The Case for Faked Plane Crashes on 9/11
In light of the surprising interest in my recent post on the Pentagon hit, it's worth pointing out that by far the easiest case to make for faked plane crashes on 9/11 is the ludicrously fake Shanksville crater:
posted by spooked at 6:31 PM
38 Comments:
Hey wait a minute....why is there no 757 debris around that shanksville plane-shaped crater?
Ha ha that photo looks like a giant invisible starfish landed there!
Is that supposed to be a 9-11 event?
Ha ha! Americans are stupid!
There should at least be a little debris from a 757!
using his microscope, yellow jacket guy #3, assisted by yellow jacket guy #7, has found a microscopic piece of ua93!
HUNT THE BOEING! shanksville edition
What the hell is all of this?
The media said that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville so that is what happened.
Are you guys traitors or something?
Just watch the TV and you will realize that you ARE traitors.
Seriously guys. It's been over six years. You should be able to provide a more air-tight argument than "where's the debris"?
You produce a photo where you can't see any. I'll produce a photo where you can see some. Then the argument devolves into "there's not enough debris!!" or some other lowest common denominator.
C'mon guys. Over six years. 2200 days. The Bush regime has been able to kill 400 people per day every day in half that time.
Let's step it up a bit and stop relying on people's laziness and ignorance to make your case.
People are dying.
Make your case. Don't just sit here on an obscure blog and rail at the storm like Lear. Do something.
I eagerly await your press conference where you outline your rock-solid case with indisputable and unimpeachable evidence that will result in immediate frog-walks from the west wing.
I'm waiting......
Waiting......
Waiting.
You produce a photo where you can't see any.(debris). I'll produce a photo where you can see some.
no, what you'll do is produce a photo of some debris that isn't there in the photos when the first responders were there.
that doesn't say much for the "debris", does it.
just like the photos of "debris" at the pentagon.
Here's my hard proof that the crater was not from flight 93. Knock yourself out with it.
There are many other arguments for why the crash site was fake here:
http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com
The problem is not so much the proof really, but most people just don't want to deal with it.
To the concern troll--
I'll tell you what-- you schedule the press conference, I'll bring the proof.
Okay?
E-mail me the details.
Why don't you eliminate the middle man and schedule your own press conference and stop making excuses as to why this hasn't been done YEARS ago.
You have all these smoking guns, and yet you act like a child who needs to hold an adult's hand in crossing the street when it comes to actually doing something with them.
Where's the courage of your convictions to actually DO something with all this stuff?
What do you care 2:13?
9/11 was an inside job.
2:13 PM-- are they smoking guns or not?
If you agree they are smoking guns, you should be fucking doing something too.
If you don't think they are smoking guns, then you should say why.
I, and many others, have tried in the past to get the media to pay attention to this and they haven't. Since you're so savvy about everything, I figured you might be able to get the media to listen.
"Why don't you eliminate the middle man and schedule your own press conference and stop making excuses as to why this hasn't been done YEARS ago."
Poor Spooky is afraid to leave his blog. He'd rather stay here in his little pond where has complete control rather than face a cross-examination that would humiliate him further...
"If you don't think they are smoking guns, then you should say why."
People have - time and time and time again. You are just too much of an obstinate idiot to understand.
Case in point - 100 tons at 750 fps vs. 3/8 inch steel.
And if *you* really believed the crap you put out, you would indeed get out in the mainstream and hold a press conference to prove your thesis.
"I, and many others, have tried in the past to get the media to pay attention to this and they haven't."
Bullshit. Unless you call this blog getting the media to pay attention. You keep forgetting, Spooky - only about 6 or 8 people post comments here, and half of those are your sycophant toe sucking yes-men.
No one has refuted this proof of flight 93. It has nothing to do with steel or speed. It is basic geometry.
OK, as far as the media, WHO should I present this to? I have contacted the media and my representatives.
Give me a contact who will listen!
Who will listen at this point, about 9/11?
Please tell me.
You're such a dickshine, Pinch.
3/8th inch steel, my ass.
We're talking about flight 93 and where 757 wings would have impacted.
If I honestly thought the media would seriously listen to me, I would gladly go public.
The media is controlled and you know it.
"The media is controlled...."
That has got to be one of the lamest excuses for nobody paying any attention to you in history.
"The media is controlled"
EVERY media outlet in the world is controlled. Russian, Chinese, European, North and South America. Southwest Asia. Southeast Asia. India. Aussies. The Far East. Every single news organization in the world is controlled. Not a single one has been reporting the deaths of 400 Iraqi citizens, every day, for 5 years. Not a single one. They are ALL controlled and *I* know it.
You are the funniest guy on the internet, you know that, Spooky? Its why I keep coming back. You can't PAY for this kind of entertainment!
As far as Flight 93 goes, you have nothing but those kindergarten drawings you made up a few years ago (highlighted on LGF, if you remember with something like 550 comments!).
"Technical drawings" that look like they came out of Mrs. Smith's preschool class.
When you present some evidence from a simulation that takes into account all the variables of the incident - aircraft attitude, speed, angle of impact, environment, impact area, ground consistency, etc - and have that verified as a true simulation, validated as a valid representation of the event and have the simulation accredited by a competent authority (a standard VV&A process for simulations), THEN I'll pay attention to what you have to say.
Cartoonish drawings don't cut it.
As far as your claim you would "go public" if you found some media outlet to listen, you never would. You are too scared to put your reputation out there for the world to mock and make a fool of. You rally don't believe this crap. You would rather have this little world here, with ha and the Anonymous Idiot and the other 2-3 toe suckers stroking your ego. That is what you like and where you will stay - on a tiny little blog with 8 people leaving comments about how great you are or how stupid and hilarious you are.
I hope you don't go public with this thing. I know you never will, but if you ever grow a pair and decide that yes, the world NEEDS TO KNOW!, we'll no longer have you to ourselves - the rest of the world will realize what gem you are in terms of internet idiocy and will want a piece of the action.
Waiting for that news conference....
Waiting....
Waiting.
If you agree they are smoking guns, you should be fucking doing something too.
I guess therein lies the problem. I don't see them as "smoking guns" and neither do most rational people.
A "smoking gun" is just that. If you need other people's help to force people to see that, then maybe you need to start questioning whether your smoking gun is truly smoking, or maybe just not loaded.
That is the crux of what you troofers fail to admit. If the evidence that you presented held a fraction of the importance you claim it has, then the 9/11 cover-up would've been exposed years ago.
""Case in point - 100 tons at 750 fps vs. 3/8 inch steel.""
wow is that 750 ft per second!?
golly that is fast!
hey tard, 100 tons of what, sushi? paper mache? what.
OK, fine, you don't see them as smoking guns. You guys could have just said that in the first place.
But STILL no one has refuted my basic proof about flight 93. Calling it a kindergarten drawing doesn't cut it.
What part of the wings not lining up with the the official trajectory don't you understand?
You can see in the picture I posted in this post-- the wings marks are simply in the wrong place for a plane with wings below the fuselage. The hole is a freak show, with almost no plane debris and wingmarks in the wrong place. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
Of course the media is controlled. It's idiotic to deny it. I'm not saying EVERY single media outlet is controlled, but the mainstream media is controlled and Pinch knows it.
Of course I believe what I present here. I wouldn't spend hours and hours on this site, without any pay, detracting from my profession, if I didn't believe this work. I present it straight up-- when I say I have hard proof, I mean I have hard proof. When I say this is almost certainly true, I mean that. If I am in doubt about something I say it. I am not playing games here. If someone presents alternative ideas or better ideas to me, I will listen and modify my theories accordingly.
The reason I am confident in what I have presented here is when the fucking shills come here and try to refute my work, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, these guys got nothing.
No one still has refuted my wing gash proof for flight 93 fakery, and I challenge anyone to show how it is wrong.
No one still has refuted my wing gash proof for flight 93 fakery, and I challenge anyone to show how it is wrong.
You failed to take into account deformation of the airframe during the impact event.
Tooooo easy...
"My proof of this..."
"My proof of that..."
Startin' to get a little full of oneself, aren't we Spooky?
When are you going to take all of YOUR proof to the masses?
You failed to take into account deformation of the airframe during the impact event.
Please explain in more detail. As I see it, the momentum of the craft would propel the wings even further forward-- not backwards.
Again, here's the proof.
Spooky,
Your main problem is that you lack an analytical and subject-matter approach to these "answers" you come up with.
The Flight 93 impact hole was from a large airliner flying at high speed into a reclaimed (i.e. re-filled in) open-pit mine field at an attitude and impact position that had multiple aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft at the instant of impact.
And YOU sit there and say that it doesn't look like an aircraft should look like when a large airliner flying at high speed impacts nose first at an inverted attitude into a reclaimed open-pit mine field - hence, it wasn't an aircraft! Problem is, you have *no idea whatsoever* what an aircraft should look like after a crash of that magnitude. So...you make shit up.
THAT simply doesn't cut it for a number of reasons:
1) You have no training in aircraft mishap investigations
2) You have no clue whatsoever about anything aeronautical related
3) You lack ANY objectivity in the least - you arrive at an event with your mind already made up - i.e. Bush did it - and you concoct a scenario to match your aforementioned and already-made up conclusion.
