Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"

[sleahead]

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'

And I bet you'd be wrong.

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

I resent that 'everyone'. However, as a Freeman on the Land, I reserve the right to deal with you any way I see fit.

 

[kookbreaker]

The Lusitania was the first of three events which were required to change the public US perception of the war, as much of the public held to the US's traditional policy of isolationism.

This was followed by the Zimmerman telegram, and the sinking of more US merchant ships. It was after this that the US declared war...

So....you say it was a false flag operation that the Germans admitted doing, warned us they would do, with the net result that we would enter the war in 2-1/2 years.

Right.

 

[leftysergeant]

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

The plane hit in one piece. Deal with it.

In 1940, Paul Klipsch, a British pilot, was shot down over France. His Spitfire MkI buried itself ten feet deep in hard clay soil, compressed from thirty feet into a pile of scrap metal only five feet tall.

And you don't think an even larger, heavier aircraft is going to bury itself deeper into relatively looser glacial till?

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, no-one is claiming they can see a clear or discernable ‘imprint’ left behind by a part of the plane, like a tail fin, wing, engine or nosecone. Why? Because that is clearly nonsense. Yet there are STILL ‘OFFICIAL STORY’ SUPPORTERS who claim to be able to see a clear imprint of the tail fin from F93, even though when shown from a different angle, the ‘imprint’ line is not even straight, and is tens of metres long. Do I think there’s a tail fin imprint at Shanksville? No, I think it’s a stupid idea. Guess what? The people who say that are on YOUR team.

The stupid people are the ones who do not see that the dirt is pushed up into a pile along the down-range edge of the crater.

 

[Justin39640]

historical arguments dont correct the obvious flaws in your hypothesis of flight 93

you are wrong on many many levels

take it as a learning lesson

do some critical thinking including questioning your own beliefs

we all did it with the official story and found it holds up (when starting at a completely neutral and unbiased point)

we also did the same with the "truth?"s story and found it to be ridiculous

so 8 years later
yeah youre gonna get ripped to shreds over dumb assertions

 

[dtugg]

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo.

The McCollum memo was written in 1940. All it proves is that one guy in the Navy thought it would be a good idea to provoke Japan into attacking. It shows nothing of foreknowledge.

FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii.

There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Furthermore, since RADAR technology was in its infancy, and the Japanese maintained radio silence, tracking them was impossible.

A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...

So? As Secretary of the Interior, he had little to nothing to do with military matters. And besides, him thinking that the best way into the war was through Japan does absolutely nothing to show that they knew about the attack beforehand.

This whole they knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen crap doesn't even pass the common sense test. If they knew about it, they could have moved the ships out of the harbor and attacked first, likely sinking several aircraft carriers. This would have been a huge victory for the US and Congress would have still declared war.

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?

If you said that, I would say that you are again demonstrating your poor grasp of history.

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

I see no reason to be friendly towards someone who is spewing lies and apologizing for terrorists.

 

[T.A.M.]

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

There is nothing "Friendly and lively" about discussing false accusations of mass murder...sorry. You want "Friendly and lively", then take your Woo to "disney" forums.

TAM

 

[Justin39640]

There is nothing "Friendly and lively" about discussing false accusations of mass murder...sorry. You want "Friendly and lively", then take your Woo to "disney" forums.

TAM

looking for a friendly debate on a subject as this is kind of disgusting in itself

though
i think we do the best we can to keep it light
i often hold back and have to edit several times to attempt to avoid breaches of my membership agreement
this subject gets me very angry
esp when someone halfway around the world disrespects my dead neighbors and accuses the FDNY of murdering their own

again living here you know lots of firemen AND THEY WOULD BE ANYTHING BUT LIVELY AND FRIENDLY TOWARDS TRUTHERS for making such accusations

there was an old video i cant find anymore of a truther at GZ, he was wearing a suit and had long hair holding a sign or something, a man who appeared to be a fireman was gonna kill the guy but the crowd held him back, any1 have that linked?

that old man in i think markys video woulda done some damage too
he was not happy with the GZ TMers

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

 

[Justin39640]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

those roman numerals are tricky (I/II) lmao

 

[leftysergeant]

Another inconsistency with the ‘official story’ is the usual comparison to the Pan Am 103 crash. People should look up the huge crater left by the Pan Am crash. Here’s the kicker – that massive crater, which was over 150 foot long, and displaced 730yd³ of soil WAS CAUSED JUST BY THE WINGS HITTING THE GROUND at FREEFALL SPEED and the fuel inside them exploding.

No. The crater was made by the fuselage and some of the structural damage was done by the wings. And a crash resulting from an explosion in flight is just naturally going to look different from a controlled flight into terrain. To give you some idea what I am talking about, Flt 103 was like a beer keg dropped from miles up. Flt 93 was an enormous freaking lawn dart.

Yet an ENTIRE 757-200 crashed at around 900km/h, and only left a crater 50-odd foot wide and around 3 metres deep?

Where did you get those figures?

Why the difference?[.QUOTE]

The soil at Shanksville was looser than that at Lockerbie. The plane pushed it up, and it fell back down around the tunnel that the fuselage dug.

To address the vegetation and why it did not catch fire, bear in mind that the explosion would have taken most of the oxygen out of the air, making it almost impossible to start a fire until the air rushed back in.

Again, why is it OK for you to make ASSUMPTIONS based on what you see in photos, and apparently know nothing about, but when I do the same you call me a moron? Again, awesome critical thinking…

You don't get to do that here. I have experience in airfield fire and rescue operations. I have seen what can happen to the structure of an aircraft in a crash. You obviously haven't. Just stop acting like anexpert. You are obviously no rocket scientist, so don't be lecturing us.

