Wrong yet again. Proof and more proof When someone gets this much wrong on a continuing basis, is it any wonder their credibility is shot all to hell?
Your so right, because what toofers refuse to understand is that all evidence is documented on government documents. The scum bags like to point to the good police and firefighters there that day as evidence describing what they experienced, but they just want to implicate the honorable police and firefighters in the crime of 911.
Hmm . . . that's interesting . . . not a single post by suede who claims to have evidence that United 93 was planted.
This is not surprising, in fact, it was completely expected. It's kind of hard to post something you don't have. He's dividing by zero.
It seems no one can provide even a source to consult. No evidence, no source ... Not even an attempt to support the claim. Deduction? The is no evidence at all that United flight 93 was planted.
None? Then why did they bother plant none of that evidence comrade? Your higher-ups in Beijing need to issue you a new directive on your insurrection, because it appears to be all over the road.
I saw supposed photos of debris, supposedly caused by a plane. I saw no plane, plane parts, or any other "proof" that verified the "story" conclusively. Just like the big hole from 93...nothing but a big hole. You'd think there would be photos in endless supply given the enormity of the situation and the worldwide attention. Just a few doctored photos is all that could be produced though. I'm not that gullible.
The plane hit the ground at near full throttle....by what stretch of the imagination were you expecting to see ' a plane' or any recognizable parts?
I thought it hit the Pentagon first? It hit the ground first? Even more amazing! I'll start with the "hole" that wasn't in the Pentagon immediately after supposed impact. You know, the one nobody has an answer for. If it hit the Pentagon, it seems to me there would be some evidence of that, either in a "hole" or via a Titanium engine turbine, a piece of a wing, a piece of the tail...something. There wasn't. The cosmetic damage reflected in the photo I reference, seems to support the idea that nothing really hit it at all. Rather, it suggests (to me) some sort of of a result of percussion...a blast. Otherwise there would be a hole where the plane was supposed to have hit. No evidence of any of these items I mentioned except for a stray photoshopped image or two, with little else in the frame to help verify its authenticity. We also have the "human chain" of folks in shirts and ties, combing the ground searching for "something". I'd like to know what that something was, or if they found it or not. Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that three rings of the Pentagon can be punched out, via an aluminum nosecone..and certainly not without some sort of supportive evidence. I'll put aside the fantastic flight route, the miraculous turns and grass top magic and the supposed fact that a failed Cessna pilot (under stress) would have done all that, for now. Nevermind the conflicting eyewitness testimony about which way the plane supposedly came from and flew, the removal of around 100 cameras film and subsequent stonewalling, and I'll put aside (for now) that silly 3 frames that shows a whole lot of nothing that was unsuccessfully sold (to anyone with a brain) as evidence of Flight 77. Oh, you meant Flight 93???????? Oh well...no evidence at all there...just a big hole. That's really all there is to talk about...a hole. With 77 at least, there's a little more to talk about, hence, my problems with the "story" of 77 above. But if you want to talk about the big hole...we can continue. I just thought you might appreciate a little more to present your case for the "story" than 93 offers. (Buried NOT).
Try to stay on topic ... The rambling incredulity is poor form. Do you have any evidence that 93 was planted?
