Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail

reply to post by Killtown2


You're never going to convince most 'Truthers' (sic) as most of them have convinced themselves into believing that 'The wreckage evidence proves 100% that F93 was shot down!!!'

They choose to ignore the evidence too.

One problem you have which they don't share however, is you need to prove where F93 went, and where are the passengers.

Then explain why some 'downed plane at Shanksville' story was manufactured, by whom, and how the families of the dead crew & passengers were convinced to believe it.

And what's all this stuff the early rescue workers dug up?

www.wtc-terrorattack.com...

For a theory to have legs, you need to address ALL the issues and explain all the evidence. Otherwise the '9/11 Truth Movement' just looks more and more like a bunch of fantasists and liars pursuing a nefarious political agenda.

Which I'm sure not all of them are.

Originally posted by bovarcher
reply to post by Killtown2

 

You're never going to convince most 'Truthers' (sic) as most of them have convinced themselves into believing that 'The wreckage evidence proves 100% that F93 was shot down!!!'

They choose to ignore the evidence too.

One problem you have which they don't share however, is you need to prove where F93 went, and where are the passengers.

Then explain why some 'downed plane at Shanksville' story was manufactured, by whom, and how the families of the dead crew & passengers were convinced to believe it.

And what's all this stuff the early rescue workers dug up?

www.wtc-terrorattack.com...

For a theory to have legs, you need to address ALL the issues and explain all the evidence. Otherwise the '9/11 Truth Movement' just looks more and more like a bunch of fantasists and liars pursuing a nefarious political agenda.

Which I'm sure not all of them are.

That is not true at all. "FOR A THEORY TO HAVE LEGS" you think it needs to address *ALL* issues.

I'll give but one expample.

The theory of evolution. It does not address abiogenesis. Right now there is no real answer to that question.

So there is a *GAP*. Doesn't make the theory untrue. There are many gaps that have yet to be filled in.

Starred and flagged. Good stuff as always KT.

I still can't believe there are actually people out there who buy the official 9/11 story.

I know the majority of them couldn't tell you what flight number supposedly crashed in a town called Shanksville, and a small percent are government disinfo agents.

But the people who don't fall into any category say like a family member was on the plane so they won't accept the truth because it's too scary...., I mean there's a bunch of reasons why people just won't use common sense and accept the truth.

But the people who really worry and moreso annoy me are those that don't fall into any of these categories, have looked at ALL the evidence available, and yet still buy into this story in the 9/11 commision report.

Maybe there are no such people. I think everyone pushing the official story has some reason. Could be anything, from mental illness, stupidity, to just plain denial that thier government would do something this sinister.

I just can't fathom that anyone with a bit of grey matter between thier ears , and no motive, or reason, or illness to not be able to use common sense still buys this nonsense.

I won't believe it. Anyone believing in the official "story" is either ill, or has some type of agenda/motive, and there are dozens of them(agendas/motives that is), and some are understandable(like the person who is in denial, and will not believe thier own government is responsible for thier loved ones deaths).

However I will not tolerate disinfo or ignorance, and I don't, I have this little group here that posts nonsense in every 9/11 thread on ignore. It's easy too, it's a small group only 7 or so, and it makes reading 9/11 TRUTH threads alot more worthwhile.

I used to argue with them, I gave them a fair shot at presenting thier theories, but there's no point anymore. I looked at both sides carefully, and at this point, what's going on in the world today and HOW we got to where we are, it's a no brainer that 9/11 was an inside job.

I also trust that 9/11 truthers will post any new evidence the government might come out with that supports thier story (not gonna hold my breath on that). Because that's what truthers are after.....the truth. duh.

If the government release video footage from the pentagon showing a 767 knocking down poles on the official path and then slamming into the side of the building, I'm sure CIT will be the first to post it. So I have no worries on missing out on any new information that might bolster the official story, just because I have a handful of trolls on my ignore list.

