To all Believers of the Official Story:

reply to post by jfj123


My point was you cannot justifiably tell me I am wrong, if you have not bothered to find anything to prove me wrong. By your own words, you prefer to drop it - fine. In the future, you will not make any comments, if and when I make my statement again, until you can prove me wrong. Is that correct?

reply to post by Boone 870


As I recall from your side, you presented information they dived for parts and remains but had to quit, in a very short time, due to dangerous conditions of highly lethal predators living in the Everglades. Therefore, it is not a case of nothing was there. No one could look for it. Try again.

reply to post by OrionStars

As I recall from your side, you presented information they dived for parts and remains but had to quit, in a very short time, due to dangerous conditions of highly lethal predators living in the Everglades. Therefore, it is not a case of nothing was there. No one could look for it. Try again.

Incorrect. Didn't you read the links?

The majority of the parts were found in water and mud that was 4 to 6 feet deep. That's why they were in dive suits, unless you would expect them to close their eyes and hold their nose while bending over to retrieve parts.

10 feet below the water surface is the deepest that any part was found and that was at the point of impact.

The divers were removed from the crash site and then a trackhoe with pinchers was placed on a barge and towed out to the site to recover the remaining debris. If you would have studied up on the crash you would have known that.

No bodies found, only body parts. No pieces found, other than the engines, larger than a table. Sound familiar?

reply to post by Boone 870


Unfortunately, the issue is not finding any positive proof of planes, plane parts, bodies, body remains or luggage in all 4 cases of 9/11/01. How does Valujet equate to that?

You can believe they were found on 9/11. However, that is your opinion and not positive proof. The others you are relying on have proved nothing. Those type of forensic investigations,particularly of that magniture, require peer review, or, by scientific standards of methodology validation, are not valid. I have explained this repeatedly in many posts in several discussions, and you keep ignoring anything related to mandated science procedures to maintain positive ID beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply to post by OrionStars

Unfortunately, the issue is not finding any positive proof of planes, plane parts, bodies, body remains or luggage in all 4 cases of 9/11/01. How does Valujet equate to that?

You can believe they were found on 9/11. However, that is your opinion and not positive proof. The others you are relying on have proved nothing. Those type of forensic investigations,particularly of that magniture, require peer review, or, by scientific standards of methodology validation, are not valid. I have explained this repeatedly in many posts in several discussions, and you keep ignoring anything related to mandated science procedures to maintain positive ID beyond a reasonable doubt.

You asked for a similar aircraft accident to set precedence.

Actually, it's not my opinion. It is the opinion of the people who worked at and investigated the crash scene. Your opinion, is that they do not exist or that they did not follow scientific standards of methodology validation.

I choose to believe the opinions of the people who actually investigated the incident. That is all.

Boone, Orion is in denial...why so passionately I don't know.

Here are some more examples of dramatic entry plane crashes.

Northwest Airlines flt 710

United Airlines flt 585



Not in a swamp, no deadly fear-brinin' predators, yet the slower lighter 737 still had a RARE steep angle impact with the earth...the result? A crater and buried debris.

Compare that Colorado crash to Flt 93:



Look at all the volunteers giving their time to sort this mess out...Shills? Nope!




Most of the time pilots are doing everything they can to avoid crashing directly into the earth. RARELY this cannot be avoided... but these types of crash scenes are NOT unprecidented.

Orion, here is a link with a wealth of information in it. If you could research this information , perhaps you could develop a more complete picture.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



[edit on 10-1-2008 by Taxi-Driver]

reply to post by Boone 870


It is not even close to similar, which is why I have no idea why your side keeps bringing it up.

reply to post by Boone 870


So you aceept what they say based on faith and nothing more - fine. You are entitled to your opinon to faith base your opinion on other people's words. That is not fact that is faith.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


You can honestly look at those pictures and demand everyone else belief, on faith alone, a Boeing 757 and passengers were there? Fine - faith believe it all you wish. But do not expect everyone else to just follow along with your faith belief.

