Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

WTC Dust said:
Yeah, but those videos didn't capture a plane CRASH at 9:03AM. It looked like a plane, but it didn't act like a plane when it "hit" the WTC. It glided really smoothly into the building from nose to tail, and then explosions happened.

Very strange.
Click to expand...

Not at all strange. I'm a professional Mech Eng.....and you are what that we should care less what you think it should have looked like?
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm guessing it's totally fine for you that they didn't produce any of the 4 planes.
Click to expand...

they crashed! how are they supposed to produce them? In a normal air disaster they often reconstruct the aircraft as best they can so that they can find out why it crashed, On 911 there was no doubt why they crashed so a massively expensive reconstruction would have been pointless even if it had been possible (which it was not as the high speeds and type of impacts would and did leave nothing much to reconstruct)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, at least they're consistently insane. The really inconsistent ones are the ones who claim that no airliner was found at the Shanksville crash site, but then won't answer the question: where did UA93 end up, if not at the Shanksville crash site?

Dave
Click to expand...

Why would you expect anyone to be able to answer that? Determining that Flight 93 did not end up in that ditch is not contingent upon locating the plane in another location.

Your logic suggests something like finding a child missing. The child is not in his bed, so unless we find the child somewhere else, he is actually in the bed.

What's truly inconsistent is assuming Flight 93 is in the ditch even if there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
 
RedIbis said:
What's truly inconsistent is assuming Flight 93 is in the ditch even if there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is spectacularly false. Why in god's name would you lie abouit something so easily proven false?

Gee, Red, you gone full no planer lately?

/by the way, your "child in the bed" analogy SUCKs. Here is a hint as to why: the child is actually in the bed, you No Planers are claiming she is not.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Why would you expect anyone to be able to answer that? Determining that Flight 93 did not end up in that ditch is not contingent upon locating the plane in another location.

Your logic suggests something like finding a child missing. The child is not in his bed, so unless we find the child somewhere else, he is actually in the bed.

What's truly inconsistent is assuming Flight 93 is in the ditch even if there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's a lie, though; there are lots of photographs of the debris at the crash site, which you've seen; you've just chosen not to believe them.

Still, thank you for actually refusing to answer the question rather than pretending it didn't exist. So, you have no idea what happened to UA93, you've seen photographs of airliner debris from the reported crash site of UA93, where 95% of UA93 and DNA samples from all the passengers and crew of UA93 were reported to have been found, the CVR and FDR of UA93 were found, the FDR data shows UA93 crashing, and radar tracks are reported to show UA93 crashing, and from this you conclude that UA93 didn't crash at that site.

Nice work, Sherlock.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Ah, but that's a lie, though; there are lots of photographs of the debris at the crash site, which you've seen; you've just chosen not to believe them.

Still, thank you for actually refusing to answer the question rather than pretending it didn't exist. So, you have no idea what happened to UA93, you've seen photographs of airliner debris from the reported crash site of UA93, where 95% of UA93 and DNA samples from all the passengers and crew of UA93 were reported to have been found, the CVR and FDR of UA93 were found, the FDR data shows UA93 crashing, and radar tracks are reported to show UA93 crashing, and from this you conclude that UA93 didn't crash at that site.

Nice work, Sherlock.

Dave
Click to expand...

An actual skeptic would notice that every photo of the ditch on the day of the attacks shows no plane debris. The only plane debris photos are released many years after the fact and these are few and specious. The impeccable red bandana is a curious piece of "evidence."

If you can look at any picture taken on 9/11 and see evidence of Flight 93 you are delusional, choosing to believe simply as a matter of faith. No such pictures exist.
 
RedIbis said:
...there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
The only plane debris photos are released many years after the fact and these are few and specious.
Click to expand...

So you were lying when you said "there is zero photographic evidence of it having crashed there". Thanks for clearing that up.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
An actual skeptic would notice that every photo of the ditch on the day of the attacks shows no plane debris. The only plane debris photos are released many years after the fact and these are few and specious. The impeccable red bandana is a curious piece of "evidence."

If you can look at any picture taken on 9/11 and see evidence of Flight 93 you are delusional, choosing to believe simply as a matter of faith. No such pictures exist.
Click to expand...

So a "true skeptic" should ignore all other evidence, as well as the photographs showing the FL93 debris, just so this "true skeptic" can concentrate on a small, incomplete, and context free subset of the evidence (or let's be honest, a distortion of it, since we've provided those exact pictures in the past, and they do indeed show debris).

Yeah... real skepticism there. Let's ignore evidence... right. :rolleyes:
 
RedIbis said:
Why would you expect anyone to be able to answer that? Determining that Flight 93 did not end up in that ditch is not contingent upon locating the plane in another location.

Your logic suggests something like finding a child missing. The child is not in his bed, so unless we find the child somewhere else, he is actually in the bed.

What's truly inconsistent is assuming Flight 93 is in the ditch even if there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
Click to expand...

It must be really embarrasing to be you:

Flight93Engine.jpg


Your logic suggests something like finding a child missing. The child is not in his bed, so unless we find the child somewhere else, he is actually in the bed.
Click to expand...

Except nobody thinks the child is missing with the exception of the crazy, drunken bum sleeping on the street corner who is convinced the child was kidnapped by invisible ninjas. The parents say that the child is in bed. The brother and sister say that the child is in bed. The nanny says that the child is in bed. The crazy drunken bum says that the parents, brother, sister, and nanny are all liars because there is no photographic or video evidence of the child in his bed. It is not unreasonable to ask the crazy drunken bum where he thinks the child is if not in the bed where every single person who has the authority to comment says he is.

I fixed your analogy for you; you should thank me.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
An actual skeptic would notice that every photo of the ditch on the day of the attacks shows no plane debris. The only plane debris photos are released many years after the fact and these are few and specious. The impeccable red bandana is a curious piece of "evidence."

If you can look at any picture taken on 9/11 and see evidence of Flight 93 you are delusional, choosing to believe simply as a matter of faith. No such pictures exist.
Click to expand...

WOW! That is some fancy crazy type thinking, there, sport. But hey, you and Dr. Judy Woods agree 100%, No Planer.

Da pictures are faked!!

By the way, who in Christ's name claims you could identify "flight 93" in the photo?

Freaking No Planers, how do they think?
 
RedIbis said:
If you can look at any picture taken on 9/11 and see evidence of Flight 93 you are delusional
Click to expand...

Color me delusional, because I'm sure not blind.

Flight93Engine.jpg


Oops, did I already post that image? Twice? It must be a hallucination because Truthers can't seem to see it.

Have you responded to WTC Dust yet? He seems to disagree with you about planes hitting the towers; why don't you act as the voice of reason for once?
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Have you responded to WTC Dust yet? He seems to disagree with you about planes hitting the towers; why don't you act as the voice of reason for once?
Click to expand...

Dude, it is Red Ibis, he is the first one who will whine and complain that we are treating the "serious" twoofers unfairly by comparing them to complete loons like "WTC Dust" and Dr. Judy Wood. And then he posts garbage like this that is practically word for word what Judy posts on her own site.

So Red, I assume you agree with Judy that the plane was caused to disappear by the Hutchinson Effect powered by Hurricane Erin? Fancy thinking there, Red.
 
Titanic Explorer said:
*sigh*..

yet another No-Planer who dismisses eye witness accounts with a wave of his arm...
Click to expand...

Actually, I've interviewed so many people who claim they saw the plane with their own eyes (and not on TV) to dismiss them.

They saw something that looked like a plane to them. I know people who say they saw it from Brooklyn and from New Jersey. I've met people who say they saw it right on the streets of downtown NYC, and talked to one on the internet who saw it from a boat.

I'm just saying it wasn't a real airplane.
 
1337m4n said:
Color me delusional, because I'm sure not blind.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Flight93Engine.jpg[/qimg]

Oops, did I already post that image? Twice? It must be a hallucination because Truthers can't seem to see it.

Have you responded to WTC Dust yet? He seems to disagree with you about planes hitting the towers; why don't you act as the voice of reason for once?
Click to expand...

Is this an airplane?
 
WTC Dust said:
Is this an airplane?
Click to expand...

Wow.

I don't even know where to begin when it comes to explaining the sheer stupidity of this loaded question.

How a Truther can manage to pack so many faulty implied assumptions into a single sentence is truly incredible.

Just wow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom