Takes a special kind of chutzpah to claim that the ballsiest mofos on the government payroll can be intimidated by a bunch of bean counting-wussie boys when a couple huindred of the brothers were murdered. And how do you silence a real man who knows he is dying of an unexpected hazard of that murder? As a veteran fire fighter, I am too deeply offended for words that will not get me perma-banned from this site. You are not making any sense here, so your mocking the people calling you out on it is just not winning you any credibility.
I know exactly what I am looking at, and see nothing anomolous. Please identify an anomoly which you think needs clarification and state why you find it anomolous. You have not done so so far. And for those of you who think that an aircraft will not punch an airplane-shaped hole in steel, I would say that you were proven wrong sixty-five years ago.
Truthers still trying to compare apples to oranges.. how expected. Your fail attempt to compare a learjet to an intentional nose dive of a 757 at the speed of a bullet is facepalm material. What you no planers have forgotten is that the what you are trying to compare is totally irrelevant. It is a side show to the fact that 100% of the evidence collected from Shanksville/FAA supports the impact of UA93 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page3 To make it a little more 'first hand'; my own reconstruction of UA93; [video=youtube;FR5FHg1rRLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5FHg1rRLE[/video]
So how many crash scenes you been too....? Had a Lear 35A (slightly larger version) crash down the street 25 years ago As member of FD was at scene . Plane hit at 350 mph (estimated speed) nose down Biggest piece able to find was 2 x 3 ft section of rudder. Landing gear light hit parked car 75 yards away Rest was "metallic confetti" - everything shredded Flight 93 hit soft dirt in reclaimed strip mine. According to cornoer Wallace Miller front 1/3 of aircraft broke off on impact, plane was on back at 40 deg down angle, the debris was it was projected forward into nearby woods Back 2/3 of plane plowed into the dirt -parts of it buried 25-30 feet down Now explain how the 2 crashes were same...? Small plane plowing into rocky ground vs large jet airline hitting soft dirt.....
I am a retired Army NCO with prior service in the Air Force. In the Air Force, my duty AFSC was 57150, Fire Protection Specialist. Crash crew, dude. In the Army, I kept the equivalent MOS, 51M30 as my secondary. I do suggest you not try to feed us any further BS about what a crash site should look like. You have been far wide of the mark so far. You should, by now, had you any relevant experience, pointed out the differences between the surfaces into which this puddle jumper and Flt 93 were driven. I must assume, then, that you lack any credentials to assess a crash site.
When people use proper English, I tend to lend what they type more credibility. I'm weird that way. If I want to hear a rap song, I'll seek out such a thing. Your blind faith in all things "official" is offensive to some as well Sir. I guess we're even.
You are still stuck with the fact that the only way in which the two crash sites should look at all alike is in the little pieces into which stuff was torn. You have precisely nada.
Which is about the same as the "official" purveyors of the "official" BS story have, if I accepted your premise (which I don't) but... Their own "story" is more than enough to discredit them without having to figure out exactly how they pulled it off.
Can't come up with a rational description of what the crater at Shanksville should have looked like, or why this thread might have offered proof that Shanksville was faked, can you? The fact is that a bunch of conspiracy buffs looked at this crash scene and shrieked in joy thinking that this was the proof they needed of their tinfoilly fantasies. Hip-hip-hoo-fizzle.
The facts about Shanksville aren't much different than any other part of the "story" in that they lied about various aspects of it. The FBI claimed it was "buried" for example. When you press for further details about that statement, you get different answers as to whether or not it WAS buried or not. Can't even get many to admit they said it to begin with...hence, the lack of any credibility of anybody supporting the "official" version. When people need to change the story several times, it is usually indicative of the truth being avoided to begin with. The truth is the truth. It doesn't require a memory and it doesn't change. LIES are part and parcel to all of that. Confuse and ridicule the issues...that's all you guys got. Admittedly you're all doing a fine job though...I can acknowledge that much.
Parts of it were buried, parts were not. No conflict here. Most of, to just aft of the wings, was buried. Do learn to read a report. Confuse and ridicule the issues...that's all you guys got. Admittedly you're all doing a fine job though...I can acknowledge that much.
Be careful or what? You going to break out some of Killtown's (aka suede) bullsh!t? Been there, done that. - - - Updated - - - Be careful or what? You going to break out some of Killtown's (aka suede) bullsh!t? Been there, done that.
