evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[TC329]

Stop twisting Wally Miller's claim. First your movement wants to discredit him, and use his words to claim that there was no plane (which he has gone on record to state that your movement was WRONG about what he stated), and now you want to use him to prove that there DEFINITELY was a plane by having him use his claim that he saw an "engine".



Make up your mind.

first off it isn't "my movement".

whatever anyone else wants to do with wally millers words is what they do with their little obscure quotes.

i call people.
i email them.
i write them.
i visit them.
i talk with them.
i film them.

i present it to the american public in its entirety without taking anyones statements out of context or twisting their words. i have proven to have done this twice so far. both people have told stories that contradict the official story. not my fault. i didn't invent the official lie.

and there is still more to come. thats gotta be the part thats really eating at you all.....

 

[johnny karate]

i present it to the american public in its entirety without taking anyones statements out of context or twisting their words. i have proven to have done this twice so far. both people have told stories that contradict the official story. not my fault. i didn't invent the official lie.

and there is still more to come. thats gotta be the part thats really eating at you all.....

Not nearly as much as it must eat at you that the "American public" to which you present all of your "evidence" steadfastly ignores you.

 

[Pardalis]

the physical evidence is not fake. how can it be?

Well you're a no-planer, right? So if no plane hit the Pentagon, then the physical evidence of a plane crash was staged, faked to believe it was.

the fdr is fake.

Then why does it contradict the conspirator's plan to make believe a plane crashed there?

So who screwed up? The guys who fixed the FDR data, or the guys who sent whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon?

ETA: in other words, is the FDR data wrong, or is it the false plane crash trajectory?

 

[Arus808]

try researching for a bit instead of wasting my time.

sorry, but since you can't provide evidence of your claim, we'll just add it to the many lies you have posted.

 

[Arus808]

first off it isn't "my movement".

IT IS your movement. As long as you associate with anyone that is part of the movement, REPEAT their long debunked lies, and believe that 911 was perpetrated by anyone OTHER Than 19 Hijackers and the backing of Al Quaeda, you are apart of that 911 movement.

whatever anyone else wants to do with wally millers words is what they do with their little obscure quotes.

i call people.
i email them.
i write them.
i visit them.
i talk with them.
i film them.

i present it to the american public in its entirety without taking anyones statements out of context or twisting their words. i have proven to have done this twice so far. both people have told stories that contradict the official story. not my fault. i didn't invent the official lie.

You've been shown to also,
twist people's claims and statements
cherry pick their statements
misrepresent their statements
and lie to them directly
and also film them without permission or letting them know as to why you are filming them (by telling them something else).

 

[TC329]

Well you're a no-planer, right? So if no plane hit the Pentagon, then the physical evidence of a plane crash was staged, faked to believe it was.

go read the title of this thread.

when your comprehension catches up with the rest of the class come back and we'll talk.

 

[TC329]

sorry, but since you can't provide evidence of your claim, we'll just add it to the many lies you have posted.

go ahead.

when you can provide proper documentation and sourcing for my "many lies" maybe somebody will believe you're not just making something up and repeating it until the lemmings learn to parrot it back.

 

[Arus808]

go read the title of this thread.

when your comprehension catches up with the rest of the class come back and we'll talk.

you should read the title of the thread, since you've yet to provide evidence of a shoot down, for flight 93, and this thread is about evidence that proves that IT wasn't shot down.

 

[TC329]

IT IS your movement. As long as you associate with anyone that is part of the movement, REPEAT their long debunked lies, and believe that 911 was perpetrated by anyone OTHER Than 19 Hijackers and the backing of Al Quaeda, you are apart of that 911 movement.

it is not "MY" movement.

if it was it would be better organized and have accomplished a hell of a lot more.

You've been shown to also,
twist people's claims and statements

source?

cherry pick their statements

proof?

misrepresent their statements
and lie to them directly

proof?

and also film them without permission or letting them know as to why you are filming them (by telling them something else).

again, any proof to a single imaginary claim?

