Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

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)

No. The debris you refer to, lightweight items from the aircraft interior blown there by the wind, was 1.4 miles away from the impact site. Some fool used a highway GPS system to calculate the distance between the crash site and the resting place of this windblown lightweight debris by road. Crash debris does not travel by road. This has been endlessly repeated as fact, but it's wrong.

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.

OK you choose to subscribe to the 'shootdown' theory. It's a bit more credible than 'There was no plane' which is obviously INTEL disinformation designed to muddy the waters and discredit the 'Truth Movement'.

The shootdown theory is explored here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and in many other forums. This theory throws up a whole host of other questions, such as why bother to conceal it? Coming clean on a shootdown on 9/11 would obviously have given far greater credibility to the air defenses and deflected a great deal of criticism, for starters. It would have derailed many CTs on day one.


However that being said, you know perfectly well that if a F93 shootdown had been admitted publicly, this site and many others would be full of CTs claiming:

'F93 shootdown a lie!!! 100% proof (with 9/11 CTs, no matter how demented, there is always claimed to be '100% proof') that 93 was brought down by passenger revolt!!! Air defenses did nothing!!!'

You KNOW this would have been the case. Don't you?

reply to post by bovarcher

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.

But the same could be said of the officially accepted theory. I do not believe any one particular "truther" theory, except that the offical version of events leaves too many questions unanswered. Why was only one engine recovered? Why were the FDR's not properly identified by serial number? Where did all the fuel go?

Sorry, already covered.

[edit on 4/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox

But the same could be said of the officially accepted theory. I do not believe any one particular "truther" theory, except that the offical version of events leaves too many questions unanswered. Why was only one engine recovered? Why were the FDR's not properly identified by serial number? Where did all the fuel go?

Dunno. I wasn't at the crash site on 9/11, though I have visited it since.

Any ideas?

reply to post by bovarcher


Well, the fact that there was no fuel found at the reported crash site certainly leads me to believe that an airliner did not in fact crash there. At least not in the manner reported.

Found the photos on 9/11 blogger of the scar and it does appear that the scars are not the same location, very close but not not exact. That brings up the question, if the "wings" scar wasn't already there, why is there grass growing in it? The wings should have displaced the grass, or at least buried it. The only place there isn't grass is the alleged fuselage hole. Also, I think Ivan is right about the scar looking weathered, not like something just crashed into it. I'm sure most have a good idea of what freshly disturbed soil looks like.
Are there any satellite images of the area between 94 and sept, 2001?

Originally posted by Boone 870
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?

I am asking the 2 or 3 debunkers here.

Originally posted by bovarcher
It's a bit more credible than 'There was no plane' which is obviously INTEL disinformation designed to muddy the waters and discredit the 'Truth Movement'.

If it is so obvious, then please post your sources for the 'no plane' theory being a psyop.

I suspect that it's your opinion, which means that it's not really obvious at all.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by Boone 870
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?

I am asking the 2 or 3 debunkers here.

My question still stands

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Found the photos on 9/11 blogger of the scar and it does appear that the scars are not the same location, very close but not not exact. That brings up the question, if the "wings" scar wasn't already there, why is there grass growing in it? The wings should have displaced the grass, or at least buried it. The only place there isn't grass is the alleged fuselage hole. Also, I think Ivan is right about the scar looking weathered, not like something just crashed into it. I'm sure most have a good idea of what freshly disturbed soil looks like.
Are there any satellite images of the area between 94 and sept, 2001?

Exactly, the wing scar is not even a wing scar, not one source claims it to be a wing scar or even caused by a plane.

(Sorry I keep coming back as different numbers. I post something, then try to come back and I am unable to log in. It's really weird.)


Any hoot, can someone explain to me what made that FAINT IMPRESSION in the grass that looks like the same shape as a 757's vertical tail?

reply to post by Killtown4


a) laser beams from outer space
b) n.w.o. ninjas
c) those giant slug looking thingies from the movie Tremors
d) the vertical fin

reply to post by Boone 870


e) Equipment at the site prior to 9/11

reply to post by jackinthebox

e) Equipment at the site prior to 9/11

Possibly.

Were there any eyewitnesses to this alleged equipment?

Did anyone from the scrapyard a couple of hundred yards up the hill report this or did they report anyone setting the fires before the holographic 757 flew over their heads upside down?

If not, I would say that option e is just as likely as a, b, or c.

Originally posted by Killtown4
(Sorry I keep coming back as different numbers. I post something, then try to come back and I am unable to log in. It's really weird.)


Any hoot, can someone explain to me what made that FAINT IMPRESSION in the grass that looks like the same shape as a 757's vertical tail?

Whatever made the imprint, it is not an imprint of a verticle stabilizer.



[edit on 28-4-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana

Whatever made the imprint, it is not an imprint of a verticle stabilizer.

A) the roaming gnome from the Geico commercials
B) a pack of rabid groundhog's
C) a meteorite
D) the vertical fin

Those are just guesses.

reply to post by Boone 870


E) Hot wind from an ATS member.

reply to post by jackinthebox



That was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Originally posted by Boone 870
d) the vertical fin

So the vertical fin crashing violently into the ground, so hard that it shatters into unrecognizable pieces, yet the only evidence left by the vertical fin is a FAINT IMPRESSION in the grass that didn't even penetrate through the ground???

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by im_being_censored

Unbelievable.

Why would the imprint be outside the crater outline?

Why couldn't the imprint have been obliterated by the crater?