So if aircraft (or at least large part of it) was not buried why do they need a backhoe.......? One of the engines from Flight 93 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Flight93engine.jpg The larger/heavier parts were buried - in some cases up to 25 ft deep by the force of impact
When Paul Klipsch was shot down, during WWII, his 35ft-long Spitfire wound up buried about 10ft deep in solid clay in a French farm. Given the comparative weights of a Spitfire and a 757 and the difference in compactability of fill verus undisturbed clay, we have a precedent by which to predict how a given aircraft will crumple or bury itself. No way in hell does a plane like Rivera's bury itself in solid limestone. No way would a 757 NOT bury itself in loose land fill. Be careful about running your mouth without first engaging your brain. A little historical research on the matter can spare you a lot of embarrassing moments.
Of course, no photographic documentation of this 30 foot excavation coming out of the ground though... Maybe there are and they're "under confiscation" along with the Pentagon confiscations. Fantastic theories/BS stories with no proof. (Psssst...probably because there ISN'T any). Only "official" propagators of the OCT.
Oh...seriously dude...did you check with the boss before you posted these postcards? The first shows a hole somewhere...no parts being excavated that I can see. The next shows people standing around looking through partitions...maybe they're getting issued their military uniforms? Who knows? They could be playing playing charades...perhaps voting? Shows nothing dude. The last one is the most common piece of something, in a hole, perhaps placed there, perhaps not. It's a hole, a backhoe, and a rusty piece of metal that looks like it's been "somewhere" a very long time (rusting away). Nothing there dude. I can show you pictures of a million dollars too...doesn't mean they're mine. I could show you a sand pile at the beach and claim it's where King Tut's tomb was found. How would you know? You got nothin' there bro.
Nice hand wave. Do you enjoy being willfully dishonest to yourself? You asked for evidence of 30 foot excavation. I showed you an aerial photo of a huge excavated hole where UA93 crashed. They don't dig holes for nothing. Or.. they're sorting through the debris recovered. You dismiss the most obvious answer and come up with a list of highly unlikely alternatives. No wonder you're a conspiracy theorists; theories is all you're interesting in. The fail is strong in this comment. Have you ever heard of 'chain of custody'? Legally, evidence has to have one. This photo has one, from the prosecutions trial exhibits for Zacarias Moussaoui. It chains to the crash site of UA93. As for the brown tinge of the engine, maybe you shouldn't have flunked science. Only Iron rusts. Jet engines are made of Titanium alloy, as well as some parts made from a carbon fibre called Hyfil. The brown tinge on the engine is dirt. You know.. from being buried? I have evidence with chain of custody showing 757 debris linked to UA93. You have hand waving and hands over eyes. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2 https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page3 Witnesses, debris, overwhelming evidence to support that 100% of the evidence points towards UA93 crashing in Shanksville. You have 0% evidence, only hand waving and not producing anything to say otherwise.
Anyone with an IQ at room temp or above can recognize that location, if they watched much TV between 11 SPET and 11 OCT 0f 2001 as the site of the crash at Shanksville. {QUOTE]The next shows people standing around looking through partitions...maybe they're getting issued their military uniforms? Who knows? They could be playing playing charades...perhaps voting? Shows nothing dude.[/QUOTE]Looks like a standard dirt-sifting table for a paeleontological or archaeolgical dig, or for a forensic remains recovery operation. Cow cookies. It is obviously a 757 engiune that had entered the ground there while still running. At least, it is obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about aircraft engines and aircraft crash sites. Based on my experience as a Fire Protection Specialist, U.S. Air Force, AFSC 57150, I will state categoricly that that engine is exactly where i would have expected to find it, in the condition in which I would expect to find it. Please note that all raised surfaces of the top rotor are free of foreign material or corrosion and of the right color for the alloys used in the manufacture of aircraft engines of that type. You will also notice that there are small, rectangular pieces of greyish metal similar to the metal in the rotors. These are turbine blades broken off of those roters. The reddish coating on the rotors and between layers of the sheet metal of the exterior of the engine is exactly the same color as the dry earth around the object. You are singularly unqualified to make this statement, and are, in my professional opinion as a trained first-eschalon investigator of such events, maundering pointlessly. Because it would just be a pile of sand, and would contain no trace of the materials of which the tomb was constructed. DERP! (I have spent some time artound a few archaeological digs, mostly in Libya.) You got nothin' there bro.
to listen to his ramblings would be plain idiotic.he is afraid of the truth and lives in denial and ignores facts and evidence all the time.you should start a comedy club.posting pics of easily plantable fake evidence.you cant show any pics of the nose section,the tail section,the luggae,the seats,nothing.!!!! miserable fail.
yep you have zero evidence alright,funny that you worship what the NET tells you.witnesses? you just countered yourself.some said they saw a MISSILE shoot it down.you have ZERO evidence that points towards UA93.fake debris doesnt count,sorry you lose. oh and griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING counters you lies and DEBWUNKER links,grow up.
