The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11

RedIbis said:
You're thinking of someone else. I don't have a blog. A no planer, as I understand it, does not believe that planes hit the towers. That's not me.
Click to expand...
Then what point do you wish to make by your futile pretence that the planes have not been identified?
 
johnny karate said:
I hate to break it to you, but arguing that United 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes you a no-planer.
Click to expand...

Just another stupid label so that you have a fictitious enemy to fix your mind around.

Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes me a skeptic since there is little or no evidence of anything crashing there. It's not like I think Flight 93 just evaporated but it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
 
RedIbis said:
Just another stupid label so that you have a fictitious enemy to fix your mind around.

Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes me a skeptic since there is little or no evidence of anything crashing there. It's not like I think Flight 93 just evaporated but it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
Click to expand...

Better tell United then. They believe they got the majority of their plane back.
 
Little or no evidence there? You mean 95% of the plane isn't enough? Identifying ALL of the passengers AND the hijackers isn't enough? Should they have come up with more people than were on the plane maybe? I geuss the witnesses who saw it doesn't count? I guess the responders who were there and saw it don't count? I guess the RADAR data, the FDR, the voice recorder aren't enough? The confessions, the money trails, the phone calls aren't enough? There isn't a single more conclusive plane crash in history than flight 93.

And if that's not enough, go look up flight 1771. Almost identical to the crash of flight 93. And guess what. The witnesses were all claiming how there was almost nothing left of the plane.
 
RedIbis said:
...it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
Click to expand...


Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're the one looking to re-write history, therefore you're the one making the extraordinary claim. And as you've been told about six or seven hundred times by now, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

If you feel otherwise, fine. But on a skepticism board it's the general rule, and you not liking it (which I'm sure has nothing to do with you not having anything resembling extraordinary evidence... or even ordinary evidence for that matter :rolleyes: ) doesn't change that one bit, and quite honestly never will.
 
Or, lets for the sake of argument pretend the onus is on you to provide us with a single qualified person (air accident investigator would be absolutely perfect) who thinks Shanksville looks whiffy. Remember: there's an entire planet out there, populated by many people who would like to bloody the US' nose.

Are any of them suspicious? Or are you just going to mumble "Rob Balsamo"?
 
RedIbis said:
Just another stupid label so that you have a fictitious enemy to fix your mind around.
Click to expand...

Not so much that as an understanding of the definition of the words "no" and "plane". See, if you're theorizing that there was "no plane" in Shanksville, that makes you a "no planer".

And believe me when I tell you, delusional strangers I occasionally encounter on an Internet forum are hardly worth the effort to make into enemies, fictitious or otherwise.

RedIbis said:
Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes me a skeptic since there is little or no evidence of anything crashing there. It's not like I think Flight 93 just evaporated but it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
Click to expand...

Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes you a contrarian. There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to accept it. And it's not incumbent upon me, or anyone else, to prove anything to you. You do not represent any kind of authority or final arbiter. Personally, I'm quite content to allow you your ridiculous fantasies. As for the rest of the world, I doubt they care what you think.
 
RedIbis said:
Have you seen the ditch in Shanksville?
Click to expand...
That would be the one with all the plane parts and body parts?

Incidentally:

Ditch, noun: A long narrow trench or furrow dug in the ground, as for irrigation, drainage, or a boundary line.​

Being a Truther doesn't mean you have to take every opportunity to be wrong. You could just settle for being wrong in ways that would promote The Truth if only you could convince anyone.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Just another stupid label so that you have a fictitious enemy to fix your mind around.

Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes me a skeptic since there is little or no evidence of anything crashing there. It's not like I think Flight 93 just evaporated but it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
Click to expand...

Well hell, Red Ibis, now there you go derailing your own thread. Just because your headline: "The FBI Has No Record of any Evidence of the Four Flights Used on 9/11" was flat out contradicted by the very damn document that you linked to.

That document said: 1. any evidence would have been in a file exempt from disclosure under FOIA; and 2. "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

So don't derail your own thread just because your headline has been proven FALSE.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Just another stupid label so that you have a fictitious enemy to fix your mind around.
Click to expand...
If the shoe fits......

Arguing that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville makes me a skeptic since there is little or no evidence of anything crashing there. It's not like I think Flight 93 just evaporated but it's incumbent upon you to prove it crashed right there in that remarkably unburnt ditch with what looks like scrap from the nearby scrapyard scattered around.
Click to expand...

Actually Red, It's the other way around. The debris, remains, impact, etc. create a body of evidence that supports the supposition that flight 93 crashed there. The investigation conducted by the various organizations is the argument based on the evidence that supports the claim of flight 93 crashing at Shanksville.

We who believe that flight 93 crashed at Shanksville are not making a claim, rather we are accepting the validity of the evidence and the investigation.

It is you, on the other hand, who are making the claim that the evidence does not support that flight 93 crashed at Shankesville, therefore it is incumbent upon you to prove your position that the evidence was faked and that flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville.

Where is your investigation/evidence that supports your claims?

You have to do better than "the ditch doesn't look right to me".
 
uruk said:
You have to do better than "the ditch doesn't look right to me".
Click to expand...

Like all 9/11 Truth failures, RedIbis does not understand science, only religion. "The ditch doesn't look right" is all he has, because he does not understand science, evidence, or logic. If you take that away from him, he will have nothing left to debate with.

Incidentally, RedIbis has not addressed posts #34 or #35, most likely because his argument is pure faith, no facts. He can prove me wrong easily by simple addressing posts #34 and #35.
 
1337m4n said:
Incidentally, RedIbis has not addressed posts #34 or #35, most likely because his argument is pure faith, no facts. He can prove me wrong easily by simple addressing posts #34 and #35.
Click to expand...

C'mon, you know the new improved no planer Red Ibis won't be back. This thread is just like all of his other threads:

Red's OP: Cut and paste some BS from 911 Blogger
posts 1-30: Red's cut and paste job gets systematically debunked
Red: Ignores everything that has been said
posts 32-60 More explanation that red ignores
Red: derails his own thread
posts 62- infinity: more detail,
Red: crickets
 
RedIbis said:
Really? Wow. Don't hesitate to post a picture of that.
Click to expand...

db_P200060-11.jpg


db_P200061-11.jpg


db_P200062-11.jpg


db_P200065-11.jpg


db_P200069-11.jpg


db_EPA11.jpg


db_EPA51.jpg



Prediction: RedIbis will completely ignore this post.
 
1337m4n said:
Prediction: RedIbis will completely ignore this post.
Click to expand...
Of course he will, RedIbis ignores all evidence that contradicts his fantasy. He will run away, and return when he thinks we have forgotten what a dishonest fraud he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom