Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

[tfk]

Implied is implied. It was enough to expose Beachnut.

.

You think that you exposed beachnut as .... what?

Someone who IS what he says he is?

You exposed yourself as a pompous, strutting fool, who plays word games, who is childishly credulous of nonsense that equal fools post on the internet.

And who incapable of noticing that
1. The craters were completely different shapes
2. The craters were completely different locations.
3. The craters were orders of magnitude different in sizes.

In other words, you confused a mail box for an elephant.

[sarcasm]
Yeah, bill. I'm sure that BEACHNUT is really, totally embarrassed ...
[/sarcasm]

And in your multiple comments like the one I quoted here, you have also exposed yourself - AGAIN - as a know-nothing, believe-anything, arrogant, insulting fool.

Some things are consistent...

 

[bill smith]

(Sung to the main theme of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony)

Fail Fail Fail FAIL!
Fail Fail Fail FAIL!

Yes, the incompetent mewling displayed by BS and RI is but a pale imitation of the virtuoso performances of such leaders as Gage, Fetzer, Ryan, etc.. in that grand composition of Epic Failure known as 9/11 Truth.

Never before in my lifetime have I seen such a combination of Terrorist apologia, outright falsehood, half-witted analysis and delusion masquerading as 'TRUTH'. The legions of truther trolls are like the Gollums of critical thinking; they admire it, but also despise it and want to destroy it. Their ceaseless attempts to pervert the truth and to excuse the actual terrorists is unforgiveable - it is an abomination to be attacked wherever it appears.

If the nonsense these idiots are spouting is 'TRUTH' then maybe we should revise the definition of the word altogether.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_304704a11b48e5b288.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_304704a11b477903d2.jpg[/qimg]

You sound quite the Evangelist here I must say. Hallelujah

 

[Jackanory]

Like i said McGyver- Bill Smith fails at failure. Couldnt even hang around to fail.

Yep, he will be back tomorrow as if nothing happened. The two videos he has tried to dangle infront of us will be quickly forgotten or he will eventually BS us some more and link us to two irrelevent videos that are not live and do not show what he stated them too show.
Predictble Bill .

He poses the question/conundrum,

He then pauses for awhile..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................

He then fails. Time and time again. Night night Bill. Same BS tomorrow then.

Posted the above yesterday.

The daft issue about the crash site/1994 images where covered a while back with the same crap Bill sprouts.

Bill Smith lies, is a photo poster fraud (antenna issue), a no planer, is predictable, isnt very good at the games he plays and is full of BS.

 

[alienentity]

Very weird that these truthers can't accept clear evidence of a crash at Shanksville.

I mean, take a look at the major truther alternative explanations:

1) Plane was shot down.....um, well it still crashed in that case. Anyway there's no real proof it was shot down, only speculation.
2) It landed somewhere else (possibly Cleveland). Is there any solid evidence for this? And if that were the case, how did all those body parts wind up on the morning of 9/11 in a field in PA? Are truthers suggesting that (without any evidence) the passengers were flown to Cleveland, ground up in a machine, then flown to Shanksville within 1 hr or so? It boggles the mind that anyone would seriously consider any such scenario.

As others have noted, you cannot simply add 1 + 2 and strengthen the truther argument. The two theories are actually contradictory, they each weaken the other.
Ergo, either 1) is false or 2) is false or they're both false. But clearly they can't BOTH be true.

Back to the actual crash site:

1)You have eyewitness accounts of the plane, the crash and the smoke
2) You have aircraft debris buried deep into the crater
3) You have human body parts, which have been identified using DNA analysis
4) You have the FDR and VCR from the plane, both of which confirm the crash
5) You have Flight Controller observations of the plane on 9/11
6) You have telephone calls made from the plane by passengers and crew


Call the last list 'A', and the other two 'B' and 'C'.

How any rational person could look at the evidence for A, B and C and conclude that 'C' must be true is completely beyond me. It simply isn't rational or reasonable to do so.
Sure, if you throw out the strongest evidence, or ignore it, or handwave it away, the other theories might seem slightly more plausible, but WHY would you do something that foolish?

Why on earth would somebody deliberately come to the wrong conclusion? That is something only they know, and remains a mystery to me.

 

[Jackanory]

Very weird that these truthers can't accept clear evidence of a crash at Shanksville.

I mean, take a look at the major truther alternative explanations:

1) Plane was shot down.....um, well it still crashed in that case. Anyway there's no real proof it was shot down, only speculation.
2) It landed somewhere else (possibly Cleveland). Is there any solid evidence for this? And if that were the case, how did all those body parts wind up on the morning of 9/11 in a field in PA? Are truthers suggesting that (without any evidence) the passengers were flown to Cleveland, ground up in a machine, then flown to Shanksville within 1 hr or so? It boggles the mind that anyone would seriously consider any such scenario.

