Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


yes. i'm a 'truther'. that means i want the truth. that means i stay open to evidence, and try my best to remain objective.

you, are a 'believer' - doesn't matter what side of this stupid debate you're on. you have your mind made up. you don't care about facts or truth at this point - you just care about being right.

if you have something to tell the world about some kind of problem with the chain of custody that involved the coroner himself picking bits of flesh from the ground - or some kind of expert opinion that finds fault with the test done to identify the dead, please, share it with us.

but you won't, because you can't - because you aren't even trying to be objective. you're throwing crap against the wall and praying something sticks. you're arguing backwards from a decided position - which is the opposite of good science or sound logic.

i'm a 'truther' in the purest sense of the word. i am married to no conclusion. i happen to doubt the OS for various reasons, but i also happen to think that the popular conspiracy theory alternatives read like something out of a B movie screen play - and they are not based on evidence that anyone can even agree actually exists.

i find ALL the popular accounts, official or alternative, to be severely lacking.

you are free to turn off your critical faculties and settle on a decided belief, but i have higher goals, and higher standards.

who cares anyways. it's your life to waste. i hope you feel good about it.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


talk about selective attention.

in the links i posted on the 6th, there is a more complete set of photos - from the set you are only choosing a few of that back your beliefs.

there are also expanded versions of the statements by the coroner, of which you are deceptively taking a small slice, out of context.

i don't know if you are being intentionally dishonest, or have merely been misled by your unfortunately narrow attention to only site that agree with you - but for whatever reason, you just aren't dealing with a full set of facts.

reminds me the cherry picking process that bush used to take us to war. same exact kind of lying.

intentional or otherwise, you are being deceitful.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

yes. i'm a 'truther'. that means i want the truth. that means i stay open to evidence, and try my best to remain objective.

you, are a 'believer' - doesn't matter what side of this stupid debate you're on. you have your mind made up. you don't care about facts or truth at this point - you just care about being right.

If truth is the only thing you are concerned with then how about you tell me what my mind is made up about and please back it up with some facts. I am sure you would not rant about the truth and then just say something you simply believe right? So I expect some of my quotes thrown in my face in order to back up your claim that you know my mind is already made up. Thanks in advance. I eagerly await the TRUTH from you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, me and the rest of humanity.

Please repost that photo with the proper plane debris you see highlighted.

Its kind of like people that see a 757 in the security camera photage from the Pentagon. People like you see what they have been told to see.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Well, me and the rest of humanity.

Please repost that photo with the proper plane debris you see highlighted.

Its kind of like people that see a 757 in the security camera photage from the Pentagon. People like you see what they have been told to see.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Sorry, if you, on your own, are not able to distinguish what constitutes manmade objects in that photo then me highlighting them is not going to help one iota.

You are obviously blind to what you do not want to see.

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, if you, on your own, are not able to distinguish what constitutes manmade objects in that photo then me highlighting them is not going to help one iota.

Thanks for showing you cannot show what you believe is in the photo.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, if you, on your own, are not able to distinguish what constitutes manmade objects in that photo then me highlighting them is not going to help one iota.

Thanks for showing you cannot show what you believe is in the photo.

I am just curious now, exactly how do you derive from me feeling it is a waste of time showing you the patently obvious that I don't believe that is a genuine photo of the crash site of Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pa on Sept 11, 2001 showing a large smoldering crater containing the wreckage of the airplane involved in Flight 93?

Hooper, you seem to pretend that you have not been shown the facts anbd continue to regurgitate debunked material while derailing and misleading.

For example.....

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

This image above taken by Stahl. He was standing in a trench that most people think was created by the wings and as you can see they werent. The indentations were there before 911 and the crater was created on top of it. No denying this known fact.


" As Wally Miller, the somerset coroner stated multiple times " It look like someone gouged a 10 foot x 10 foot deep hole and dumped scrap in it". IN other interviews he said it was 6-8 feet deep and around 15 feet wide."

"The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is over 124 feet, the diameter of the fuselage is 15 feet and the tail fin is over 43 feet tall. None of the dimensions are possible considering the small crater. So in conclusion using common sense and physics. The crater was not caused by a Boeing 757.
"

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I'll try for sanity, one last time. This is an appeal to reason, not hyperbole.

In this oft-repeated photo....can everyone see how it's cut-off on the left side?

See?

It is a close-up of just a minor portion of the impact crater, NOT the entire crater.

This should not be difficult to comprehend.

The overhead, aerial views show a large impression....the pictures are shot from a height that clearly show the size to be well more than only "10-15" feet wide!

Look at how wide the scope of the photo is! It looks to have been snapped from a few hundred feet above the ground. We don't have any recognizable object for size comparison, unfortunately. Like a car or truck or house. IF there had been one, then it would all be patently obvious, even to some who keep refusing to understand.

Perhaps, if we consider the trees? Trees are tall, thirty, thirty-five feet?

Put it into perspective, folks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I'll try for sanity, one last time. This is an appeal to reason, not hyperbole.

In this oft-repeated photo....can everyone see how it's cut-off on the left side?

See?

It is a close-up of just a minor portion of the impact crater, NOT the entire crater.

This should not be difficult to comprehend.

The overhead, aerial views show a large impression....the pictures are shot from a height that clearly show the size to be well more than only "10-15" feet wide!

Look at how wide the scope of the photo is! It looks to have been snapped from a few hundred feet above the ground. We don't have any recognizable object for size comparison, unfortunately. Like a car or truck or house. IF there had been one, then it would all be patently obvious, even to some who keep refusing to understand.

Perhaps, if we consider the trees? Trees are tall, thirty, thirty-five feet?

Put it into perspective, folks.

You must have completely missed that logic then because you have completely failed to explain how that pesky old grass magically appeared in ANY portion of the crater.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Not in the crater. On the perimeter.

The 'grass in the crater' claim is nonsense. But, it's about all the no-planers have....nonsense.

End.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Not in the crater. On the perimeter.

The 'grass in the crater' claim is nonsense. But, it's about all the no-planers have....nonsense.

End.

Do you honestly not see the grass growing right in the center of what you people refer to as a "wing scar?" Is this the same logic that allows you to say that the penthouse on building 7 pulled the building down and then deny saying it a page later? The grass is pretty obvious in that picture. Please photoshop some arrows into that picture pointing to the part of the crater without grass growing in it for me, would you? I see grass pretty clearly in the picture so help me see no grass, since you cannot help me understand your penthouse debacle.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


You are assuming that the depression in the foreground of that photo is the 'wing scar'?

Show, with proof, that the orientation of that photo matches that claim.

Otherwise, we are looking at an area on the perimeter of the impact crater, far enough from the zone to have been relatively undisturbed.

That is all.

It is an Internet meme, perpetuated by the 'no-planers', that the ditch in the foreground is a 'scar'...sure looks, to me, like normal loosely packed dirt and dead grass. Such as would be expected in the area, knowing its history as a reclaimed strip mine. Filled-in, soil still loose. Takes decades, maybe hundreds of years of erosion cycles for soil to be re-compacted, and made dense again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You are assuming that the depression in the foreground of that photo is the 'wing scar'?

Show, with proof, that the orientation of that photo matches that claim.

Otherwise, we are looking at an area on the perimeter of the impact crater, far enough from the zone to have been relatively undisturbed.

Owned. Nice try in trying to say that the depression in the ground was far away from the crater which it clearly isnt. Which means you admit that the depressions were not caused by wings... So therefore, the crater is too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757. Like it has been proven over and over again.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Please re-read my earlier post.

Seems you're reading in to it something I never wrote.

Once again....the depression, in the foreground of that photo, with the boxes fo text and arrows that someone superimposed.

That depression? Show, with proof, where that very same depression aligns with the wingspan of UAL 93, at impact.

Because, if NOT....then it is merely a low point, in the dirt, somewhere next to the main crater.

It is ONLY the "no-planers" who wish to look at that ONE photo, and cry thatit is the "wing-scar", yet they have nothing at all to back that up.

Furthermore, that same photo does not show the full extent of the impact site, only a small portion.

Other overhead views give a better over-all look, but they are taken from a height of at least several hundred feet --- which is obvious when you see how wide an area the photo entails.

I am very familiar with seeing the ground, from the air, as I've been doing it for most of my life. Those aerial views tell the story, although since they have no familiar size references, some people simply can't interpret them correctly.


In any case....the continuing claim of "no plane", in the face of all the evidence collected at the crash site that proves otherwise, amounts to a waste of time and resources, on this board. It also amounts to 'trolling'.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You are assuming that the depression in the foreground of that photo is the 'wing scar'?

Show, with proof, that the orientation of that photo matches that claim.

Otherwise, we are looking at an area on the perimeter of the impact crater, far enough from the zone to have been relatively undisturbed.

That is all.

It is an Internet meme, perpetuated by the 'no-planers', that the ditch in the foreground is a 'scar'...sure looks, to me, like normal loosely packed dirt and dead grass. Such as would be expected in the area, knowing its history as a reclaimed strip mine. Filled-in, soil still loose. Takes decades, maybe hundreds of years of erosion cycles for soil to be re-compacted, and made dense again.

All this stretching must make you super limber. In case you have not been paying attention, it is you people that support the OS that keep claiming those are wings scars and prove that a plane crashed there. Hooper is on ignore because he refused to acknowledge the photographs showing they were there pre-911.

Weedy, can we get you to tell hooper what you are trying to claim then? Tell all your little OS troll buddies that those are not wing scars and we both agree on that so it should no longer be an issue.

Thanks for getting right on that!

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Nice, Kj, one thing that gets glossed over is the fact that we dont have to prove it to the 2-3 guys who come on here with their willful ignorance. Another thing is that we dont have to prove that a Boeing 757 did not crash is Shanksville on 911 because the official story has failed to prove one did.

This thread has proven countless of times that the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 using basic physics and common sense.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dude.

I don't like to keep feeding you, especially after midnight, because we all knows what happens if you feed 'em after midnight....

But, LOOK at the very picture YOU posted, from your post!

You write, in the post, "look at the man standing there"...If I am seeing a man there, and then YOU claim the crater is only 10-15 feet wide, just how tall do you think that man is??? Four inches???

I mean, reality check, please.