Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

reply to post by Varemia


They just do. Now please stop side-stepping and answer my hypothetical question.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Varemia

 

They just do. Now please stop side-stepping and answer my hypothetical question.

Ok. IF someone wanted to plant plane debris to make it look like a plane crashed, then in my opinion, it would be good to bury a container with plane parts in it where I would want the fake crash to be at. A bomb in the container would go off and spread the plane debris and ignite jet fuel. To make most of the witnesses think it was a plane, it would require an actual plane, and some extremely dangerous low flying maneuvers right into the smoke from the explosion, shortly after making a sweep of the nearby areas to make sure no cameras caught the plane, and that witnesses were convinced that a plane hit.

This is extremely difficult and has a lot of room for error and witnesses gone wrong. I just can't see a logistical way to do it.

reply to post by Varemia


So you agree that at a staged plane crash site you'd expect planted debris?

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Varemia

 

So you agree that at a staged plane crash site you'd expect planted debris?

Yes. Naturally, but you can't argue away the witnesses. In order to follow your story, I must ignore half the evidence and only look through a narrow scope. I'm not so ignorant, if I may be so frank.

reply to post by Varemia

...but you can't argue away the witnesses.

And also....well, there is a long, long list. Starting with the CVR and FDR.

The ATC recordings, both audio and radar.

The DNA from the occupants.

The missing airplane from United's fleet.

The AIrFone calls, and few cellphone calls.

The first responders reports.

Et Cetera........

Originally posted by Varemia

Yes. Naturally

So debunking sites that lists evidence is in of it's self not proof that a plane crashed. The evidence has to fit the official story.

Some things that don't:

Witness accounts (crash angle, wingless white UAV, plane flying over Indian Lake)
DNA (no blood spotted at scene, easiest thing to say that was found there -- too small to see!)
Burn damage with size of explosion/mushroom cloud
Impossible crash story (the cockpit snapped off but rest on back buried thingy)
Missing debris from the ground (where most debris supposedly was)
Wing/tail scars (one of a kind!)

Originally posted by ATH911
wingless white UAV

Wingless WOW how does that work ? Who said that ?

There are no witnesses who say the plane was over indian lake BTW.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Varemia

Yes. Naturally

So debunking sites that lists evidence is in of it's self not proof that a plane crashed. The evidence has to fit the official story.

Some things that don't:

Witness accounts (crash angle, wingless white UAV, plane flying over Indian Lake)
DNA (no blood spotted at scene, easiest thing to say that was found there -- too small to see!)
Burn damage with size of explosion/mushroom cloud
Impossible crash story (the cockpit snapped off but rest on back buried thingy)
Missing debris from the ground (where most debris supposedly was)
Wing/tail scars (one of a kind!)

So... incredulity then based on pictures and a witness who claimed to have seen a silent plane doing impossible maneuvers that for some reason resembled a business class jet that was asked to investigate the crash scene? K, good to know that you base your conclusions only on what you can see based on pixelated imagery. I'll make sure never to hire you if someone in my family gets shot. You'd probably claim that there was never a bullet!

reply to post by ATH911

Witness accounts (crash angle, wingless white UAV, plane flying over Indian Lake)

You mean the UFO?

DNA (no blood spotted at scene, easiest thing to say that was found there -- too small to see!)

That sentence doesn't even not make small sense easy.

Burn damage with size of explosion/mushroom cloud

This is based on what? The official book of mushroom cloud standards?

Impossible crash story (the cockpit snapped off but rest on back buried thingy)

Based on an interview with the county coroner by a couple of truthers - regardless. Nothing says its impossible.

Missing debris from the ground (where most debris supposedly was)

Says who - you? Based on your extensive review of pictures you can google?

Wing/tail scars (one of a kind!)

Huh?

Do you really why after 10 years this is going nowhere fast?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Wingless WOW how does that work ? Who said that ?

Susan McElwain who when showed a pic of a Lear Jet and A-10 Warthog said those were definitely not what she saw.

I'm guess the same way missiles with rear spoilers work, but why don't you go interview her like those truthers did to get her word.

There are no witnesses who say the plane was over indian lake BTW.

Except for Jim Stop, Val McClatchey (heard it fly over Indian Lake), and Paul Muro, but who's counting?

Originally posted by hooper

Do you really why after 10 years this is going nowhere fast?

Thanks for your concern about the truth movement.

reply to post by ATH911

Except for Jim Stop, Val McClatchey (heard it fly over Indian Lake), and Paul Muro, but who's counting?

And when did Stop and Muro say that Flight 93 flew directly over Indian Lake? Or did they indicate that they saw the plane overhead when they were near or at the lake and you jumped to the conclusion that if they are at the lake and see something up in the air then that thing in the air must also be over the lake? Last time I looked something can be above my head without being directly over my head. But then again I live in a three dimensional world.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

Except for Jim Stop, Val McClatchey (heard it fly over Indian Lake), and Paul Muro, but who's counting?

And when did Stop and Muro say that Flight 93 flew directly over Indian Lake?

Not one witness claimed to see United Flight 93.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Not one witness claimed to see United Flight 93.

Blatantly incorrect.

There are at least two. A pilot in a Piper Cherokee, and his passenger. This has been mentioned repeatedly, in many of the United 93 threads....threads in which YOU have participated.

Originally posted by ATH911
but who's counting?

Me and you. Zero witnesses saw the plane over Indian Lake. You must be using truther math.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Not one witness claimed to see United Flight 93.

There are at least two.

Show sources and a link please. Still waiting.

None of the ground eye witnesses describe a United Boeing 757 that crashed.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by waypastvne

Wingless WOW how does that work ? Who said that ?

Susan McElwain who when showed a pic of a Lear Jet and A-10 Warthog said those were definitely not what she saw.

I'm guess the same way missiles with rear spoilers work, but why don't you go interview her like those truthers did to get her word.

There are no witnesses who say the plane was over indian lake BTW.

Except for Jim Stop, Val McClatchey (heard it fly over Indian Lake), and Paul Muro, but who's counting?

Isnt it more than a coincidence that in September 2001 there were war game exercises that not only included multiple live fly hijackings but also cruise missile attacks from Bin Laden?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Still waiting.

While we're waiting can you tell us some more about the Shanksville UFO. You don't have to show any sources or links, just make something up and entertain us.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

None of the ground eye witnesses describe a United Boeing 757 that crashed.

Hang on. A while ago you wrote

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Not one witness claimed to see United Flight 93.

Those aren't quite the same, are they?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Isnt it more than a coincidence that in September 2001 there were war game exercises that not only included multiple live fly hijackings but also cruise missile attacks from Bin Laden?

Wow. Now you got multiple live fly hijackings and Bin Laden cruise missiles. I did notice though that you backed off the "September 11" and now are just saying "September 2001". I guess you were going to step way outside the plate with the Bin Laden cruise missile exercises so you brought it back a bit first by opening up the scope to all of September.

But really - Bin Laden cruise missiles? I suppose you have a link for that, huh?