• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348, W:350]

long debunked canards
Click to expand...

If this is what your thought on the subject is,
why bother even posting here?

what is going on, is the presentation of data
and much of that data very clearly indicates that
the official story = fraud.
 
CATiwampus said:
If this is what your thought on the subject is,
why bother even posting here?
Click to expand...


Because I like a laugh.

what is going on, is the presentation of data
and much of that data very clearly indicates that
the official story = fraud.
Click to expand...

On your planet perhaps, but here on Earth it is pretty obvious what went on that day.

Try this for a novel approach, it's often labelled 'logic':

Why would da gubmint want to crash a plane into a field in the middle of nowhere? Why would they want to fake the crash? What could possibly be gained by such a thing?
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Because I like a laugh.



On your planet perhaps, but here on Earth it is pretty obvious what went on that day.

Try this for a novel approach, it's often labelled 'logic':

Why would da gubmint want to crash a plane into a field in the middle of nowhere? Why would they want to fake the crash? What could possibly be gained by such a thing?
Click to expand...


oh you are looking for a mind reading episode huh!

why dont you consult your psychic reader?
 
NWO_Spook said:
I'm wise to your silly games.
Click to expand...

If you can't see fraud in the official investigations, I don't think you're very wise to anything. The Shanksville incident was covered by the 9/11 Commission Report, the same one created by those whose majority publicly admitted they were lied to and set up to fail. Why would you accept such a report in which the authors themselves admit was filled with lies as anything but a fraud? Do you think that's wise?
 
Bob0627 said:
If you can't see fraud in the official investigations, I don't think you're very wise to anything. The Shanksville incident was covered by the 9/11 Commission Report, the same one created by those whose majority publicly admitted they were lied to and set up to fail. Why would you accept such a report in which the authors themselves admit was filled with lies as anything but a fraud? Do you think that's wise?
Click to expand...

Ah, the manipulation of the truth, and you do it well. The authors never said any such thing.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Ah, the manipulation of the truth, and you do it well. The authors never said any such thing.
Click to expand...

From Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, Without Precedent:

"We were set up to fail."

“There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11-things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11-and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received”.

“Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out.”

“Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism-and thus the most conspiracy theorizing-was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.”

“Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.”

“it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.”


Who are you worried about that manipulates the truth here? Me or the 9/11 Commission Report?
 
Bob0627 said:
From Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton’s book, Without Precedent:

"We were set up to fail."

“There were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling us about their performance on the morning of September 11-things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11-and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received”.

“Farmer believed that NORAD was delivering incomplete records with the knowledge that the commission had a fixed end date that could be waited out.”

“Throughout the course of our inquiry, the topic that invited the most skepticism-and thus the most conspiracy theorizing-was the performance of the FAA and NORAD on the day of September 11, 2001.”

“Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue.”

“it feels like something happened in that briefing that produced almost a necessity to deliver a story that’s different than what actually happened on that day.”


Who are you worried about that manipulates the truth here? Me or the 9/11 Commission Report?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen this ad nauseum, but it doesn't state that the report is a fraud and full of lies. This point was raised by Farmer in his book and merely highlights the discrepancies between NORAD's and the FAA's version of events (note: context). It doesn't discredit the report and to suggest it does is manipulating the truth.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, I've seen this ad nauseum, but it doesn't state that the report is a fraud and full of lies. This point was raised by Farmer in his book and merely highlights the discrepancies between NORAD's and the FAA's version of events (note: context). It doesn't discredit the report and to suggest it does is manipulating the truth.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just Farmer, the book was authored by the commission co-chairs. I guess English is not your primary language or like I said in the first place, you're not wise enough to know when you've been taken. These are just some quotes, there are many more as there are many other problems with the report and the commission itself.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, I've seen this ad nauseum, but it doesn't state that the report is a fraud and full of lies. This point was raised by Farmer in his book and merely highlights the discrepancies between NORAD's and the FAA's version of events (note: context). It doesn't discredit the report and to suggest it does is manipulating the truth.
Click to expand...

Wow, cognitive dissonance if there ever was. :3oops:
 
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

PW4000 said:
This is mind blowing. You nut cases waltzed into this thread deliriously deluded and full of yourselves - knowing full well that you absolutely understood all there is to know about Shanksville. ..?
Click to expand...
When did you refute the DNA? You can't, makes the OP nonsense.

You don't understand a high speed impacts, can't refute DNA, can't refute RADAR, and thus you have a fantasy of no plane.
The OP fails because the aircraft parts are all over the site, and thus you are spreading a lie. You ignore thousand of aircraft parts on the ground, and make up silly ideas based on ash that fell 8 miles away, that drifted on the winds, exactly downwind from the crash sight. Ash and papers are your big parts that are 8 miles away.

You claim to be a pilot, yet you ignore RADAR data which proves it was Flight 93. RADAR you supposedly use flying, which you trust, is not thrown out the window for your fantasy of what? No plane? You can't be a pilot and ignore RADAR. So you must not be pilot since you failed to file an FAA hazard report to refute RADAR. Are you going to submit a report to refute RADAR?

