come apart before impact and I think it was shot down. That's my opinion and I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Pure speculation.

They found scrap metal as expected when a location is used for strip mining. But nothing resembling Boeing 757 plane parts, bodies, or luggage. Not even Walter Miller said they did in his first interview. I have seen several version of the Walter Miller story.

Again, more assertions presented as facts, and they aren't. In fact, they did find 757 parts & body parts. About the luggage: don't know. I can't seem to find a single thing about this online. I am trying to fid the NTSBs report and see what there determination is/was. I am referring to the whole report, not the findings of fact summary (critical difference in finding what I need).


The Walter Miller stuff; I am not sure what he's reffering to specifically as changing.

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123

 

Jeah, I figured you would complain about the German voice over. It was an interview for German tv, so, no other version. Convenient for you, huh? Now you can dismiss it.
If you post evidence that a plane did crash there, I'll be the first to watch it.
After seeing the footage, can you at least admit that the "wild no plane claims" do have a foundation?

Yes I'm complaining as I don't speak german and the narrator was talking over the mayor. My point was that I wanted to hear exactly what the mayor said and how he said it.
I listened to the interview several times and I believe you simply took what he said out of context. He meant the destruction was so total that there was nothing resembling a plane left after the crash. I don't believe he was implying there never was a plane.
And listening to the video was anything but convenient but I did as you requested and watched/listened to it.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

There is no precedent before or after 9/11/2001. That has repeatedly been brought up by myself, johnlear and others.

Based on your answer, I believe what you are saying is there has been no other crash that has happened under the same circumstances. That being said, how can you ask me to find one and compare??????? I have no knowledge of a similar crash happening, do you? If you do, please post the information so we can compare apples to apples instead of apples to truck tires.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123

 

Jeah, I figured you would complain about the German voice over. It was an interview for German tv, so, no other version. Convenient for you, huh? Now you can dismiss it.
If you post evidence that a plane did crash there, I'll be the first to watch it.
After seeing the footage, can you at least admit that the "wild no plane claims" do have a foundation?

Yes I'm complaining as I don't speak german and the narrator was talking over the mayor. My point was that I wanted to hear exactly what the mayor said and how he said it.
I listened to the interview several times and I believe you simply took what he said out of context. He meant the destruction was so total that there was nothing resembling a plane left after the crash. I don't believe he was implying there never was a plane.
And listening to the video was anything but convenient but I did as you requested and watched/listened to it.

Jeah, thanks for watching. If you would interprete it that way, it would still be very, very strange that there would be nothing resembling a plane. It's basically the same thing.
I'm 100% sure that was not what he meant, he meant what crashed there wasn't a plane. Don't twist this cause it is very clear.

[edit on 10/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 10/1/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by enigmania
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123

 

Jeah, thanks for watching. If you would interprete it that way, it would still be very, very strange that there would be nothing resembling a plane. It's basically the same thing.
I'm 100% sure that was not what he meant, he meant what crashed there wasn't a plane. Don't twist this cause it is very clear.

I am 100% sure that IS what he meant.
I am not twisting anything. I am giving you my opinion just as you are giving me yours.

Why is it strange that the plane was decimated as it flew, at high speed, into the ground and exploded???

Here's an animation for the Shanksville crash
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 10-1-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


How much research have you ever done through FAA documented plane crashes? Any? If not, who are you to criticize what I wrote until you can prove me wrong?

reply to post by jfj123


You just admitted you could not hear what was said. So how do you know what a person meant if you admit you could not hear that person?

reply to post by jfj123


If you doubt it, go through the CAA and FAA history of documented air crashes yourself. Locate a precedent for 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

You just admitted you could not hear what was said. So how do you know what a person meant if you admit you could not hear that person?

I'm honestly getting tired of you falsifying what I and others have said. I at no time admitted I couldn't hear what was said. I would appreciate it if you stopped posting false information about others posts.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

If you doubt it, go through the CAA and FAA history of documented air crashes yourself. Locate a precedent for 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am.

How many times do I need to tell you that I haven't found a similar crash. If you have post the info. If you haven't DROP IT.

reply to post by OrionStars

If you doubt it, go through the CAA and FAA history of documented air crashes yourself. Locate a precedent for 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am.

I already have. ValuJet flight 592. Remember? No bodies found, only body parts. Largest piece of aircraft recovered was no bigger than a table. Remember?

reply to post by jfj123


Are these your own words in a prior post?:

"Yes I'm complaining as I don't speak german and the narrator was talking over the mayor. My point was that I wanted to hear exactly what the mayor said and how he said it."

Those words reflect you did not hear what was said in your own words. Either you heard every word the mayor said or did not by your own words.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by enigmania
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123

 

Jeah, thanks for watching. If you would interprete it that way, it would still be very, very strange that there would be nothing resembling a plane. It's basically the same thing.
I'm 100% sure that was not what he meant, he meant what crashed there wasn't a plane. Don't twist this cause it is very clear.

I am 100% sure that IS what he meant.
I am not twisting anything. I am giving you my opinion just as you are giving me yours.

Why is it strange that the plane was decimated as it flew, at high speed, into the ground and exploded???

Here's an animation for the Shanksville crash
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 10-1-2008 by jfj123]

I've watched it, it doesn't hold any evidence, does it? An animation can be made for anything. What facts was this animation based on?