A basic question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists....

The plane would not vanish even in that scenario.

 

If you're aware of them then,you'd have a list,right?


You should be able to point them out

 

A list? Are you kidding? In the Pentagon nearly everything is classified. That means not available to the public.

More importantly, IF the Pentagon had a video of a 757 in its front yard, you can rest assured that they would provide it to bolster their story. Recall that they did provide a few frames from a parking lot camera, but the trouble was that the aircraft it showed was way too small to be a 757.

 

How do you know a plane crashed into the ground at 580mph? Nobody in the field could find any trace of an airplane.

 

Duh! It crashed head on into the ground at 580mph. Of course there was not much left and of course there was a trace, and that trace was collected. BTW, the FBI found both its cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder intact, as deep as 25 feet underground. It was the only usable cockpit recording recovered from the attacks that day.

 

More evidence of truthers having difficulty with ambiguous and intentionally misleading language.

Planes do not vanish in any scenario. It did not vanish in any scenario. Remains of the plane, the passengers, the hijackers, their belongings, and evidence of the impact were found and documented.

 

There were no plane remains in Shanksville. The only evidence of a plane were pictures shown to us much later and those pictures are all close ups that could have been taken anywhere. When a plane crashes, people don't usually need to be told that a plane crashed. It's pretty much always obvious by all the wreckage unless it crashed at sea. Even then, it's rare not to find it.

 

That's pretty obtuse.

That's not even something that all truthers believe, as some argue that the remains indicate the plane was shot down. Some argue that the plane was a drone or missile. Some argue that the the plane was a military jet.

You guys really need to figure out a unified theory if anyone is going to take you seriously.

Denial of evidence notwithstanding.

 

And the dodging begins...

 

In that entire response, you did nothing to disprove me. Way to deflect.

 

You'd have tom had proven something first







But Alas...

 

The powers-that-be can only get away with so much. There is no faking an airliner crash into a building, even the Pentagon. Too many people involved, far too public an occurrence.

Engage your brain. Planes hit buildings on 9/11. If you want to question the motives behind it, I can sympathise. Personally, I think the US got its nose bloodied for messing around in fundamentalist Muslim lands. That means that, politically speaking, it was no more an unprovoked attack than was Pearl Harbor, another case of the US getting smacked militarily for messing with a foreign power in other ways.

 

What's there to talk about that won't be summarily dismissed as fabricated, planted, altered, etc.

You've had more than a decade to look for evidence on your own. Do you think I'm hiding it from you? No, you're either the lazy type of truther that refuses to look at evidence, or you've seen the evidence and come to the conclusion that the evidence you saw was what, all fake?

How does that play out in your head? In order to pull of 9/11 the conspirators needed a plane to crash in an empty field because it had been hijacked and a heroic attempt to reclaim the plane caused a crash. Phone calls were faked, radar data was faked, airport security video was faked, all timed and coordinated to coincide with 3 other hijackings. Wow. You must think the conspirators are super smart. The conspirators then took a bunch of photographs of an empty field, distributed them, and then suddenly realized they need to plant a bunch of fake evidence after the fact? You must think the conspirators are super stupid. To cover their mistake they threatened and tricked people on the ground into discovering aircraft debris, human remains, and personal effects. They faked photos and testimony and investigation. Oops. You're back to thinking the conspirators are super smart again.

Good thing they left all these dumb clues around for you to figure this all out, Scooby doo.

 

I did not realize that you speak for truthers.

 

It really isn't that difficult

 

I simply wish truthers could follow a simple course of logic.

For example, noting the existence of specific point of view does not mean I speak for that point of view, or support that point of view.

Do you dispute the copious amount of evidence of fragmentation withing truther conspiracy circles? In fact, I'll go so far as to say that no two truthers completely agree.

 

Repeating inaccurate statements does not make them accurate. How do YOU know how fast the airplane was going? More importantly, if nobody there could see the crashed airplane, how could one possibly have crashed there? Airplanes do not become invisible once they crash.

As for Flight Data Recorders, did you know that the unit provided by the government for flight 77 was essentially fabricated? That it was faked and tampered with? That, from a man called Dennis Cimino who is an expert in FDR technology, having worked in the field.

 

Oh please....It's like you'not even trying anymore

 

LOL, sure thing. Conspiracy all the way. No matter how little you know or cannot prove, you will never change your mind because it is what you want to believe, not fact.

 

With all due respect sir, it is you who advocates and defends a story that cannot be proved. I merely point out the inconsistencies with a story you defend.

For example, you claim that an airliner crashed in that field and that it was doing 580mph, yet you cannot prove either claim.

 

You mean the made up inconsistencies based on a true belief that none of the facts are true. Your beliefs are based on faith, not facts.

 

I can prove it,however you hand wave away my proof,claiming it's false,using the most dubious of sources

And quite frankly the only 'inconsistencies' are the ones you made up

 

Is this the guy that told me he wasn't interested in our sources? One cannot do anything with an individual who refuses to see.

 

I never claimed to have all the answers. Somehow you sheep think that just because we don't have the answers, our whole case falls apart. Actually it doesn't. I just know when things don't add up. And not finding a plane in an open field is one of those things that doesn't add up. A building collapsing at free fall speed when it wasn't even struck by a plane when other, more damaged buildings remain standing, doesn't add up. Security video of the Pentagon not being made public doesn't add up. Eyewitnesses saying they heard explosions before the plane crashed and being ignored doesn't add up. Not finding black boxes doesn't add up. Unobstructed cell phone calls with clarity at high altitudes in 2001 doesn't add up. And on and on and on.

 

Yes, and Rob Balsamo from Pilots For Truth also maintains that a 757 cannot perform this manoeuvre:

https://youtu.be/Uiv6UvYnf3s

Why do you think he is credible? It's not hard to crash a plane, that is why so much time is spent on training pilots NOT to do that.

What makes you think it is hidden?