I'd suggest to all the people out their to do the same, it makes for a much more pleasent and productive stay here on the 9/11 forum. Unless your into arguing over the same old stuff.

Anyhow, good movie, glad to see you back and posting here KT.

Originally posted by talisman

That is not true at all. "FOR A THEORY TO HAVE LEGS" you think it needs to address *ALL* issues.

I'll give but one expample.

The theory of evolution. It does not address abiogenesis. Right now there is no real answer to that question.

Good point. Evolution does not explain many things about organic life and especially human consciousness. It's only part-right. Darwin only intended it to be an observational account of the development of species variation according to local environment.


But the principles of Ockham's razor apply to the F93 thing. Explaining what happened to F93, what happened to the crew and passengers, why the debris recovered looks so like a pulverized passenger jet following a recent high-speed impact if you contend that it is in fact not that - surely are at the core of any theory which wants to be taken seriously by more than a handful of fantasists determined to propagate a far-out theory. If you do not explain the core questions, and supply some convincing evidence, no normal, reasoning person is going to accept it are they?

The debris recovered at Shanksville by local fire/rescue teams looks like a pulverized passenger airliner following a high-speed catastrophic impact with the ground. Of course, it could be something else, but that's what it looks like. An airliner was reported hijacked. Phone calls from multiple passengers/crew to different people on the ground are on record. The plane was reportedly seen diving out of control by several witnesses, including pilot/passengers of private aircraft in the area. The FDR was recovered. The CVR was recovered. Personal effects of some passengers were recovered and returned to the bereaved families.

Now it may not be all it seems to be. But to convince most people that something like 'no plane came down at Shanksville' even might be true, you need more than just passionate belief in a crackpot theory you desperately want to be right, for whatever personal or political reason. You need some evidence that a normal dispassionate person will find credible.

Many people believe that these far-out theories like 'no plane crashed' are disinformation planted by INTEL trolls to muddy the waters and discredit the '9/11 Truth Movement.' That I could go with, to some degree. It's been done before. They have done a very good job with the 9/11 thing, especially on ATS forums.


I shall remain open-minded, if anyone uncovers and presents any evidence which stands up to basic scrutiny. Not seen much in 7 years though.

reply to post by bovarcher


I can agree to a certain point, applying Occam's razor in regards to this incident, but there are still questions.

The wider problem of course concerning issues with 9/11 and some of the theories I feel don't need to have every single thing answered in order to make the theory viable.

It will depend somewhat on where you might see "evidence" and where I might see it, then that would be the dividing line. IF the evidence is circumstantial and seems pretty good to me, I don't have to fill in everything. IF the evidence to you is not clearly seen and seems not to be circumstantial then of course you would reject this.

My point being is that many debunkers are asking for every single thing to be addressed, what they should be doing is just refuting what they think is refutable based on the evidence as they see it.

Don't forget this......


www.youtube.com...


oops, when your telling the truth you don't say things like that, because the story never changes. There is only one story the truth.

Obviously we are not being told the truth.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Nola213]

Originally posted by bovarcher
But the principles of Ockham's razor apply to the F93 thing. Explaining what happened to F93, what happened to the crew and passengers, why the debris recovered looks so like a pulverized passenger jet following a recent high-speed impact if you contend that it is in fact not that - surely are at the core of any theory which wants to be taken seriously by more than a handful of fantasists determined to propagate a far-out theory. If you do not explain the core questions, and supply some convincing evidence, no normal, reasoning person is going to accept it are they?

