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

[leftysergeant]

There's a difference between the metaphorical description of what you see in an instant and what you see, then have time to analyze.

Reality seems also to vary depending upon your position inside or outside the yellow tape.

 

[RedIbis]

There's a difference between the metaphorical description of what you see in an instant and what you see, then have time to analyze.

Beamer was at the scene when the plane hit?

 

[carlitos]

These silly arguments from quote-mining are very useful in finding the "real" perps, aren't they?








Aren't they?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Beamer was at the scene when the plane hit?

Not even remotely relevant to her use of a metaphor.

 

[leftysergeant]

Beamer was at the scene when the plane hit?

More likely, she just didn't have any kind of doctrinal goggles on when she lookedat the scene or pictures of it, and could see what anyone with a lick of sense could see at the scene.

 

[RedIbis]

More likely, she just didn't have any kind of doctrinal goggles on when she lookedat the scene or pictures of it, and could see what anyone with a lick of sense could see at the scene.

So after the "spoon" enters the "coffee" it went in as if nothing had troubled the surface, is sensible to you?

Only blind faith and unswerving desire to believe in the official account would make you think that there is even the remotest possibility that a 100 ton airliner could hit the ground and leave the surface "untroubled."

I'll give Lisa the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was the explanation she was given, perhaps by the FBI agent who describes something quite similar.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If a plane crashes in a field and no-one is there to see is it still flying?

 

[I Ratant]

The people that were in it saw it crashing.
Real up close and personal.
Where are those people now, if there was no plane crash?

 

[leftysergeant]

If a plane crashes in a field and no-one is there to see is it still flying?

Is that you, Dr. Schroedinger?

 

[leftysergeant]

So after the "spoon" enters the "coffee" it went in as if nothing had troubled the surface, is sensible to you?

It is not a very good description of the scene, I give you that, but it is a good parallel with the reality of how the majority of the wreckage was buried.

The ground did settle rather quickly around the wreckage ans sealed up the temporary channel that the plane has created. Of course, the crater was not the only perterbation of the soil that was visible. The down=range side of the crater was pushed up into a low berm, exactly as I would expect it to be had someone just gone kamikaze of the flight when the passengers looked as though they had a chance of retaking the aircraft.

 

[RedIbis]

It is not a very good description of the scene, I give you that, but it is a good parallel with the reality of how the majority of the wreckage was buried.

The ground did settle rather quickly around the wreckage ans sealed up the temporary channel that the plane has created. Of course, the crater was not the only perterbation of the soil that was visible. The down=range side of the crater was pushed up into a low berm, exactly as I would expect it to be had someone just gone kamikaze of the flight when the passengers looked as though they had a chance of retaking the aircraft.

And even as you write that, no niggling questions enter your head? Such as, how did ground seal up rather quickly over a 100 ton airliner?

If the majority of the wreckage was buried, where's the documentation of its excavation? One picture with an engine part curiously poised on a back hoe is the entirety of photographic evidence for the excavation of this buried airliner?

And finally, in a string of assumptions you finish off with a doozy. These murderous jihadists who had already killed physically fit, military trained pilots, were now scared of the passengers who "had a chance of retaking the aircraft" and decided to ground it instead of carrying on with their mission?

Had this not been the national day of tragedy, you would not have turned off your critical thinking skills and would have to admit that the Shanksville site is a curiosity, at the very least.

 

[dtugg]

Had this not been the national day of tragedy, you would not have turned off your critical thinking skills and would have to admit that the Shanksville site is a curiosity, at the very least.

Nope. Since 100% of the evidence points to the fact that 93 crashed in Shanksville and 0% contradicts it (your personal incredulity is not evidence), there is no reason whatsoever for any rational person to think there is any thing wrong. The only reason that you do is because you desperately need 9/11 to be an inside jobby job for some reason.

 

[twinstead]

And even as you write that, no niggling questions enter your head? Such as, how did ground seal up rather quickly over a 100 ton airliner?

If the majority of the wreckage was buried, where's the documentation of its excavation? One picture with an engine part curiously poised on a back hoe is the entirety of photographic evidence for the excavation of this buried airliner?

And finally, in a string of assumptions you finish off with a doozy. These murderous jihadists who had already killed physically fit, military trained pilots, were now scared of the passengers who "had a chance of retaking the aircraft" and decided to ground it instead of carrying on with their mission?

Had this not been the national day of tragedy, you would not have turned off your critical thinking skills and would have to admit that the Shanksville site is a curiosity, at the very least.

Incredulity. Simple, ignorant incredulity. I prefer evidence. What I, you, or ANYBODY else would think of the crash site is irrelevant to what the preponderance of evidence shows.

 

[WildCat]

And even as you write that, no niggling questions enter your head? Such as, how did ground seal up rather quickly over a 100 ton airliner?

It didn't. Much of the wreckage was cattered all over the area. Photographs were posted of this, you ignored them.

If the majority of the wreckage was buried, where's the documentation of its excavation? One picture with an engine part curiously poised on a back hoe is the entirety of photographic evidence for the excavation of this buried airliner?

Have you or any other truthers filed a FOI request for all of the photos of the excavation?

And finally, in a string of assumptions you finish off with a doozy. These murderous jihadists who had already killed physically fit, military trained pilots, were now scared of the passengers who "had a chance of retaking the aircraft" and decided to ground it instead of carrying on with their mission?

Pilots are not trained to be MMA-caliber hand-to-hand fighters Red. And it doesn't take particularly good fighting skills to slice someone's throat while they're strapped into a chair with their back to you. And amall knives aren't going to protect 4 or 5 terrorists from a mob of dozens who realize they have no choice but to fight for their lives.

Had this not been the national day of tragedy, you would not have turned off your critical thinking skills and would have to admit that the Shanksville site is a curiosity, at the very least.

It's only a "curiosity" if you ignore 99.9% of the evidence, which you do at every opportunity.

Lots of airplane debris in these photos, all of which were accepted into evidence in a court of law:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200058.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200063.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200064.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200065.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200066.jpg

Keep ignoring it Red.

 

[RedIbis]

It didn't. Much of the wreckage was cattered all over the area. Photographs were posted of this, you ignored them.

So you disagree with Lefty. Take it up with him. Although I know you won't.

 

[WildCat]

So you disagree with Lefty. Take it up with him. Although I know you won't.

I disagree with lefty on most things but this isn't one of them.

Did you see the pics of all that airplane debris Red?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm still not seeing the issue here. A witness uses a metaphor and we're supposed to take it as a hyper-literal description of what the site looks like?

Similar to how every report of explosions at the WTC that refers to something impacting the ground is interpreted as an explosive charge going off?

Really, there's nothing wrong with this picture? I'm always going to be accused of being a government apologist because the accuser takes such things radically farther than it needs to be? Because I dared to look at the statements more carefully than the accuser wanted me to? :\

 

[RedIbis]

I disagree with lefty on most things but this isn't one of them.

Did you see the pics of all that airplane debris Red?

You are disagreeing with him. Reread what he wrote, compare it to your own comments. Shut off your bias, and honestly assess the difference in the way you both describe what happened to most of the wreckage.

 

[TheRedWorm]

What do you think should have happened, Red?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What do you think should have happened, Red?

I guess he thinks that "if it were a real crash" the witnesses would have said "the plane completely disturbed the ground and created a crater with all sorts of visible debris" in perfect quotation, without any simile and metaphor and as literal as possible.