As others have noted, you cannot simply add 1 + 2 and strengthen the truther argument. The two theories are actually contradictory, they each weaken the other.
Ergo, either 1) is false or 2) is false or they're both false. But clearly they can't BOTH be true.

Back to the actual crash site:

1)You have eyewitness accounts of the plane, the crash and the smoke
2) You have aircraft debris buried deep into the crater
3) You have human body parts, which have been identified using DNA analysis
4) You have the FDR and VCR from the plane, both of which confirm the crash
5) You have Flight Controller observations of the plane on 9/11
6) You have telephone calls made from the plane by passengers and crew


Call the last list 'A', and the other two 'B' and 'C'.

How any rational person could look at the evidence for A, B and C and conclude that 'C' must be true is completely beyond me. It simply isn't rational or reasonable to do so.
Sure, if you throw out the strongest evidence, or ignore it, or handwave it away, the other theories might seem slightly more plausible, but WHY would you do something that foolish?

Why on earth would somebody deliberately come to the wrong conclusion? That is something only they know, and remains a mystery to me.

Possibilities for why?

1) They have a medical disorder.

2) They have no goal in life and are easily lead, gullible and want to be part of something big.

3) They know the truth but just troll for effect (No 2 really)

 

[leftysergeant]

This thread has gone horriblyoff-topic and most of Bill Smith's additions to it should be hauled off to AAH as irrelevant twaddle intenbded to derail the thread.

As for the supposed "crater" or "trench" from the earlier photo, it is neither, but rather the shorter down-slope of a dirt pile in shadow. Notice that all shadows identifiable in the photo point that way.

They were, at that time, back-filling the now-abandoned coal pit. You dump dill in one area, then spread it out with a bull dozer, working from an entry point inward, usually in semi-circles. This compacts the fill as you work further into the area. You can't just dump it all out and spread it around, several dump trucks deep.

 

[MikeW]

Back to the actual crash site:

1)You have eyewitness accounts of the plane, the crash and the smoke
2) You have aircraft debris buried deep into the crater
3) You have human body parts, which have been identified using DNA analysis
4) You have the FDR and VCR from the plane, both of which confirm the crash
5) You have Flight Controller observations of the plane on 9/11
6) You have telephone calls made from the plane by passengers and crew

Don't forget the personal effects of the passengers. Here's what Liz Glick wrote in her book:

"So what am I getting back?" I asked Miller when he got off the phone.
"A credit card", he said. "It got melted some but it's mostly intact"...

The binder was entitled "Unassociated Personal Effects of Flight 93"... Inside were colour photographs of everything found in Shanksville not clearly linked to a particular person. Jer's wedding ring didn't survive, but seventy other pieces of jewelry did, along with a bewildering variety of scrunchies, hats, belts, bras, dresses, T-shirts, unmatched shoes, and other items that somehow escaped the heat, some virtually unmarred. Then there were keys, books, gift cards, letters, photographs, compact discs, pens, medallions... Some of the shoes were badly mutilated, disturbing evidence of the violence to which they'd been subjected. There was a length of electrical cord, a crumpled cigarette lighter, eighteen toenail clippers in various states of mangling. There were many snapshots of children, most painstakingly glued back together...

I found a pair of his black briefs on the second page of the men's underwear. They were discoloured and savagely torn, but there was no question they were his... At the bottom of the page was an American Express datebook. The cover looked burned and maybe water damaged as well...

There it was, just like the psychic promised: bound in leather, or what was left of of leather. Jeremy's datebook.

Your Father's Voice
Liz Glick, widow of Flight 93 passenger Jeremy Glick, and Dan Zegart

 

[twinstead]

Well, truthers. What do you think of that? Was that all planted?

 

[alienentity]

This thread has gone horriblyoff-topic and most of Bill Smith's additions to it should be hauled off to AAH as irrelevant twaddle intenbded to derail the thread.

As for the supposed "crater" or "trench" from the earlier photo, it is neither, but rather the shorter down-slope of a dirt pile in shadow. Notice that all shadows identifiable in the photo point that way.

They were, at that time, back-filling the now-abandoned coal pit. You dump dill in one area, then spread it out with a bull dozer, working from an entry point inward, usually in semi-circles. This compacts the fill as you work further into the area. You can't just dump it all out and spread it around, several dump trucks deep.

One can only guess what Bill Smith's motivations are for quibbling about the wing marks at the crater. One supposes he's grasping for an excuse to throw out all the other clear evidence, the 'Aha!' key which unlocks the secret to how dastardly American agents planted all the evidence from flight 93.
It must take some combination of delusional thinking, deep hatred for your government and an overwhelming suspicion to permit someone to enter such a heavy state of denial that they could believe this flight didn't crash in PA.

I can't help but think it's almost a form of psychosis, what with the delusions and scrambled thought processes.