It has nothing to do with faith. It has everything to do with evidence. I believe the coroner when he says he had to sort through 300lbs. of body parts. (that's not something you forget) I believe the accounts of first responders, and FBI agents combing the crash site for evidence.



To me, that looks like a part of an Airplane.



To me that looks like a part of a United Airlines airplane.



To me this looks like a bunch of people (just like you and me) sifting through the flight 93 wreckage.

I dunno , Orion, you should take a look at that link I provided...it is just unfortunate that you don't have ALL the availible information after researching 9/11 for 6 years... I just wonder: How could you have missed so much pertinent information while doing your research?

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

And if you continued posting my next sentence, you would see the following:

I listened to the interview several times and I believe you simply took what he said out of context.

So by you failing to post the rest, you can take what I posted out of context. OBVIOUSLY, if I say I listened to what was said, you should understand that it was difficult and not impossible to hear what was said.

There is a difference between CAN'T HEAR and HARD TO HEAR.
This is a good example of what I mean by FALSIFYING posts. I guess a more appropriate word would be MISREPRESENTING but hopefully you get the picture.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

My point was you cannot justifiably tell me I am wrong, if you have not bothered to find anything to prove me wrong. By your own words, you prefer to drop it - fine. In the future, you will not make any comments, if and when I make my statement again, until you can prove me wrong. Is that correct?

Your statement was asking me to compare flight 93 to another crash. I told you I couldn't find a similar flight to compare as you asked. You didn't post a comparison. So there is no way for us to compare flight 93 to any other crash. That being said, we really can't say what should or should not have happened at the flight 93 crash site, only what did happen based on post crash evidence.
So when you make your statement again, I'll tell you this exact same thing which I've told you about a half dozen times. Since you refuse to interact about the subject in any way except for asking me the same pointless question over and over, of course I want you to just drop it.

reply to post by Boone 870


Hi Boone,
Notice how the argument shifts and the bullseye continuously moves?

You get the definitive statement that there has never a crash like Flight 93, ever in the history of aviation. Of course, he doesn't provide one shred of evidence that this is all true, but instead demands that you prove his statement isn't, or as far as he is concerned, it's a fact!

That is the classic burden of proof reversal and on it's face makes the entire conversation moot. This is where conspiracy theories live and specifically where Orion's posts dwell.

I think Orion is a good guy and clearly passionate about the subject. My personal opinion on this particular thread is "truthers" aren't really concerned with the facts. They use 9-11 to validate their political beliefs. This is their reality and 9-11 is the proof their reality (NWO, secret govt. agencies out to get me, I have knowledge everyone else is too stupid to understand, Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, etc) is.....well....real. IMO, truthers are so emotionally invested in the outcome they have a very hard time seeing the forest and the trees. They fly off the handle, IMO, because to question the ideas is to question them.

Once you (royal you) IMO understand that the truth movement is a political one at it's heart and that 9-11 for most (not all) really has nothing to do with the movement, it bring conversations like this into very clear focus.

The example is here for anyone to read. Just go back about five or six pages and look where this whole back and forth started, how it started and the very benign questions that were asked.

No matter how hard others try to re-frame the conversation, it's all there for anyone to see.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver\
I dunno , Orion, you should take a look at that link I provided...it is just unfortunate that you don't have ALL the availible information after researching 9/11 for 6 years... I just wonder: How could you have missed so much pertinent information while doing your research?

Because, IMO, he doesn't want to understand. It's really that simple. Look at the above exchange!

He says in the history of aviation, there has never been a plane crash like Flight 93. Hold on now, I know what your thinking but your not understanding how the truth movement operates.

You and I look at that statement and our eyes cross. Never?! You and I both know, just on the surface, that's an amazing claim. He doesn't provide any facts, cite sources, reports, eyewitness testimony, NTSB reports, 9-11 comission report citings......literally nothing but his word. What's interesting is all of the things I just listed are, in fact, available in the public domain. The problem? None of it supports his assertions and if he's really been investigating for 6+ years he knows that.

His question about the plane crash is worded very specifically. Of course there is no exact precedence for the crash of FLT 93. There is never an exact precedence for any plane crash. They all happen differently. There are similar crashes and one cited recently. But that's the catch. It's not an exact match and therefore, in his mind, completely irrelevant. There will never be any crash that we could point to as similar and get a good idea of what would be considered "typical" for a highspeed impact of a jetliner with the ground - that he will accept as reasonable.

That question was asked because he knows it is impossible to offer an exact match. How would such a thing be possible?

So, a void is created, and the conspiracy lives on. Conspiracies don't like facts, they love voids.

Reasonable people act reasonably. Unreasonable people don't. Decide for yourself what has happened here.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by enigmania


I think you may have missed my response to your no-plane assertion. What are your thoughts on what I provided for review?

Let me ask you "non-believers" an honest question cause we will never convince each other with the pieces of evidence both sides provide.

You don't believe 911 was an inside job. So what are your views on the PNAC comission report, that says a Pearl Harbor-like attack is needed to get support for higher defense budgets to strenghten America's influence abroad. They got their attack.

What are your views on the NWO, the way the gov. lied about the WMD's in Iraq and about the connection with Bin Laden?

The stripping of rights in America after 911, the Patriot Act?

The constant fear- and warmongering, the way they're going after Iran now?

The way that a pretty popular candidate like Ron Paul gets ignored by the media?

You don't believe 911 was an inside job, can you honoustly say you don't see a concerning pattern there?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by enigmania

 

I think you may have missed my response to your no-plane assertion. What are your thoughts on what I provided for review?

Yes, I had missed it,thnx for pointing out. Well I've looked at it and I don't really know what to think about it, it still doesn't seem right to me. Let me put some more time into it, ok?

And I wasn't calling names, I was describing him, he wouldn't look at the evidence I provided, I'm looking at all the evidence you guys provide. It wasn't about what he knows, it was about his willingness to view every piece of evidence.

[edit on 11/1/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Well, I don't see where the proof is that Ernie Stull hasn't changed his story, or that he is not being presured by someone.
I even see proof that he has changed his story, this is the quote you provided:

""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."

In the footage I posted he says that there was no debree at all,"it perfectly dissolved", he said. When they question him later all of a sudden he did see the wreckage with his own eyes, even one of the engines.

Very strange, he is lying in one of the stories, that's for sure. You take your pick, he was lying the first time or the second time, why would he lie the first time?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, cause it is even more clear to me now.

reply to post by enigmania


I'm not sure if I fit your definition of a "non-believer" or not, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

You don't believe 911 was an inside job. So what are your views on the PNAC comission report, that says a Pearl Harbor-like attack is needed to get support for higher defense budgets to strenghten America's influence abroad. They got their attack.

That's not what it said. We must have read two different versions.

What are your views on the NWO, the way the gov. lied about the WMD's in Iraq and about the connection with Bin Laden?

The New World Order? Nonexistent. The government lied about WMD's? You're going to have to show me some proof. Iraq's connection with bin Laden? Again, you're going to have to show me proof that the government said that Iraq was connected with UBL and 9/11.

The stripping of rights in America after 911, the Patriot Act?

I frown upon any rights taken away from me by the government.

The constant fear- and warmongering, the way they're going after Iran now?

I'm not scared. I've been reading threads about how war with Iran is imminent as long as I've been reading this site. What's taking so long? What will you say in January of next year after Bush is gone and there's still no war? How about after the next administration, and the next?

The way that a pretty popular candidate like Ron Paul gets ignored by the media?

He's popular? 8% of the vote in a primary is popular?

If he's being ignored by the media, why do I always see him on the news, or read about him in various news outlets. Just so you know, I agree with Ron Paul about 90% of the time.

reply to post by enigmania


Totally reasonable =)

Thank you for responding!