I can't see why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy.

[T.A.M.]

like i thought, no evidence that the presented imprint is indeed the crashscene

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM

 

[DC]

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM

pictures when they digging in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

 

[WildCat]

yeah wait til i dump my interview with wally....

Oooooh! The latest smoking gun from the thoroughly incompetent CIT!

Proof that 9/11 was an inside job! It comes out just as soon as it can be edited to make the interviewees look like they are saying something they're not...

 

[Mr.Herbert]

yeah wait til i dump my interview with wally....

dump your interview with Wally?

My son is going to LOVE it!

 

[funk de fino]

pictures when they digget in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

Digget is not a word, try again.

There is more than one picture of the scene. Fail again.

 

[Hokulele]

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM

The problem with asking this question to CTists is that they will think of something that is a) almost impossible to find and b) almost completely irrelevant given the amount of evidence that already exists. Just note the repeated demands for an aircraft part showing serial numbers.

The CTists don't want concrete evidence. Ever. That will kill their fantasies and force them to face reality, unpleasant as that may be.

This is one reason I never bother with questions of this nature, as it always give them a reason to retain their unreasonableness.

 

[Pardalis]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

That's because there weren't any bodies left, just a few body parts.

If you actually read Gravy's links, you would have read this:

"the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact.[...] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."

Not gruesome enough for you? Still feel the need to insult the death of these people?

 

[Corsair 115]

i can't figure out what the implications of proving the Bush Administration fabricated a story in order to rally a nation into war without an investigation....no shades of tillman or lynch here.

Perhaps I've got my conspiracists mixed up, but aren't you the fellow who claims an A-3 Skywarrior is what really impacted the Pentagon?

 

[Calcas]

Perhaps I've got my conspiracists mixed up, but aren't you the fellow who claims an A-3 Skywarrior is what really impacted the Pentagon?

Nah, I think that was Terral.

The CIT fools don't have a theory. They just think they know what didn't happen...

 

[Travis]

i can't figure out what the implications of proving the Bush Administration fabricated a story in order to rally a nation into war without an investigation....no shades of tillman or lynch here.

A terrible friendly fire incident and a POW rescue prove 9/11 was an inside job? I can't wait to hear the convoluted logic behind that one.

 

[T.A.M.]

pictures when they digging in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

BS. If they had a picture of them digging in the crater, you would likely say this...

(A) Oh look, funny we can't see out wide enough to tell if this is even the Shanksvilles site...I'm not convinced.

(B) Funny we see them digging, but I don't see any plane parts, or any body parts...I'm not convinced.

(C) Funny we see them digging, and that could be a plane part, but how do we know they didn't fake the shot and the parts...I'm not convinced.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

As for any new witness interviews...

IT IS 2008. THE EVENT OCCURRED SEVEN ****ING YEARS AGO!!!!

For god's sake. There is absolutely no accuracy, no validity, nothing, that you can take from a recounting of an incident that took but a few seconds, that was witnessed from a distance, that occurred that long ago.

Any new, magical witnesses are as useless as the rest of the interviews TC and CIT have....

TAM

 

[TC329]

As for any new witness interviews...

IT IS 2008. THE EVENT OCCURRED SEVEN ****ING YEARS AGO!!!!

For god's sake. There is absolutely no accuracy, no validity, nothing, that you can take from a recounting of an incident that took but a few seconds, that was witnessed from a distance, that occurred that long ago.

Any new, magical witnesses are as useless as the rest of the interviews TC and CIT have....

TAM

admit it TAM this was one of your alter egos wasn't it :

"Sorry -you got it backwards. I don't have an open mind, I was taught bettern then that."
anonymous duh-bunker "1975"

 

[TheRedWorm]

Any physical evidence yet, TC?

 

[gumboot]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.

The sole objective of all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists is to prove the official account wrong. In any way they can. They don't care about the ramifications of their claims - that's why so many of theirs contradict each other.

The official account says UA93 was not shot down. That's why they say it was.

 

[TC329]

Any physical evidence yet, TC?

oh great anonymous armchair researcher "TheRedWorm" please tell me what it is that i have to do to convince you?

do i have to present you plane debris?

human remains?

missile fragments?

what is it that you require almighty anonymous god of all truths?

 

[TheRedWorm]

please tell me what it is that i have to do to convince you?

do i have to present you plane debris?

From a plane that is not flight 77? Yes, that would go a very long way in proving your case.

human remains?

I can't honestly think of who would be dead at the Pentagon that would prove whatever theory you are promoting, but if you have an idea, let me know.

missile fragments?

Most definitely. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not flight 77, and you were to provide physical evidence of said missile, then I would be convinced that your theory was true.

what is it that you require almighty anonymous god of all truths?

Physical evidence. Now that I have responded to your questions, answer mine: What piece(s) of evidence or line of reasoning would it take for you to accept that flight 77, hijacked by Islamic terrorists, deliberately struck the Pentagon?

 

[TC329]

From a plane that is not flight 77? Yes, that would go a very long way in proving your case.

well i don't have access to the debris to confirm through maintenance logs through serial numbers since its tucked away in an underground city at iron mountain arguably the most secured location on earth.

but you'll have to just take my word for now that flight 77 didn't crash in the field in shanksville.

I can't honestly think of who would be dead at the Pentagon that would prove whatever theory you are promoting, but if you have an idea, let me know.

well people who worked at the pentagon would be dead there but this has nothing to do with that. you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.....

Most definitely. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not flight 77, and you were to provide physical evidence of said missile, then I would be convinced that your theory was true.

i dont believe a missile hit the pentagon.
i dont believe flight 77 hit it either but i don't see the relevance to this and how it pertains to this thread.

Physical evidence. Now that I have responded to your questions, answer mine: What piece(s) of evidence or line of reasoning would it take for you to accept that flight 77, hijacked by Islamic terrorists, deliberately struck the Pentagon?

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.

 

[WildCat]

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.

In other words, you require a ridiculous amount of proof for the universally accepted course of events but you require only the most flimsy of evidence involving a tiny percentage of the witnesses (all of whom say Flight 77 hit the pentagon) who have been cajoled into saying the plane went vaguely north of the Citgo and an FDR found in the Pentagon misinterpreted by the dolts and hacks at PffffT.

Your reasoning skills are pathetic TC.

 

[beachnut]

no there is no photographic evidence of such.

there were remains photographed outside the crater.

remains said to have been recovered from inside arrived at the DMORT set up where wally miller and company were. there was no official documentation to their recovery locations.

wally miller also wasn't allowed to grid the field properly as is done with all airplane crashes the fbi was opposed to it saying there wasn't enough man power.

The remains were identified. You lack the ability to understand reality, and have little airplane flying around PA under wires right, as in a few feet above cars. You are funny, and sick as you manufacture false ideas on 9/11 as easy as breathing.

u, debunked by thousand of pieces, tiny pieces of evidence since 2001.

Even the terrorist understand you are making this up. r they are laughing at your ideas?