How does Occam's razor lead you to a plane crashing into the ground? After accounting for debris scattered for miles(reportedly over top of a ridge to 8 miles away) even though very little was found near the crater including no evidence of the fuel in the wings burning up? An engine apparently bounced possibly half mile? away even though they claim the ground was soft enough for the fuselage to be buried in the sand?
Countless other inconsistencies(like why fake the mushroom cloud photo and preexisting wings scar) would need to be ignored or explained away in order for Occam's razer to bring you to the plane crash conclusion. Occam's razer for me leads me to one conclusion, the plane was breaking up in the air before it came near the ground, ie shot down.

reply to post by PplVSNWO



I have heard abut the pre-existing wing scar in the ground, is it verified?
thnks

reply to post by talisman

I'm not sure if the US geological survey is considered verifiable evidence, but I can't see how it wouldn't be.
www.youtube.com...://uticansfor911truth.blogspot.com/2007/09/flight-93-wing-scars-in-1994.html
If you haven't watched the whole thing yet, feel free to. Otherwise about two minutes in is where you want to start.

I suppose the titanium engines just turned to tiny shreds like all the rest, huh? Yeah, right... Why didn't the engines bounce along the ground and cause major digs in the eaqrth? Why are there no real pieces that can be recognbized? The crappy pics you refer to do NOT prove anything but that a pile of prepared debris was blasted by a missle during the GAMES and that was the place the perps had designated as the 93 site. Convenient way to dispose of the people and plane somewhere else and have a handy place to hide the truth.

Any examination of the scene in Penn. shows that NO plane hit there. At the angle that is claimed the debris field would be much bigger and with fire all over. The screaming sound of a missle that several people heard seals the deal. The fact that debris was found MILES away simply doesn't mean anything, right? Unreal..

ONLY a person desperate to believe the official lie could possibly accept the nonsense that we are given as excuses for that day. Look at the Towers and all their hundreds of ' anomalies' and then the Pentagon and all of it's hundreds of ' anomalies ', and then Penn., where even more ' anomalies ' stack up higher and higher. How many does it take? How many inexplicable anomalies does it take to convince even the most petrified and dessperate denier that something is roten in Washington?

If a person does not question the official account after being given all of the massive and overwhelming evidence of an inside job, then they never will, and there can only be two reasons: Either they are unable to accept truth when it threatens their stability and paradigms terribly, or they are part of the perps coverup for one reason or another...maybe paid, and maybe just supporters of the NWO/Israeli etc, plans for the world.

What else could account for it? Stunning evidence that cannot be refuted at all is ignored by the believers as if it didn't exist, or they spin it to ridiculous levels and assume incredible nonsense in order to maintain the illusion. Some people MUST believe the official story because to believe otherwise would upset their entire life and render them unable to function. Fear is na terrible thing..the root of all bad things. Fear tells the weak that there are good reasons even though none are given...Fear tells the scared that there must be a good explanation for the horrors we see, yet none is ever given.

Fear tells the weak that if they believe the truth, then all they rely on will crumble..all they know to be factual will dissolve away and leave them helpless. Imagine the average Joe with enough crap on his plate already...and now he has to believe that all he thinks about the ' leaders ' wqe have is all wrong...the politicians are all too weak or too compromised to tell the truth, and they participate in cover up's constantly to deny truth and justice. The thought that the President and VP are murderers and traitors is upsetting and almost too much to handle. So they deny it.

Cheney is a proven menace and murderer and liar. Bush is a stupid fall guy who the players propped up and fed crap to spew out to fit the plans of the Neocon Zionist cabal and the pathetic old drunk will shuffle off to Paraguay to escape extradition once the real facts start getting widely known..and Cheney's black heart will finally fail some day and he will be excorrted to the infernal regions by the most delighted demons there are: Getting a kindred spirit is an occasion for them, I am sure, and the Bush cabal and their cohorts will provide entertainment for the hellions for a long time, no doubt.

To believe the official story is a csae study on denial and psychological efforts to protect known and relied upon paradigms from being shattered...it is elementary, really. But there are so many out there that only listen to Fox news and eat up the garbage that it will take education to get the truth known, and then many will keep denying it due to the aforementioned reasons. Many will keep believing the lie, sadly...because they must..because if they do not they freak out and lose all sense of stability..the future seems bleak and scary when the truth is known..and many will never accept it.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I have a question for Killtown2

This is what it should of looked like.

Is this what the crash scene should have looked like?

Most likely not.

