thats the understatement of the centuray that he gots nothing.Boy he sure checked with the boss like you said in his reply to you because he is doing what they always do,refer to DEBWUNKER Links when he is cornered using easy planatable evidence.wonder how much his boss paid him to post that propaganda? He obviously has not read griffins book.It debunks all his DEBWUNKER links. this counters your ramblings and propaganda.Oh and since you want to bring witnesses in it? proof you are not objective and open minded. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread536069/pg1 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1574756/pg1 http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/noplane.htm
Refer to my boss cute. I love how you no planers have to hide from the evidence by insisting who ever is supplying it must be in on the conspiracy. Oh how a lunatic mind works. Fact is fact, UA93 crashed in shanksville, and you no planers will never change that fact.
fact is fact and that you have ZERO evidence in your ramblings,yep thats the lunatic mind of a coincidence theorists like yourself,worship what our corrupt media tells you and ignore what other witnesses say that counter your ramblings.your the one hiding from the evidence,as I just said,you could produce no evidence of the seats,luggage,or tail section that you see in a plane crash,just pics of easily plantable evidence and when cornered with witnesses who saw somethign different and those links,you ignore it,plus you cowardly just as predicted,refuse to read that book i mentioned.way to go,great job,yeay your boss sure is getting desperate now the way he sent you here so quickly to ramble again.hee hee.
Youo don't get to do that. You don't just say stuff can be planted without explaining how it could be planted.. Show your work. There is no way that the evidence at Shanksville could be planted. One would have to be utterly ignorant of fire fighting, flying and ditch digging to believe that that site was faked. That simple. All of the conspiracy theorists here have demonstrated an utter lack of knowledge in all of these areas. I reiterate, Griffin is a shaman and has no relevant credentials and has, in the last 11 years, asociated with a lot of real scumbags who intend harm to civilization in order to sell his piece of crap book. Just his public statements regarding the book are enopugh to know that he relies heavily on the maunderings of the clueless when he calls him,self doing "research." I am not going to waste the money i could use buying ammo on a waste of paper, nor spend the time I could use more prouctively, like having a good wank, reading his delusional ramblings. ATS is generally useless other than as a source of links to check out. Most of the time, the links ultimaterly end in a pile of tin foil. There are idiots posting there who think that the crater looks like it was made with explosives. Such ranting, purposely uninformed schmucks! Actually, Wally Miller just threw your premise in the circular file. He is saying that a lot of ranting imbeciles misconstrued what he said and didn't follow up on it. The disinformation movement needs to learn a lot about this concept of "evidence." How are the maunderings of a schizophrenic old biddy relevant?
Back at you. Show me the evidence that Jenny Rivera's plane actually crashed, using the same standards you apply to Shanksville.
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.[/QUOTE] All that from a non verifiable picture huh? Lemme guess....10 piles of sand in 10 pictures from 10 different places and YOU call tell me where each came from, all by the picture presented huh? Well, I guess you're just too good for me.. If I take a close up picture of my toe in America, and then in Russia, can you tell me which is which? Please...I must know.
Of course it did...because that's "what they say". It would be crazy to ask for any proof. That's how an "official" mind must work.
I have seen the Google images of the crash site and news footage from the day of the crash and subsequent photos of the excavation. The location of the pit is absolutely verifiable on that basis. I have seen photos of the sifting boxes in reports of the excavation. There are no anomolies to suggest that this one is from any other location. The photo of the recovered engine was submitted in evidence at the Moussaui trial. There are zero anomolies in the nature or condition of the debris to indicate that it did not come to be there by the process identified. The soil is exactly the sort that I have seen described for the location. It is fill composed at least in large part of coal mine tailings. It would require a great deal of planning and research to stage the excavation photos in any other location than at the crash site. Well, of course not. I would need data from a minimum of ten square feet of terrain, and even that might not provide enough data to tell which was from where. I would need to know something about the typical soil and vegetation or about typical construction materials used in a given location. I could, for instance, tell the difference between the soil in a Russian wheat field and one near Yakima, Washington, or a street surface in Spanaway and one in Moscow, but it would have to be something as distinctive as that. This is part of the problem here. You lot see anomolies where there is none or misinterpret them without an adequate data base or personal experience. - - - Updated - - - There exists ZERO evidence to the contrary, regardless what Dylan Avery's ear crickets might tell hium.
Denial denial denial, thats all I hear from you you no planers. A life of denial where you cannot understand chain of custody, legal evidence/reports, official documents. You dismiss the obvious, and run with highly unlikely alternatives. You fail to produce a shred of anything to counter the official sources. There can be no dialog here. Balls in your court. Some of the pictures I linked come from trial evidence from a court of law. They are validated legally. If you don't think so, prove it. Show me one shred of evidence that invalidates the pictures shown. Let's start with this one; This picture is validated by the US courts. It has a chain of custody. Legally, it is valid. Your turn no planers, add some substance to your hot air. Prove this picture is invalid.
You will be a while waiting for that. TMers don't do evidence. They do bare assertions and call it an argument. They cannot even use their own argumments to defend a known fact. I have asked them to prove that the pictures in the OP were really of the Jenny Rivera crash scene. So far, not even their ear crickets seem to have anything.
DUH! The other one was not recovered in the same place. Not rocket science. There are other pictures of debris. These are here and convenient to use. Why waste band width when all we really need is a couple for you to use to dispaly your inability to assess evidence. BTW, got proof that Jenny rivera's aircraft went down where you claim it did?
Dodge noted. I will repeat; this picture is legally validated by the US court system. It has a legal chain of custody which links to being taken from the excavation of the crash site of UA93. It is valid photographic proof of the event. I put it to you, that you must give true reason why this picture is not valid. Prove to us all that you can do more than just spout hot air. Prove this photo is invalid. Prove this picture is fake. Prove this picture did not come from the crash site of UA93.
"Legally validated"? What does that mean exactly? How do I prove it's fake? We have a close up picture of dirt, a backhoe, and rusted metal. How would I verify where that photo took place, or how that rust is Flight 93's engine, or that the hole is even in the United States? I can't. Neither can anyone else.
the lies just flow easily from your fingers,don't they? Face it fraud,the truth is better than anything you people have come up with in the last 11 years
2nd dodge noted. As I have stated, this picture has been used in a court of law in the US. It is valid legally. Stop with the hot air, add some substance. This picture has been proven valid. To support your claims, you must invalidate this picture. Provide something which proves this picture is invalid. Come on, you've dodged twice already. You've believed your crap for years now, whats stopping you from posting some of your evidence? Prove this photo is not valid. ps. Titanium doesn't rust. Got science?
I happily dodge no starters...especially when the answer to your question is in these very threads (if you were actually looking for answers). Titanium DOESN'T rust. How astute of you. That's why it ISN'T titanium. Apparently though...it DOES seem to evaporate very easily.
Third dodge, even accompanied by a failed explanation. The engine is neither rusted, nor vaporised. Come on Fraud, prove to me that picture is not valid. Three dodges down, lets see if you can actually provide something other than dribble.
If I show you a picture of a penis, can you prove it isn't mine? You DO see how ridiculous your comment is, don't you?
