Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail

reply to post by dbates


Come on man....... why cloud hasty conclutions with evidence.

Im going to preempt the nay sayers: The evidence was trucked into the site by the governmnet BEFORE they allowed anybody not in the conspiracy coverup to view the crash site.

Originally posted by IvanZana
The crater was caused by cruise missile or bomb.

Kindly explain the explosion pattern if it were a missile or a UAV? Looks like an airline crash to me.

The official story concerning Flight 93 has been official debunked. It is a matter of time before we start hanging the perps and the people who LIE for them.

Actually a fine job of obfusticating and preventing any real research into the true conspiracy surrounding the events of 911 is the real tragedy here. Focusing on psudo science, ill informed opinions, and hasty generalizations is clearly enginnered to focus attention far more plausible conspiracies. Like did the government LET it happen? etc.

The simple fact is despite your strong declarations that everything EXCEPT your explanation of the events has been "Busted" the further is from the truth

[edit on 4/30/08 by FredT]

Originally posted by IvanZana

As you can see that there is no evidence that a Commercial Airliner crashed in Shanksville on 911. No Vertticle Stabilizer scar, no wing scar, nothing but a 10x30ft, 6ft deep bomb crater.

Not sure what you mean by no wing/tail scars. There ARE wing/tail scars, but it should be said as "wing/tail" scars because we all know a 757 didn't make them, but the govt wants us to believe that's what caused them.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
They cannot disprove -
a-radar track evidence
b-phone call evidence
c- DNA evidence
d- flight recorder evidence
e- eyewitness evidence

a - Phantom blips. Johnstown ATC was in easy range to see "Flight 93," but they were "surprised" that they were never able to see it even though your "full-proof" radar said Flight 93 was high enough for them to see.

b - How does that prove a plane crashed at a specific spot???

c - "8%" of remains found yields "100%" of 44 passengers? Yeah, right.

d - Prove they were recovered at the Shanksville site and why did they take a photo of one down in a crater??? That's unprecedented.

e - How many witnesses saw it hit the ground? One. And he said it was "50ft" over his head above the Rollock scrapyard, yet never said it was upside down as officials claim and since officials said UA93 crashed at a "45 deg" angle, that means it would have been a LOT higher than the reported "50ft" going over Rollock.

Well that was to hard to disprove!

reply to post by im_being_censored

e - How many witnesses saw it hit the ground? One. And he said it was "50ft" over his head above the Rollock scrapyard, yet never said it was upside down as officials claim and since officials said UA93 crashed at a "45 deg" angle, that means it would have been a LOT higher than the reported "50ft" going over Rollock.

Well that was to hard to disprove!

Disprove? Sorry, but the only thing you disproved that the witness is not a very good judge of altitude.

You are right, he didn't say that it was upside down, nor did he say it was right side up.

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50ft up," says Purbaugh, who works at a scrapyard overlooking the crash site. "It was only a split second but it looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived." Source

Great job! Your own witness destroyed your own theory. Keep up the good work.

Let's see what some of the other witnesses stated.

Eric Peterson of Lambertsville looked up when he heard the plane. "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side." Source

"It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane.

"Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that." Source

Another eyewitness that says upside down, about 30 seconds in.

reply to post by Boone 870

If Parbaugh didn't say it was on its side or belly, than that means it was right side up because who comments that a plane is flying in its NORMAL position without first hearing it supposedly wasn't?

But regardless that the witness accounts SEVERELY CONTRADICTION EACH OTHER, explain to me how 757's tail section can crash at 580mph, disappear, yet leave impression in the ground as if someone gently laid it down on the field.

Originally posted by im_being_censored
a - Phantom blips. Johnstown ATC was in easy range to see "Flight 93," but they were "surprised" that they were never able to see it even though your "full-proof" radar said Flight 93 was high enough for them to see.

b - How does that prove a plane crashed at a specific spot???

c - "8%" of remains found yields "100%" of 44 passengers? Yeah, right.

d - Prove they were recovered at the Shanksville site and why did they take a photo of one down in a crater??? That's unprecedented.

e - How many witnesses saw it hit the ground? One. And he said it was "50ft" over his head above the Rollock scrapyard, yet never said it was upside down as officials claim and since officials said UA93 crashed at a "45 deg" angle, that means it would have been a LOT higher than the reported "50ft" going over Rollock.

Well that was to hard to disprove!

You didn't disprove a thing. You stated unsubstantiated opinions.

Your failure to accept evidence, and instead believe in someone else's opinion/what you watched in a youtube, does not mean that you have proven that a plane didn't crash in Shanksville.

Originally posted by im_being_censored"8%" of remains found yields "100%" of 44 passengers? Yeah, right.

Yes. Right. They found teeth and/or bones of 100% of the passengers.

reply to post by im_being_censored
What about the other two witnesses that stated it was upside down or on its side?

I can post more eyewitness accounts that claim it was on its side or upside down, but I'm sensing that you're a no-planer and nothing will convince you.

Is there any eyewitnesses that believe there was a flyover? I don't recall anyone claiming to have seen Flight 93 fly beyond the impact point.

But regardless that the witness accounts SEVERELY CONTRADICTION EACH OTHER, explain to me how 757's tail section can crash at 580mph, disappear, yet leave impression in the ground as if someone gently laid it down on the field.

If it was gently laid on the ground then there wouldn't be an impression, right?

Originally posted by ClashWho
Yes. Right. They found teeth and/or bones of 100% of the passengers.

I hope you're not referring to the teeth embedded in the trees hearsay?

And who said 100% of the passengers were ID'd again?

Originally posted by Boone 870
What about the other two witnesses that stated it was upside down or on its side?

I think I'll take the word of someone who was 300-400yds away and says he saw what he saw actually hit the ground.

A reporter went to interview Peterson again and he wouldn't answer the door. I wonder why?

I can post more eyewitness accounts that claim it was on its side or upside down, but I'm sensing that you're a no-planer and nothing will convince you.

Post how many actually described a Boeing 757, or similar size with UA colors.

Is there any eyewitnesses that believe there was a flyover? I don't recall anyone claiming to have seen Flight 93 fly beyond the impact point.

If there was a flyover, it was meant to fool people. Don't say our military doesn't have the technology.

If it was gently laid on the ground then there wouldn't be an impression, right?

WRONG. A 1,000+pds object will leave an impression in grass and "loose and compacted" soil each and every time.

reply to post by im_being_censored

I think I'll take the word of someone who was 300-400yds away and says he saw what he saw actually hit the ground.

I'm glad to hear that.

"I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke." Source

A reporter went to interview Peterson again and he wouldn't answer the door. I wonder why?

Maybe he was asleep or at work?

If there was a flyover, it was meant to fool people. Don't say our military doesn't have the technology.

A no-planer/holographic/super secret government sound generator believer? Or, a cruise missile cloaking/holographic generating/super secret government cruise missile believer?

WRONG. A 1,000+pds object will leave an impression in grass and "loose and compacted" soil each and every time.

I'm glad we agree that the vertical fin made the mark.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I'm glad to hear that.

"I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke." Source

Rocking from side to side? Obvious it wasn't a 757 going 580mph upside down that he saw crash 400yds further.

Maybe he was asleep or at work?

Or maybe avoiding?

A no-planer/holographic/super secret government sound generator believer? Or, a cruise missile cloaking/holographic generating/super secret government cruise missile believer?

Show me ONE person who described seeing a 757 (or similar size aircraft) doing what officials said it did.

I'm glad we agree that the vertical fin made the mark.

So how did it only make a faint impression in the grass, then disappear?

Originally posted by im_being_censored

Originally posted by ClashWho
Yes. Right. They found teeth and/or bones of 100% of the passengers.

I hope you're not referring to the teeth embedded in the trees hearsay?

And who said 100% of the passengers were ID'd again?

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller. Let me guess, he's in on it, too, right?

Originally posted by ClashWhoSomerset County Coroner Wallace Miller. Let me guess, he's in on it, too, right?

Who told him?

reply to post by im_being_censored

Rocking from side to side? Obvious it wasn't a 757 going 580mph upside down that he saw crash 400yds further.

From an earlier post:

I think I'll take the word of someone who was 300-400yds away and says he saw what he saw actually hit the ground.

Do you believe him or not?

Or maybe avoiding?

Or, maybe he wasn't home. Can you provide a source for your claim?

Show me ONE person who described seeing a 757 (or similar size aircraft) doing what officials said it did.

OK

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.

--------------------

"(It) went behind us. (We) lost sight for a while and when it came back (the passenger) said, 'It's turning toward us. Now it's turning away. Now turning back toward us.' So it was rocking its wings.

"It would bank hard left, bank hard right and then back to hard left. We saw it bank three or four times before we got away from it." Source

Originally posted by Boone 870
Do you believe him or not?

Yes, I believe the he didn't see a 757 upside down going over him rocking side to side. Do you believe him?

Or, maybe he wasn't home. Can you provide a source for your claim?

It's in a video. I'll dig for it.

OK

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.
--------------------
Wright was flying over Youngwood for about 20 minutes before Flight 93 crashed in Stonycreek Township." Source

Um, do you have any idea HOW FAR away Youngwood is from the crater?

I was asking show me ONE person ON THE GROUND that saw a UA 757 flying around.

Btw, why did you avoid answering this question?

So how did [Flight 93's vertical tail] only make a faint impression in the grass, then disappear?

[edit on 1-5-2008 by im_being_censored]

reply to post by im_being_censored

Yes, I believe the he didn't see a 757 upside down going over him rocking side to side. Do you believe him?

I believe him as well as the rest of the witnesses.

Um, do you have any idea HOW FAR away Youngwood is from the crater?

Yes. Approximately 38 miles. He wasn't flying over Youngwood when he saw Flight 93.

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.

The Latrobe Airport is 30 miles away from the crater. At the speed flight 93 was traveling in the last few minutes, it would've taken 4-5 minutes to reach the impact crater. That matches up with the FDR and eyewitnesses.

I was asking show me ONE person ON THE GROUND that saw a UA 757 flying around.

No you weren't. Stop moving the goalposts.

Do you have any eyewitnesses that state they saw Flight 93 beyond the impact site?

So how did [Flight 93's vertical tail] only make a faint impression in the grass, then disappear?

It doesn't look faint to me. How do you know it's not in the crater?

reply to post by im_being_censored



IBC ...

Don't you find it ironic that the data on the FDR matched the eye witness statements?

Interesting huh ?

:TY:

Originally posted by Boone 870
I believe him as well as the rest of the witnesses.

Even though they contradict each other's greatly?

Yes. Approximately 38 miles. He wasn't flying over Youngwood when he saw Flight 93.

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.

Reads like "Wright was flying over Youngwood" to me!

The Latrobe Airport is 30 miles away from the crater. At the speed flight 93 was traveling in the last few minutes, it would've taken 4-5 minutes to reach the impact crater. That matches up with the FDR and eyewitnesses.

You can make an FDR say anything and as soon as someone can give me a logical explanation as to why the photographed the square recorder down in a hole (which is unprecedented), then I'll take the FDR seriously.

The eyewitnesses do not match up with the eyewitnesses.

No you weren't. Stop moving the goalposts.

How do you know what I was thinking when I first typed my question? Why was someone who was in a plane and FAR AWAY the ONLY one to see a UA plane in the sky? Johnstown ATC didn't. I haven't found ONE person on the ground who did.

Do you have any eyewitnesses that state they saw Flight 93 beyond the impact site?

First you have to prove Flight 93 was in the area.

2nd, LOTS of witnesses saw multiple aircraft (UAV, "fighter") in the immediate area, BEFORE and moments after the explosion.

Show me ONE who described a large aircraft the size of a 757 doing the agile manuvers we are told it did.

It doesn't look faint to me. How do you know it's not in the crater?

Now who's moving the "goal post"?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by im_being_censored

 

IBC ...

Don't you find it ironic that the data on the FDR matched the eye witness statements?

Interesting huh ?

You know what's really interesting? It doesn't match up.