Now, do you have an explanation as how the vertical tail made a faint "Wile E. Coyote" impression of itself in the grass, then went "poof"?

reply to post by Killtown3

Now, do you have an explanation as how the vertical tail made a faint "Wile E. Coyote" impression of itself in the grass, then went "poof"?

Would you expect anything different than an impression of itself? I can't comment on the tail section going "poof" based on a low-quality youtube video that was taken from several hundred feet in the air.

One thing I did notice though, is that there is no links or references to any of the crashes shown in the video with the exception of one. It's pretty hard to compare different crash scenes with flight 93 when there are no references.

I recognize two of the crashes in the video, one was a Helios 737 that crashed on a mountainside , slid along the ground went airborne again and then slid to a stop and burned.

The other was a small turboprop that crashed in the Andes and it has a top speed of around 250 mph. Neither one of them are comparable to flight 93.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Killtown3

 

Now, do you have an explanation as how the vertical tail made a faint "Wile E. Coyote" impression of itself in the grass, then went "poof"?

Would you expect anything different than an impression of itself? I can't comment on the tail section going "poof" based on a low-quality youtube video that was taken from several hundred feet in the air.

Umm, who even said that there is an imprint of a verticle stabilizer(tailfin) or even wings for that matter?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by talisman

 

I'm not sure if the US geological survey is considered verifiable evidence, but I can't see how it wouldn't be.
www.youtube.com...://uticansfor911truth.blogspot.com/2007/09/flight-93-wing-scars-in-1994.html
If you haven't watched the whole thing yet, feel free to. Otherwise about two minutes in is where you want to start.

thank you for that.

Now a word for the debunkers here. Any explanation on this? The impression was there back in 1994, are there any disagreements on this?

THere is no proof the that the shanksville crater even resembles a plane crash.

The "wing" imprints are old and weathered, and the verticle stabilizer imprint not to mention is planeless, fueless, partless but it is not even a imprint of a stabilizer.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by talisman


Nope. There was a scar there in 1994 when the mine was active.

The problem is, it is not in the same location as the crater caused by flight 93.

This claim has been debunked by myself and other members on more than one occasion on this site. Even 9/11 blogger debunked it.

What proof is there of a plane crashing in shanksville?


What proof visually that whatever allegedly crashed in Shanksville had wings or any stabilizers?


Start with those.



[edit on 27-4-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana

Umm, who even said that there is an imprint of a verticle stabilizer(tailfin) or even wings for that matter?

Umm, I'm pretty sure that the video in the OP did. Did I miss something?

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by bovarcher

 

I can agree to a certain point, applying Occam's razor in regards to this incident, but there are still questions.

The wider problem of course concerning issues with 9/11 and some of the theories I feel don't need to have every single thing answered in order to make the theory viable.

It will depend somewhat on where you might see "evidence" and where I might see it, then that would be the dividing line. IF the evidence is circumstantial and seems pretty good to me, I don't have to fill in everything. IF the evidence to you is not clearly seen and seems not to be circumstantial then of course you would reject this.

My point being is that many debunkers are asking for every single thing to be addressed, what they should be doing is just refuting what they think is refutable based on the evidence as they see it.

Yes, accepted. But eventually for a theory to be credible, it needs to explain everything. Unanswered questions like what happened to 93, where are the passengers, how did all their personal effects find their way into the ground at the crash site so soon after the hijack, need to be answered. If they are not, the theory is fatally weakened and is not going to be accepted by a normal open-minded person.

I do not believe 9/11 to be a purely Al Qaida sponsored attack by the way. There was some complicity at some level. However, I despair at the willingness of some people to accept and promote obviously ridiculous and absurd theses like 'No plane crashed at Shanksville' when such stories are clearly planted by the INTELS/perps to discredit the '9/11 Truth Movement', which they do very effectively.

You are playing their game.

reply to post by thedman


Where is the other engine? What is the serial number on the data-recorder? Where is all the fuel?