The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

reply to post by iufan35


if it's unpowered, how does it buzz her van, under power lines, then bank up and the to right hard, to get over the trees in oh say maybe a disatnd of 40-60 feet (guesstimate) without disturbing the trees, then go right back down into the ground.

i mean i find it a little funny to that she said it was made out of fiberglass... how the hell could she tell that if this thing buzzed over here head, up and over trees, and out of sight. i most likely couldn't tell the diff between fiberglass and metal, when it's moving a couple hundred miles and hour, and just startled the hell out of me. like i said, i think they "planted" some of the information she was spouting, by being suggestive with the questions they were asking.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by IvanZana

 

look dude, you are going to have to do a little more then post videos from a lady with a HORRIBLE recollection of what happened,

I did. I posted lots of videos. Your lack in the ability to understand the information presented in this thread is evident.

I dont blame you for your ignorance, its a popular fad these days.

The way to play the game is one question at a time. You can't answer the question with another question and expect to get answers, thats absurd. For example:
1. "Could the crater in the picture have been caused by flight 93?"

That does not mean as soon as that question is asked that it is 'logical' to ask:

"Well if it wasn't flight 93 what happened to the people?"
...leads to...
"Well since theres no logical explanation or evidence as to what happened to the people the original statement is disproven."

There wasn't an original statement, just a question.

For some of these (911 related) questions there is no logical answer provided by the 20 million dollar investigation.

Once you ask enough of these questions it becomes apparent that at the very least the investigation was sub par. This alone is a travesty. No conspiracy needed.

And I always bring this up, but to say something is too big to cover up is a cop out. It doesn't prove anything They say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The Manhattan project and Pearl Harbor pretty much prove that HUGE events that have set precedent on the ability to cover things up.

reply to post by IvanZana


you posted a lot of youtube videos, you know a site that is pretty much known for people being able to make and post whatever the hell they want without it actually having to stand up to any real scrutiny, i was hoping for some kind of profound revelation was going to come out of this thread.

it didn't it's another crazy 9/11 truther that will make crazy claims, based on the least credible evidence around, and then continue to make dumb ass insults towards someone who is asking logical, and valid questions.

if i am so wrong, go through my long ass post last page and tear it to shreds, telling me how i am wrong, and don't forget to provide VERIFIABLE, and CREDIBLE sources for your claims otherwise i am going to consider you another ignorant and uninformed 9/11 whack job.

smart bomb??? how about a UAV with payload, which could make more sense as that "virgo op" video had splattered all over it

reply to post by jprophet420


well if you are going to tell me that the crash never happened, then you surely must have a theory as to WTF happened to all the people that supposedly died in the crash, and you would be able to have a theory as to why all the families of these people are going on national news channels and confirming the things that were stated from the very beginning.

if you can't answer those question you have just another hald way thought out, crack pot conspiracy theory that can get filed in the "this person doesn't know WTF he is talking about drawer"

how does the Manhattan project, and pearl harbor prove that big conspiracies can happen?

hell, you people use to at least use the Gulf of Tonkin as an example, diggin deep aren't you

try again.

[edit on 6/28/08 by SRTkid86]

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by iufan35

 

if it's unpowered, how does it buzz her van, under power lines, then bank up and the to right hard, to get over the trees in oh say maybe a disatnd of 40-60 feet (guesstimate) without disturbing the trees, then go right back down into the ground.

Who said it was unpowered? What are you talking about?

Obviously what the eyewitnesses saw was NOT flight 93 so therefore how the surrounding 'trees' reacted is not going to echo what a real comercial craft would do. What she and others describe could possibly a cruise missile which were being used on 911 as part of the war game exercises simulating cruise missile attacks, multiple hijacked airplanes, crashes into the pentagon and wtc, etc......

see the video about Amalgam Virgo.

reply to post by SRTkid86


No, that's crap. You don't have to have a fully fleshed out alternative theory in order to reach the conclusion that the official story is nonsense.

reply to post by IvanZana


I'm surprised people are even debating the flight was real.

Clearly a fake!

All of 9.11 was an obvious setup!

Now back to the wizard of Oz and

"If I only had a brain"

reply to post by IvanZana


shoe me the evidence, and if you pay any attention to you own thread, you would understand my post was directed at someone theorizing that it could have been an unpowered un manned missle, because she said she didn't hear any noise coming from it.

what im saying is that something moving a FEW HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR (remember things can't fly going slow, especially something carrying a warhead of some kind, and ESPECIALLY something that is making no sound because it isn't powered.) CAN'T go from flying within 25 feet of the ground, to banking hard up and right over trees that i would estimate are not more than 60 feet away from where she claims that this thing buzzed over her van.

Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by SRTkid86

 

No, that's crap. You don't have to have a fully fleshed out alternative theory in order to reach the conclusion that the official story is nonsense.

yes you do, because in order to CONVINCE people that it isn't what they say it is. you need to be able to have a counter point to all the details of the events, just like THEY do.

that is why they are more believable then some of your theories, because they can get into the tiny little details...

anyone can say "the space station is a hugh laser beam pointed at washinton" but unless you can tell people how it got there, who is in control, of it, and why we didn't know about this till now. chances are nobody will believe what you have to say.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by IvanZana

 

un manned missle, because she said she didn't hear any noise coming from it.