 

[TJM]

OK, just finished watching the Miller interview. Maybe I missed something but where does Miller back up this claim that you made in post #128:

the left engine was recovered in a pond 500-600 yards ahead of the crash site. it was fully intact. obviously seperated from the plane while the plane was airborne.

my source is for the above information is wally miller.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Arus808]

Shall we link to every post you've made here Dom (hint you can do that yourself)? Nothing imaginary about the claims made about you here.


Now, care to post proof of this "intact" engine, or admit that you are SEVERLY misrepresenting Wally Miller's statements.

 

[TC329]

OK, just finished watching the Miller interview. Maybe I missed something but where does Miller back up this claim that you made in post #128:



Thanks in advance.

so you watched the whole interview and completely missed the whole discussion about the engine being recovered in the pond 500-600 yards ahead of the crash site?

did you see where he drew the map?

and then annotated it and explained everything?

 

[Pardalis]

go read the title of this thread.

when your comprehension catches up with the rest of the class come back and we'll talk.

You see TC, you've been caught in your own conundrum.

If the plane crash was real, and the FDR contradicted its trajectory, then there would be no doubt that the FDR was wrong, because if both were real then they normally should be in accordance. The FDR has to be the one who is wrong. The plane crash can't be wrong if it's real.

But the problem is that you believe they were both not real, the plane crash and the FDR. If they are both false, then the fake ones necessarily have to agree with each other. If the false FDR disagrees with the false plane crash, then somebody must have screwed up along the way.

So again, who did?

ETA: I meant Shanksville, not the Pentagon.

 

[TJM]

so you watched the whole interview and completely missed the whole discussion about the engine being recovered in the pond 500-600 yards ahead of the crash site?

did you see where he drew the map?

and then annotated it and explained everything?

I did see that. I heard no explanation of a fully intact engine being recovered. Is that what you heard?

 

[TJM]

Was it something I said?

 

[TC329]

You see TC, you've been caught in your own conundrum.

If the plane crash was real, and the FDR contradicted its trajectory, then there would be no doubt that the FDR was wrong, because if both were real then they normally should be in accordance. The FDR has to be the one who is wrong. The plane crash can't be wrong if it's real.

congratulations! you get it now.

But the problem is that you believe they were both not real, the plane crash and the FDR. If they are both false, then the fake ones necessarily have to agree with each other. If the false FDR disagrees with the false plane crash, then somebody must have screwed up along the way.

So again, who did?

ETA: I meant Shanksville, not the Pentagon.

the problem is you believe that i believe they were both not real.

 

[TC329]

I did see that. I heard no explanation of a fully intact engine being recovered. Is that what you heard?

wally didn't say it was fully intact.

wally said it was the biggest piece of debris that was found and that it was in the pond 500-600 yards ahead.

the reason this is the biggest piece of debris that was recovered is that it was seperated from the plane while it was in the air and it landed in the pond ahead of the plane.

now we've seen the engine that was in the crater and the dinner table size pieces of the fuselage and this is bigger than those. those pieces [minus the engine] and more were in the hundreds of photos i looked through so wally is well aware of them when he calls the left engine the biggest piece of debris recovered.

do you deny the biggest piece of debris recovered was the engine that was recovered 500-600 yards ahead of the crash site in a pond?

 

[Disbelief]

wouldn't you agree that at least 50tons to accomodate the 100tons being forced into it?

I did not ask for you to make a guess, I asked for you to provide the calculations on how much dirt would be displaced. Then, you would have to determine how much was actually displaced and compare the results. See Dom, I am helping you gather evidence to support your claim.

 

[TC329]

I did not ask for you to make a guess, I asked for you to provide the calculations on how much dirt would be displaced. Then, you would have to determine how much was actually displaced and compare the results. See Dom, I am helping you gather evidence to support your claim.

wouldn't you agree that at least 50 tons of dirt would have been displaced to accomodate 100 tons of material being forcefully slammed into it?

it's a simple yes or no disbelief.

 

[Disbelief]

wouldn't you agree that at least 50 tons of dirt would have been displaced to accomodate 100 tons of material being forcefully slammed into it?

it's a simple yes or no disbelief.

Dom, it is your claim that not enough dirt was displaced, so it is up to you to prove it. To do so, you will need to calculate the amount of dirt that should have been displaced and compare it to the amount of dirt that actually was displaced. If not, retract your claim.