What a big lie, the OP is nonsense. Based on what? Either you are not a pilot, because pilots know RADAR works, or you are a pilot who make up tall tails and you don't understand the physics of a high speed crash. Give the mods your real name and have them verify your FAA stuff; When did you get your ATP? How can you fly and ignore RADAR?
 
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

The DNA was provided by the federal government to the county coroner Miller.

The federal government is notorious for its deception.
 
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

Henry David said:
The DNA was provided by the federal government to the county coroner Miller.

The federal government is notorious for its deception.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the feds went and collected the dna from the passengers before they boarded the plane, or not or, they just happened to have the DNA from the people that were on the flight manifest, or was it all cooked up?

You can't ever logically prove your nonsense, so you just create more nonsense.

It is like a conspiracy theory ponzi/pyramid scheme, keep creating new garbage on the back end to try to get out of explaining your theory.
 
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

beefheart said:
Oh, so the feds went and collected the dna from the passengers before they boarded the plane, or not or, they just happened to have the DNA from the people that were on the flight manifest, or was it all cooked up?

You can't ever logically prove your nonsense, so you just create more nonsense.

It is like a conspiracy theory ponzi/pyramid scheme, keep creating new garbage on the back end to try to get out of explaining your theory.
Click to expand...

It goes deeper than that,
question: how do you get a DNA match-up from remains,
A: you get a sample from a brother, or parent, or other close relative.

So how does one go to the middle east, and collect up DNA samples of people
who may ( or may not ) be related to the hijackers?

the whole bit is warped & twisted!
 
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

CATiwampus said:
It goes deeper than that,
question: how do you get a DNA match-up from remains,
A: you get a sample from a brother, or parent, or other close relative.

So how does one go to the middle east, and collect up DNA samples of people
who may ( or may not ) be related to the hijackers?

the whole bit is warped & twisted!
Click to expand...

That is not the only way of getting DNA samples. Where you live is full of viable samples.
 
Bob0627 said:
It wasn't just Farmer, the book was authored by the commission co-chairs.
Click to expand...

Farmer produced his own book, and I wish you people would actually bother to check something before you shoot off your mouths.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ground-Truth-Untold-America/dp/B0043RT9A8

I guess English is not your primary language or like I said in the first place, you're not wise enough to know when you've been taken.
Click to expand...

Well, that was a load of ****. I understand it perfectly, but unlike you, my extrapolations are kept to a level of reality and logic, and I don't distort the language to suit my needs.

These are just some quotes, there are many more as there are many other problems with the report and the commission itself.
Click to expand...

And you think I'm unaware of these so-called problems? Seriously? Every report will have its problems however, and to employ that as a means of discrediting the report is somewhat intellectually dishonest don't you think? Are there any honest truthers?
 
Last edited:
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

Henry David said:
The DNA was provided by the federal government to the county coroner Miller.

The federal government is notorious for its deception.
Click to expand...
An opinion based on anti-government feelings. With no evidence to support claims of 911 truth, all the claims become lies mocking those murdered by 911 terrorists. The OP remains a lie.

911 truth claims to have overwhelming evidence, were is the Pulitzer? Stuck with failed opinions, unable to refute DNA. No Pulitzer for 911 truth, in the 13th year of complete failure.

Can't you see the irony? A pilot who flew under RADAR control for many years (or so he claims) is saying RADAR is false, and 93 did not crash where RADAR says it did. Thus, we have pilot who flies in RADAR controlled airspace who denies RADAR is valid; thus he must not be a pilot. Did he file the required report to expose RADAR as fake? Did he stop flying when he figured this out? No, he is making up lies about 911, and using hearsay, opinions, quote mining, cherry picking to make up a fantasy. Plus unable to under stand E=1/2mv[SUP]2[/SUP], not knowing what the damage of a high speed impact looks like - unable to understand physics.
Anyone who understand physics (like kinetic energy has a velocity squared component) knows a high speed impact is 9 times greater than a landing accident, or a crash where the pilot is trying to land at slow speed, or a takeoff accident.
If we understand physics we could explain to all those who look at the tiny aircraft parts coving acres of ground Flight 93 impact was 9 time more energy. Thus each human body you expect to see like other accident would be 9 times more beat up, smashed destroyed. We are not talking about humans jumpi8ng and hitting the ground, they were propelled in an aircraft into the ground at 560 mph. What do you have then? A person going that speed would have the energy of 1,700 shotgun blasts. Why can't the OP use physics? It would ruin the fantasy. Why are people fooled into thinking Flight 93 does not look right - it looks exactly what a high speed crash looks like.
Science makes the OP another failed fantasy for 911 truth.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Farmer produced his own book
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware, thanks. And he had many negative things to say as well.

And you think I'm unaware of these so-called problems? Seriously? Every report will have its problems however, and to employ that as a means of discrediting the report is somewhat intellectually dishonest don't you think? Are there any honest truthers?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the huge problems with the 9/11 Commission Report. One doesn't discredit an entire report for some minor problems, one discredits an entire report when it's filled with massive problems. If you were aware as you claim you are, you would know the problems are quite numerous and insurmountable and make the report not credible, not trustworthy and therefore useless.
 
Bob0627 said:
I'm fully aware, thanks. And he had many negative things to say as well.
Click to expand...

So, your previous comment was for what reason?


Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the huge problems with the 9/11 Commission Report. One doesn't discredit an entire report for some minor problems, one discredits an entire report when it's filled with massive problems. If you were aware as you claim you are, you would know the problems are quite numerous and insurmountable and make the report not credible, not trustworthy and therefore useless.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant? What nonsense, and I am aware of the report's failings as I claim and that is why I know your statement to be erroneous. You see, I try to divest myself of confirmation bias and personal prejudice when I examine documents and reports. It's a wise course of action if one is trying to be objective on a subject, and many truthers would do well if they understood this simple concept.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Irrelevant? What nonsense
Click to expand...

No it's not nonsense, you're deflecting. Whether there are honest or dishonest "truthers" (an oxymoron) has nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission Report.

I am aware of the report's failings as I claim and that is why I know your statement to be erroneous. I try to divest myself of confirmation bias and personal prejudice when I examine documents and reports. It's a wise course of action if one is trying to be objective on a subject, and many truthers would do well if they understood this simple concept.
Click to expand...

What these terrifying "truthers" do or don't do is again irrelevant and a deflection. You claim to be aware of the "report's failings", never mentioning your awareness of the Commission's failings and the history behind the Commission's creation (if you are aware that is), which is yet another massive failure. You then declare your alleged objectivity in this matter but that couldn't be any farther from the truth, you are way too transparent. The list of negative issues with the Commission as well as the resulting report are quite lengthy, public, documented, admitted and should serve to discredit the report for anyone who is truly objective. It wasn't derisively called the Omission Report for no good reason.

But at the end of the day, I can understand your mentality. It's the same kind that still supports the WMD claims in Iraq well after these have been proven to be deliberate lies.
 
Bob0627 said:
No it's not nonsense, you're deflecting. Whether there are honest or dishonest "truthers" (an oxymoron) has nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission Report.
Click to expand...

What Bull****. Your hyperbole is dishonest and that is not a deflection, and to top it off, you seem to have a comprehension problem.

What these terrifying "truthers" do or don't do is again irrelevant and a deflection.
Click to expand...

They're anything but terrifying, you really love to put words in one's mouth don't you?

You claim to be aware of the "report's failings", never mentioning your awareness of the Commission's failings and the history behind the Commission's creation (if you are aware that is), which is yet another massive failure. You then declare your alleged objectivity in this matter but that couldn't be any farther from the truth, you are way too transparent. The list of negative issues with the Commission as well as the resulting report are quite lengthy, public, documented, admitted and should serve to discredit the report for anyone who is truly objective. It wasn't derisively called the Omission Report for no good reason.
Click to expand...

You failed to demonstrate this point (yet again), and your uncited hearsay and opinion have no value in the debate. You just saying something is so doesn't make it so, but I'm sure that is how it works in truther land. Get back to me when you can show you know what you are talking about, instead of just talking crap.

But at the end of the day, I can understand your mentality. It's the same kind that still supports the WMD claims in Iraq well after these have been proven to be deliberate lies.
Click to expand...

More moronic projection. What does the invasion of Iraq have to do with 9/11? You have no idea what you are babbling about do you?

A little piece of advice, if one delivers a contentious point it is prudent to support that with evidence, not just stating something that can't be checked. That is how it works in the world of academia and if you want me to take you seriously you must put up or shut up. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-a little known fact in truther world.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Click to expand...

That's about the only thing you post that makes real sense. Unfortunately, it's not something you adhere to since you swallowed the official story lock, stock and barrel. Stick to your comfort level, the story works for you, it's certainly not a problem for me.
 
Bob0627 said:
That's about the only thing you post that makes real sense. Unfortunately, it's not something you adhere to since you swallowed the official story lock, stock and barrel. Stick to your comfort level, the story works for you, it's certainly not a problem for me.
Click to expand...

LOL Whatever, more bilge from another time-wasting mantra parrot who can't prove his point.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shanksville: THE Smoking Gun & THE Litmus Test [W:348]

beefheart said:
Oh, so the feds went and collected the dna from the passengers before they boarded the plane, or not or, they just happened to have the DNA from the people that were on the flight manifest, or was it all cooked up?

You can't ever logically prove your nonsense, so you just create more nonsense.

It is like a conspiracy theory ponzi/pyramid scheme, keep creating new garbage on the back end to try to get out of explaining your theory.
Click to expand...

The DNA samples were contrived, is my guess. I wasn't there, and I wasn't in on any part of the action.

Wally was provided DNA samples by the feds, and probably the "name" of who it belonged to. He merely signed the death certificate in accordance with Pennsylvania law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom