If it is over three inches, we have reason to doubt it. It would, further, need to be found in association with something else that we know is attacked to you, or near where you were dismembered in some amusing way. We know that an aircraft engine got buried in the dirt along with a whole lot of other pieces of an aircraft. Now, back to the questiuon I asked you earlier. Can you prove that the pictures posted at the begining of this thread are of the site where Jenny Rivera met her fate?
4th dodge. These are building up quick. As I have stated, the picture has already been verified. I put it to you to invalidate it. I want you to provide evidence that the picture of UA93's engine being excavated from the crash site in Shanksville is not valid. Until you are able to provide any evidence the picture is not valid, then it stands that UA93 did indeed crash in that location, and that indeed is one of its engines. 4th dodge, lets see on your fifth if you can actually provide anything useful.
Based upon what we have heard, and what I can observe of that engine there is better proof that Flt 93 plowed into the ground at Shanksville than, based on any of the evidence have seen, that Jenny Rivera's plane made those marks on the hillside in the photos in the origninal post.
I guess Valujet Flight 592 was a conspiracy too; Or PSA Flight 1771; Or Caspian Airlines Flight 7908; Look at the planted engine, look at that rust on it
The manner in which you conduct debate on this forum is a perpetual and tragic comedy of errors. Whats more, you accusing other people of being 'not objective and open minded' is acute hypocrisy. There really is no point in even trying to engage in debate with you as anyone who thinks that threads from forums like above top secret and god like productions constitutes evidence of anything lacks the intellectual faculties required for critical thinking and analysis. Its really sad that an individual can be so grossly misinformed and misguided. I feel sorry for you.
"We know" is invalid because "we" DON'T know. We "DO" know that's what some official conspiracy theory pushers advocate, but the evidence is suspect and unverifiable. Don't know who Jenny Rivera is, nor do I want to know. It's not relevant to 9/11 and the fact that the "official" BS story lacks serious credibility at every level.
Then what is considered "credible" to you? I see you post crap from conspiracy websites all the time. I think by "credible" you mean, "things that prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy." I've seen you post to several horrible sites.
I doubt anything that is government sourced is credible, since they've lied repeatedly about everything.
So what you're saying is that you believe absolutely nothing except conspiracy sites? That's the only explanation. I have linked to independent studies (like the millette dust study), who is not government. Also, the information in the NIST report has been confirmed by several independent universities and independent researchers. So are you saying that no evidence provided by anyone will be considered "credible"? Then what's the point of even posting here for you?
I have linked to independent studies repeatedly here and you choose not to believe any of them so....maybe you can answer your own question here. Anything counter to the "official" BS story and you dub it a "conspiracy" site. I'm saying credible information from credible individuals (for instance, airline pilots, former military personnel, architects, eyewitnesses, etc..) It IS pointless to post here when shills intervene continually and where many folks refuse to consider anything counter to what they were fed originally but, I do it anyway, hoping to snag one or two readers every once in a while, hoping they engage in their own private research and discover the truth. "No evidence provided by anyone" DOES seem to be your game plan though,I'd surmise.
This is not rtue. We discount the worth of those sites which we know are run by dimwits and we point out factual errors based on bad research, and we call liars liars when we catch them lying. Nearly all of your sources are liars. The only ones who are not liars are drooling lunatics and morons. Obviously, we are unlikely to overcome your delusions and convince you of the truth after this long. We are mostly painting over your graffiti so that the serious truth seeker will not be led down the rabbit hole to be fed upon by the mind-eating spiders. Well, of course, given that you have given us no credible evidence, not do you have any basis upon which to assess which evidence is credible or not. The professor has no obligation to sit down while the brain-damaged Freshman gives his dissenting statements to the class.
I'll count that as your fifth dodge. I asked you to provide evidence that the picture is question is fake. Stating "the government lies therefore nothing is credible" is not proving anything. You've yet to link any substance to your posts. As I have stated, this evidence has been used in the US legal system. It is valid credible proof. If you believe it is not credible, PROVE IT.
Only if it written by known criminals, racist aggitators, known lunatics or people talking outside their areas of expertise, making staements known to those of us with the relevant experience to be flase or misleading statements. For instance, anything said by Pierre-Henri Bunel is easily discounted as a lie because he: 1.) Is a convicted felon with a grudge against America and most of NATO 2.) Is a known liar who has, in his agitation for "independent investigation, outrightly lied about his credentials and training and made deliberately false statements. Anything that Chris Bollyn says can be assumed to be misleading because he is a terrorist agent known to be working to stir up the shrieking monkeys to take part in the RaHoWa. Anything That Killtown or Rosalie Grable, aka The WebFairie say can be dismissed because they are psychotic. Judy Wood can be dismissed out of hand because she is psychotic and makes demonstrably false statements. Anything that Albert Stubblebine says can be discounted because he was, at the time he made his statements, obviouslly losing his marbles, and his actions while on active duty suggest that he had put one over on the mental health people for years, remaining on duty after he went nuckinfutz. His lack of integrity is also clear in the way that he committed adultery while his wife was slowly dying, them tried to screw her out of alimony by quitting his job and moving in with his bimbo and claiming poverty. His case is cited as a precedent in Virginia family law to the effect that you don't get to do that. The people assessing those witness statements are, largely, unfit to do so. Griffin and that Canadian wimp MacQueen come readily to mind. Theologians with no training in the areas they investigate. MacQueen even cites people who insist that he is a dumb SOB as supporting his position. Karen Deshore, for instance, thinks he is deliberately misleading people and denies that what he quoted of her comments supports his stupidity. I, as a veteran fire fighter, have to agree with her that the boy is talking out his ass. He's a Buddhist monk, not an arson investigator. This is exactly why we have to make sure that you do not have a chance to present your lies unchallenged. It is not in the interest of the human species that a revolution be started by useful idiots who will follow the Organization over the cliff of RaHoWa.
I'm still waiting for you Fraud to provide evidence that the picture is not valid. Until you do, the picture is therefore valid and UA93 crashed where the official story stated. Still waiting.
So say you. It isn't valid because it DIDN'T crash there. There would be evidence if that were the case. All WE have is "official" BS and an overabundance of inconsistencies.
An "official" story which you haven't yet proved false. Crucial to the "official" story is debris recovered and photographed. As validated by the US courts, the picture in question is legitimate and proves UA93 crashed in that location. You disagree, and so I ask you to prove it. Prove the picture is invalid. Prove by some evidence that the picture is invalid. Prove it.
Validated (supposedly) by courts who took the word of somebody else. Yeah...that proves the case alright. What we need is a truly "independent" investigation, but we'll never get it, of course. Proof that it is invalid? Same offering of "proof" that it IS valid. " So and so" says it. No different.
Still dodging Fraud. You stand so strong in your opinion, I only ask you to prove it. Prove the picture is invalid. Is it so much to ask that you provide a shred of evidence for your belief???
You have forgotten one thing. You are making the more extreme assertion, thus bear the extreme burden of proof. Prove that anything else could have done the damage that was seen at any of the crash sites and you will look less a nattering poppinjay.
Well, if there were more than one to compare it to, perhaps more information could be ascertained. The fact that the only ONE we've ever seen is the same one over and over. Probably a good reason for that too. Ya think?