4) You have absolutely no ability to understand the dynamic forces at play during a high speed aircraft crash. This is more than evident in your refusal to understand what a 100 ton body flying at 750 feet per second would do to a building facade made up primarily of 3/8" steel - your steadfast (and idiotic) belief that the aircraft would hit that 3/8" steel facade and crumple up is, to be quite generous, absolute bullshit. You point to crashes such as the crash in Greece back a few years as an example of what a crash scene should look like and you ignore the fact that the damn aircraft ran out of gas and crashed at a completely different attitude and on vastly different terrain and in a completely different manner that Flight 93.
5) You claim absolutes without the facts or evidence to support such absolutes - such as your "almost no plane debris and wingmarks in the wrong place." First off you weren't there so you have no idea whatsoever about the amount of debris in the area. You have no idea what the procedures are standard operating procedures are for the documentation of an accident/crime scene such as what Shanksville was, and you obviously think there should be pictures of dismembered body parts and pieces of passengers adorning the front pages of the newspapers - JUST so you can have your "evidence" of a crash. The fact that didn't happen feeds your conspiracy mind - no pictures? No bodies! Hardly the *stuff* scientific methods are made of and most certainly in no way any sort of analytical analysis.
I could go on, but you get the gist, I'm sure.
And as far as your "drawing" goes, let's re-post it and let the masses decide if it is a kindergarten product or not:
[IMG]http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh291/abcwatermelon/Flight_93_D.jpg[/IMG]
here's the image:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh291/abcwatermelon/Flight_93_D.jpg
Here's some context for this proof--
1) I presented this proof to the DU crowd, and pressed it hard to the shills there, who are some of the most informed shills around. Despite a valiant effort by William Seger, he was unable to prove the official story of a 757 crash and disprove my proof.
2) One of the smarter 9/11 researchers I know was impressed with the proof.
Now for the problems--
1) most people already know there is a problem with the official 9/11 story but don't want to take it further or are too busy to think about it more or just don't care or in denial about how bad it truly is.
2) most 9/11 researchers have ignored my proof, for various reasons I can guess. For one, the "no plane" theory is not well accepted, and there are other reasons I would prefer not to go into here.
3) it's not like there is any chance that I could present this at a press conference and blow 9/11 open. Hundreds of researchers have been disputing the official story for years without any success in getting the mainstream media to pay attention.
Bottom line is that, I am happy to present this proof to anyone who is interested, but I see no strong rationale to "call a press conference" and present my proof.
As IF it were so simple.
Hey Pinch--
Nice to see you are so interested in this.
You still haven't explained the wing mark problem except the generic explanation that shit happens when a plane hits something when flying fast.
What the fuck are you trying to accomplish here anyway?
I have presented my case, you haven't refuted my proof, and you just keep wasting my time by bitching about my choices.
Now fuck off.
You failed to take into account deformation of the airframe during the impact event.
good one sword of comedy!
hey, where exactly IS the deformed airframe?
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh291/abcwatermelon/Flight_93_D.jpg
B) is physically impossible.
Calling all SHILLS. Are you satisfied with the training you received at SHILLschool, or are you embarassed because you know that people can see through your BS and laugh at you?
Yes. I'm embarassed that a bunch of lazy, know-nothing, anonymous bloggers are laughing at me.
Woe is me. Life sucks.
A population that doesn't vote Bush into office one, but twice.
Without intelligent live out there, there is no hope.
B) is physically impossible
Except of course that the official flight 93 story is that 80% of the plane burrowed into the ground, but that the nose disintegrated spewing debris around before it went in the ground, and that the tail disintegrated as it hit the ground-- or that it bounced away hundreds of yards into the forest.
I honestly do not understand how anyone can seriously believe the official flight 93 story-- even if you ignore the conflicting versions of the story that have been given.
IMO, flight 93 is THE weakest link in all of 9/11-- in so many different ways. Which may be why they concocted this heart-rending story of passengers fighting the terrorists.
I have to tell you mr. spooked - your "technical" drawing made me shoot coffee through my nose.
Thanks for the laughs...
Four plane crashes, anyone seen ONE piece of luggage? How about the mail that was onboard? One piece? In four plane crashes, did even ONE family get an intact body or partially intact body back? From everything I've seen reported, nothing but bone fragments. But hey, if there are people out there who think all of that is "normal" more power to them. When the day of reckoning comes, these same people will claim they knew there were "problems" all along, they only needed "evidence." Meanwhile, they will find their civil rights gone, their country broke and World War III underway. But hey it's all good, dipshit citizens get what they deserve - dipshit government.
Not one SHILL can refute the factual evidence which proves that 9/11 was an inside job. That's why SHILLS have to embarrass themselves by pretending, ridicule, distraction, and silly attempts to change the subject.
Go vote for your candidate SHILLERY tomorrow. She's already promised to renew your contract...conditioned upon you signing another oath of secrecy, violation of which will result in a
one-way ticket to Gitmo-Graib.
Post a Comment
<< Home