 

[Pinch]

" - who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme - "

Which, amazingly, didn't come into existence until 1941.

FAIL!

Keep it up, this is hilarious.

(NB The British had paid for the ammunition on the Lusitania - it would have been churlish not to deliver it).

You beat me... You posted this probably as I was on my way to work. Curse you.

My only addition would be to advise Rewey that these sorts of mistakes (perhaps it was another US Government scheme they kept hidden from the people!) are only one of the reasons why people laugh at you and your silly ideas. Credibility demands specificity, and when you are 25 years wrong on something like "Lend Lease", there is no way possible you can be considered credible. Keep it up, though. Its entertaining.

Perhaps next time you can blame the Korean War the Downing Street memos.

 

[kookbreaker]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.



Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

Lend lease was not until much later than WW1. And anyway, what was your point? You've been trying to paint the Lusitania as some kind of 'false-flag' operation when it was simply a victim of circumstances, namely that munitions we sold to the Brits happened to be on a ship that also had American passengers.

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading.

And what magical powers gave him this ability? Lemme guess, you read Stinnet, or more likely read posts by someone who read Stinnett. Let me tell you: Stinnett is painfully wrong.

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

Don't be naive. The things considered by nations but never executed would go back as far as history is recorded. Practicality and humanity often wins out over these plans.

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?

You might want to read up a bit. Hitler exploited the incident, to be sure, but the evidence is that the Reichstag probably was burned by a deranged communist.

 

[MarkyX]

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

Considered? Operation Northwoods was REJECTED by those in charge.

 

[Justin39640]

No. The crater was made by the fuselage and some of the structural damage was done by the wings. And a crash resulting from an explosion in flight is just naturally going to look different from a controlled flight into terrain. To give you some idea what I am talking about, Flt 103 was like a beer keg dropped from miles up. Flt 93 was an enormous freaking lawn dart.



Where did you get those figures?

Why the difference?[.QUOTE]

The soil at Shanksville was looser than that at Lockerbie. The plane pushed it up, and it fell back down around the tunnel that the fuselage dug.

To address the vegetation and why it did not catch fire, bear in mind that the explosion would have taken most of the oxygen out of the air, making it almost impossible to start a fire until the air rushed back in.



You don't get to do that here. I have experience in airfield fire and rescue operations. I have seen what can happen to the structure of an aircraft in a crash. You obviously haven't. Just stop acting like anexpert. You are obviously no rocket scientist, so don't be lecturing us.

as far as the ground coming up
id like to point out the videos i linked in post 59
aside from lookin real cool they give some insight

so you have a ball bearing dropping into a uniform sand pile with no other material

then add the variables of 93 (plane mass, shape, angle of impact, ground consistency, humidity?, etc etc etc lol) and you get the idea

 

[Crazytimes]

Rewey can you do me a couple of favors.

First, can you admit you were wrong about the passenger manifests ?
Then when you admit you were wrong, can you promise to never make the claim that none of the hijackers were on the passenger manifests ever again ?

It seems a lot of truthers get debunked on very simple things and they know they are wrong, ignore it and move on to another lie. Then when discussing at another time, they go and repeat the same BS they were debunked on. Why is that ?

Truther - Do you know that debris was found up to eight miles away and that just isn't possible ?

Debunker - No, it is possible. Look into flight 1771 which had a similar debris field. Debris was found up to eight miles away and crashed in a similar way.

Truther - Do you know witnesses saw a military jet in the vicinity ?

One month later

Truther - Do you know that debris was found up to eight miles away and that just isn't possible ?

Debunker -

 

[triforcharity]

I've NEVER said faked. I just don't buy the official version.
......Removed icohearant blabbering..........
Seriously... has there EVER been a war that the US has EVER been just dragged into without any prior involvement, or prior knowledge that they were about to be attacked and therefore have their involvement and declaration of war justified? Do you think the incursion into Iraq, even though it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, would have been approved, had 9/11 not happened? If you honestly believe so, I find that naive.

A hundred years of this stuff going on, and you think there was not at LEAST prior knowledge (and therefore complicity) on this one? I find that a truly naive way of thinking. Do you really think the world believes that the 'greatest super power on Earth' was bamboozled by guys living in caves half a world away?

Rewey

[it's also noted that so far, no-one has bothered to demonstrate how my understanding of physics is wrong, as per the numerous comments that I "can't do physics"...]

How about WWI and II. We were savagely attacked by the Japaneese on 7 Dec 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Sure, we had some suspicions, but by the time the intelligence figured it out, it was too late.

WWI, well, we didn't want anything to do with that crap.

I suspect you have some hatered of Americans. Fess up sir.

BTW, if someone presents you with evidence of a plane crash, and you don't believe it, what would your conclusion be?? That it was faked, staged, or some other trickery?? Come on. Do you also believe that something other than the planes hit the Twin Towers in NYC?? (Take into consideration that I was there, heard the first one hit, and saw the second one, saw 2 of the three buildings fall, and saw 343 of my Brothers die that day, so tread softly.)

 

[Arus808]

please get this back on to Flight 93. discuss the political reasons or conspiracy reason for WWI or WWII or JFK or whatever is other threads or in the main conspiracy forum

 

[triforcharity]

PS, Operation Northwood was never put into action, and the guy who suggested it was fired.

PSS, Can you point me to one article where the US Government said anything of the sort about Pearl Harbour???

 

[lapman]

PS, Operation Northwood was never put into action, and the guy who suggested it was fired.

PSS, Can you point me to one article where the US Government said anything of the sort about Pearl Harbour???

Mind you that Operation Northwoods only had an option of killing a few refugees. It generally called for all deaths to be fabricated.

 

[triforcharity]

Good point Lapman.