By definition IMHO the belief - that flight 93 landed in Cleveland and then (this is not an optional component of the scenario) the passengers and belongings were rendered into small pieces and flown to PA where they were buried in a field - is a delusion. If the truther in question believes that they were NOT rendered, but all the forensic evidence was completely fake, then that is just another delusion.
Take your pick. Either scenario is delusional.

We can add this set of delusions to the list of others:

The delusion that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition
The delusion that Larry Silverstein ordered the NYFD to destroy WTC 7.

etc etc etc...

And the central delusion of this thread, of course:

The delusion that there were no wing marks at the Shanksville crash site.

 

[RedIbis]

This thread has gone horriblyoff-topic and most of Bill Smith's additions to it should be hauled off to AAH as irrelevant twaddle intenbded to derail the thread.

As for the supposed "crater" or "trench" from the earlier photo, it is neither, but rather the shorter down-slope of a dirt pile in shadow. Notice that all shadows identifiable in the photo point that way.

They were, at that time, back-filling the now-abandoned coal pit. You dump dill in one area, then spread it out with a bull dozer, working from an entry point inward, usually in semi-circles. This compacts the fill as you work further into the area. You can't just dump it all out and spread it around, several dump trucks deep.

Do you have the source for fill operation? I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to check out the information and the details on this.

 

[BenBurch]

Do you have the source for fill operation? I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to check out the information and the details on this.

Have you called UAL to ask them how much of their aircraft was returned to them, and what they did with it?

 

[BigAl]

Do you have the source for fill operation? I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to check out the information and the details on this.

The fill is irrelevant given all the evidence and eyewitnesses we have for Flight 93 crashing into that field.

 

[BenBurch]

In any case, landform restoration was required by law until Bush issued an executive order negating that requirement. So it would be remarkable had it not been filled.

 

[Seymour Butz]

In any case, landform restoration was required by law until Bush issued an executive order negating that requirement. So it would be remarkable had it not been filled.

Really?

Did it just remove the fed requirements and put it on the state/local level then?

Cuz to just straight remove any reqs would be an outrage, and NOT what is in place for the vineyards in my area - Napa, Ca.

 

[BenBurch]

Really?

Did it just remove the fed requirements and put it on the state/local level then?

Cuz to just straight remove any reqs would be an outrage, and NOT what is in place for the vineyards in my area - Napa, Ca.

I'll run that down. Might take a bit of work as this was 9 years ago.

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you have the source for fill operation? I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to check out the information and the details on this.

It was once an open pit mine. It is now level, more or less. Look careful;ly at the 1994 picture. Notice the relief shown by the shadows and highlights on the mounds of dirt. Look at the dirt in the crater, especially around the engine. It looks like a combination of glacial till and mine tailings used to back-fill the pit.

That reclamation is a requirement in most states with rational environmental laws, combined with these visual clues, should make it obvious that this was deep, soft substrate, not just a thin layer of loess soil over bedrock.

 

[tsig]

Your concession accepted. You lied. Simple as that.

Bill seems to be turning into a Magic 8-ball.



http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi

 

[tsig]

Very weird that these truthers can't accept clear evidence of a crash at Shanksville.

I mean, take a look at the major truther alternative explanations:

1) Plane was shot down.....um, well it still crashed in that case. Anyway there's no real proof it was shot down, only speculation.
2) It landed somewhere else (possibly Cleveland). Is there any solid evidence for this? And if that were the case, how did all those body parts wind up on the morning of 9/11 in a field in PA? Are truthers suggesting that (without any evidence) the passengers were flown to Cleveland, ground up in a machine, then flown to Shanksville within 1 hr or so? It boggles the mind that anyone would seriously consider any such scenario.

As others have noted, you cannot simply add 1 + 2 and strengthen the truther argument. The two theories are actually contradictory, they each weaken the other.
Ergo, either 1) is false or 2) is false or they're both false. But clearly they can't BOTH be true.

Back to the actual crash site:

1)You have eyewitness accounts of the plane, the crash and the smoke
2) You have aircraft debris buried deep into the crater
3) You have human body parts, which have been identified using DNA analysis
4) You have the FDR and VCR from the plane, both of which confirm the crash
5) You have Flight Controller observations of the plane on 9/11
6) You have telephone calls made from the plane by passengers and crew


Call the last list 'A', and the other two 'B' and 'C'.

How any rational person could look at the evidence for A, B and C and conclude that 'C' must be true is completely beyond me. It simply isn't rational or reasonable to do so.
Sure, if you throw out the strongest evidence, or ignore it, or handwave it away, the other theories might seem slightly more plausible, but WHY would you do something that foolish?

Why on earth would somebody deliberately come to the wrong conclusion? That is something only they know, and remains a mystery to me.

Because A cannot crush C therefore inside job.