Your not going to hear anything if the craft is comming towards you. Cruise missiles are designed not only to be silent but stealthy in every aspect.


what im saying is that something moving a FEW HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR (remember things can't fly going slow, especially something carrying a warhead CAN'T go from flying within 25 feet of the ground, to banking hard up and right over trees that i would estimate are not more than 60 feet away from where she claims that this thing buzzed over her van.

Cruise missiles can out handle any fighter jet. They are faster, turn sharper, fly lower, can be flown autonomously or remotley with live video. There is lots of information about the capabilities of Boeing cruise missiles.

reply to post by IvanZana


ok, but does a cruise missle look like an airplane? because the lady said it look like "a molded fiberglass airplane with no rivets"

i would think not, the closes thing i can imagine that would look like what she described is what was posted in page 1 of this thread, and i seriously doubt that thing can move like it would have to move if what that lady said was true.

and another thing, HOW do you explain all of the eyewitness reports that are completely contradicotry to hers? there are more than one person saying they say a SILVER PLANE hit the ground at approx 80 degree angle.

not a white rivetless fiberglass plane bank over trees, and hit the ground upside down at a 40 degree angle.

edit to add:

and why did they ONLY interview her and not the people that lived around there, or the people that were there before the emergencyt "first repsonders" (fire turcks ambulance police etc.)

it just seems fishy to me that of all people to interview you pick the one that has the most differing opinion of what happend, from everyone else. that is what i call biased journalism, and since it's biased, it is not credible.

[edit on 6/28/08 by SRTkid86]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, in the post that I 'REPLY' to here, you stated that the Flight Recorders were 'faked'. Please provide evidence, beyond your simple, uneducated opinon of how those recorders actually work, to back up that claim.

Describe haw the ATC recordings match the CVR recordings, but all faked. IN DETAIL, please. Show how the time references on the CVR match the time references from ATC? Oh, and BTW, you ARE aware that the time reference is in UTC, right? All transcripts are converted to the local time, for easy understanding. Or, did you not know that?

dble post


[edit on 28-6-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana

You make no sense sometimes...lol.... but the answer is.... Fake and incredible.

I fixed that for you.

So in your world, personal effects and hijacker documentation can survive a plane crash but the wings, seats, wiring, tires, rims, landing gear, etc doesnt?

I never said that. I guess in your world, no pictures = nonexistence.

Your take on reality has left most of us with little or no respect for your 'version' of what happened on 911

It's not my version.

Besides boone, this thread is not about the cell calls or other fantastical theories you like to debunk. Cant you see it boone? You have failed to suppoort the official story and actually you have destroyed the official story for lurkers to this site with your alice in wonderland take on reality.

If I were to start blaming Israeli/Zionist/Jews as being part of the conspiracy, then you would come down the rabbit hole with me, correct?

Originally posted by SRTkid86

Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by SRTkid86

 

No, that's crap. You don't have to have a fully fleshed out alternative theory in order to reach the conclusion that the official story is nonsense.

yes you do, because in order to CONVINCE people that it isn't what they say it is. you need to be able to have a counter point to all the details of the events, just like THEY do.

The beauty about well presented information and the fact that the human mind can usually make its own desicion is that you dont have to convince anyone of the truth. The truth speaks louder and wins EVERYTIME.

Just show your parents, friends, Anyone!! this picture and ask them, Does this little crater look like a massive, fully fuelled commercial airline crash or a missile crater?






[edit on 28-6-2008 by IvanZana]

It sure sounds like that lady in red is describing an air-to-air missile. Suppose a fighter jet could have fired two missiles at flight 93. The first may have destroyed the target, and the second, with no target to track would have continued coasting or gliding, which is what she saw.

Missiles generally are designed to accellerate as quickly as possible, so they burn their fuel quickly, and it is normal for them to coast to their target. The programming of air-to-air missiles is all very secret, I'm sure. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was programmed to continue in a straight line when it lost it's target, but then avoid imacting the earth at the last instant to give it another chance to reacquire it's target. That would explain the last-insant swoop under the telephone wire and over the trees that she witnessed.

It's a common tactic for military pilots of some countries to hug the earth to attempt to lose a missile that is tracking them in the ground clutter, or to make it crash into the ground. So a missile may very well be programmed to swoop up at the last instant to maximize it's chances of reacquiring the target.

reply to post by IvanZana


loks like an airplane hit there.

and you see, you come up with these theories because you want the truth to get out, but unlike the people that did the investigations and made sure that everything lines up and all their ducks were in a row.

you simply say "this looks more like a missle impact then a plane impact" where is your degree in figuring out whether a missle hit there, or a plane hit there. i would say that making that assumption is way out of your abilities when it comes to being able to discern the diff between the two. because you aren't even able to form a coherent, logical step by step theory as to what happened.

saying that you aren't trying to convince anyone, or that you don't have to convince anyone is a HUGE cop-out. if you don't feel you need to, then why on earth did you post this? were you hoping to have your ego stroked? did you want to make yourself feel smarter?

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by IvanZana

 

loks like an airplane hit there.

Mabey an airplane the size of a cruise missile.


The original post stands where it stands and no one has yet to debunk the information presented. It proved that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by the Flight 93 as we know it.