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

AJM8125 said:
Not as much as it was, its latest incarnation was called "9/11 Truth".
Click to expand...

Could be. To blame the attacks on Muslims from Saudi Arabia was a small lie. The BIG LIE was the idea that real planes were used in the 9/11 attacks.
 
The trick with a Big Lie is that ordinary people would think of the idea as completely ridiculous. It would never enter their heads that someone could make up such hideous lie, especially not authorities that they trust. Suckers! He he.

The no plane scenario fits the Big Lie tactics well. People, even almost all truthers, think the idea of no planes in the 9/11 attacks as completely insane. Get it? Big lie, people, big lie.
 
When people talk about the 9/11 attack, then I always tell them that a jet engine of the wrong type was found near the World Trade Center.

:D
 
Anders Lindman said:
The no plane scenario fits the Big Lie tactics well. People, even almost all truthers, think the idea of no planes in the 9/11 attacks as completely insane. Get it? Big lie, people, big lie.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is there absolutely no evidence at all which supports the no plane argument, which is why no planers are adept at handwaving, goalpost moving and lying, evidenced by your big colorful one above.
 
Justin39640 said:
Way to spread the stupidity! :D

(Big font and fancy colors don't make it true.)
Click to expand...

I wrote that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's actually a good propaganda strategy. Unless the jet engine is of correct type of course. Then it's only a good recipe for reeeeally making a fool of oneself. Yikes.
 
AJM8125 said:
The only problem with that is there absolutely no evidence at all which supports the no plane argument, which is why no planers are adept at handwaving, goalpost moving and lying, evidenced by your big colorful one above.
Click to expand...

Of course, otherwise it would not be a big lie. And all real evidence, like the wrong type of jet engine found near ground zero, will have to be swept under the rug.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course, otherwise it would not be a big lie. And all real evidence, like the wrong type of jet engine found near ground zero, will have to be swept under the rug.
Click to expand...

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-Charles Babbage
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, and the below Rense article which was one of the first I found is from 2005!

http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

"However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower."

So it's very old 'news'. I wonder if Popular Mechanics have looked at it.
Click to expand...

Who identified it? Surely you're not gullible enough just to believe something because it appeared on a website somewhere......
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, and the below Rense article which was one of the first I found is from 2005!

http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

"However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower."

So it's very old 'news'. I wonder if Popular Mechanics have looked at it.
Click to expand...

Whops. Maybe I should read the articles a bit more carefully. The first sentence in the article says: "Popular Mechanics, while mentioning that an engine from the South Tower airliner landed in the street, neglected to show an engine photo, engine street location, and engine positive identification."

And I did some web searches to see if Popular Mechanics have added some new info since then, but found nothing. On the other hand I would like some confirmation from a more official source than Popular Mechanics, but anyway.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, I want some more official source than Rense.com.
Click to expand...

Bulltweety. You've already told people, based on the Rense nonsense, that the engine was not the right one. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and even that's questionable. 'When people talk about the 9/11 attack, then I always tell them that a jet engine of the wrong type was found near the World Trade Center.'

Since your standards are already incredibly low, your judgement demonstrably very shaky at best, I suggest you abstain from making claims of any sort, and just learn to be respectful and thoughtful.

At least that way you'd preserve a modicum of self-respect and some dignity. I wonder what your father would think of you when you were a boy for carrying on the way you do with such carelessness and lack of integrity; I hardly think he'd be impressed. Certainly few if any of us here are....
 
alienentity said:
Bulltweety. You've already told people, based on the Rense nonsense, that the engine was not the right one. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and even that's questionable. 'When people talk about the 9/11 attack, then I always tell them that a jet engine of the wrong type was found near the World Trade Center.'

Since your standards are already incredibly low, your judgement demonstrably very shaky at best, I suggest you abstain from making claims of any sort, and just learn to be respectful and thoughtful.

At least that way you'd preserve a modicum of self-respect and some dignity. I wonder what your father would think of you when you were a boy for carrying on the way you do with such carelessness and lack of integrity; I hardly think he'd be impressed. Certainly few if any of us here are....
Click to expand...

Yes, I think there could be something to the Rense article, and that it's worth investigating it further, but more confirmation is needed imo before it can be taken seriously.
 
Anders Lindman said:
When people talk about the 9/11 attack, then I always tell them that a jet engine of the wrong type was found near the World Trade Center.

:D
Click to expand...

Which, since you've already admitted you have no idea whether the jet engine was in fact the wrong type, and bearing in mind the font size, is therefore by definition a Big Lie.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Which, since you've already admitted you have no idea whether the jet engine was in fact the wrong type, and bearing in mind the font size, is therefore by definition a Big Lie.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a lie. :D:o I don't tell people that. I don't want to risk making too much of a fool of myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom