3292 replies to this topic

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 27 December 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

BR threw in a P700 anti-ship missile in regards to the Pentagon attack, but it seems to me he is unable to differentiate between a Boeing 757 and a P700 anti-ship missile, so let's compare the two in order to see where he is going wrong.

Hmmm ... two wings.  Check.  Tail feathers.  Check.  Jet powered.  Check.  Yeah, I can see where there may be some confusion.  

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 27 December 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Hmmm ... two wings.  Check.  Tail feathers.  Check.  Jet powered.  Check.  Yeah, I can see where there may be some confusion.  

Perhaps, this is what he meant when he said there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.


P700 Anti-ship missile

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 27 December 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Perhaps, this is what he meant when he said there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.


P700 Anti-ship missile

Works for me.  :-)

[RaptorBites]

Liquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

So when there's good evidence of a deception, then there was a deception.  When there is no good evidence of a deception, then there was a deception, just a really successful one.  Heads you win, tails... you win!  This argument could use a little more work...

Damnit LG....you owe me a cup of coffee that I just spilled on my desk because of the hilarious nature of your post.

Edited by RaptorBites, 27 December 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

RaptorBites, on 27 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Damnit LG....you owe me a cup of coffee that I just spilt on my desk because of the hilarious nature of your post.

Ha, thanks Raptor, your next cup is on me! (and maybe a new keyboard...)

[RaptorBites]

Just coming back from a break and seeing that this thread is still alive makes me want to draw out a long sigh.

I have been trolling debunk videos on youtube to see if there are any new theories people are coming up with to explain 9/11.  

Haven't seen anything new...

Other than when faced with proposals for evidence, truthers often rely on claims of planted evidence, coercion, evidence of nothing is evidence of a coverup, etc.....

same ol' same ol'

[Kludge808]

RaptorBites, on 27 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Just coming back from a break and seeing that this thread is still alive makes me want to draw out a long sigh.

Pretty amazing, isn't it.  It should have died somewhere around page 25 except for One Person who hasn't seen a CT he doesn't like.  Of course, this leads to jumping between them as is convenient to handle any particular situation without regard to the logical fallacies this presents.

Quote

I have been trolling debunk videos on youtube to see if there are any new theories people are coming up with to explain 9/11.

Haven't seen anything new...

And you expected ... ???

Quote

Other than when faced with proposals for evidence, truthers often rely on claims of planted evidence, coercion, evidence of nothing is evidence of a coverup, etc.....

same ol' same ol'

If nothing else they're consistent.  Not the part about jumping from CT to CT to suit the situation although that is pretty consistent too.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

So when there's good evidence of a deception, then there was a deception.  When there is no good evidence of a deception, then there was a deception, just a really successful one.  Heads you win, tails... you win!  This argument could use a little more work...

The beauty of a successful deception LG, is that the party being deceived never becomes aware of it until it's too late.

That you and many others are not yet aware of the deception, 11 years later with 11 years worth of investigation revealing the deceptions, speaks volumes as to how successful it was.

That the mainstream media was such a crucial and willing part of the deception explains why it was so successful.  I understand the various psychological dynamics involved--cognitive dissonance and such--but still, the deception was extremely successful.

Perhaps the quintessential deception of the day was at Shanksville.  Make a movie and put up a monument, and voila!

[Kludge808]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Perhaps the quintessential deception of the day was at Shanksville.  Make a movie and put up a monument, and voila!

Hmmm ... if I may quote from one of your previous messages ...

Quote

Combined with the suppression of evidence by the mainstream media since day 1, you have a very well planned (over years) and well executed False Flag operation.

For a False Flag to be successful, you have to leave oodles and scads of evidence pointing in the desired direction.  That would absolutely require wreckage at Shanksville as would your earlier comment regarding a shoot down.  Sooo ... are you now supporting one or the other of these (or both since they can be combined) or was there no wreckage at Shanksville?  You can't have it both ways.

[Babe Ruth]

Hey Kludge, welcome back and Happy Holidays.

There were oodles and scads of evidence left.  Sky and others have posted pictures of them many times here.  You know, that piece of fuselage section and assorted other pieces.

Trouble is, none of that stuff was found in the hole in the ground we were all shown.  It presumably came from a location in the woods about 1800 feet away where the FBI said it actually was.  And in typical 911 fashion, nobody else was allowed at that site, even the property owner or the county coroner.

The FF was very successful.  Here it is 11 years later and most people are still deceived.  There was a time when I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry about that, but lately I've decided that laughter, in a perverse sort of way, is the only sane choice.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Hey Kludge, welcome back and Happy Holidays.

There were oodles and scads of evidence left.  Sky and others have posted pictures of them many times here.  You know, that piece of fuselage section and assorted other pieces.

Trouble is, none of that stuff was found in the hole in the ground we were all shown.

Better check again!

Quote

It presumably came from a location in the woods about 1800 feet away where the FBI said it actually was.  And in typical 911 fashion, nobody else was allowed at that site, even the property owner or the county coroner.

That doesn't work because It was a crime scene

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Perhaps the quintessential deception of the day was at Shanksville.  Make a movie and put up a monument, and voila!

Where did Uinited Airlnes, operator of United 93, say United 93 had crashed? The memory board from the black box of United 93 was sent to the Honeywell facility and data was extracted from the memory board in Redmond, Washington, and I might add that Honeywell is not a government agency.

In addition to satellite data confirming the crash of United 93 near Shanksville, we have seismic data as well.

Quote

United 93 Seismic Data

Although, seismic signals across the network are not as strong and clear as the WTC case (see Kim et al., 2001), three component records at station SSPA (
= 107.6 km) shown in Figure 6 are quite clear. The three-component records at SSPA are dominated by strong Lg arrivals, whereas the Pg waves are difficult to discern and have amplitudes comparable to the noise level. This is typical for seismic waves generated by airplane impacts and crashes.

The seismic signals marked as Sg in Figure 5 propagated from the Shanksville crash site to the stations with approximately 3.5 km/s.

http://www.mgs.md.go...911pentagon.pdf

Quote

The FF was very successful.  Here it is 11 years later and most people are still deceived.

After more than 11 years, there is still no evidence of a false flag operation and you have been asked to provide such evidence and yet you have failed to provide such evidence. Without evidence your claim holds as much water as a kitchen strainer.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Kludge808]

Babe Ruth, on 28 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Hey Kludge, welcome back and Happy Holidays.

Well, not really back (see earlier post about the Waldos) but doing what I can to keep up.  Christmas was good, though.  I talked with my daughter for an hour on the phone which is always a good thing.

Quote

There were oodles and scads of evidence left.  Sky and others have posted pictures of them many times here.  You know, that piece of fuselage section and assorted other pieces.

Trouble is, none of that stuff was found in the hole in the ground we were all shown.  It presumably came from a location in the woods about 1800 feet away where the FBI said it actually was.  And in typical 911 fashion, nobody else was allowed at that site, even the property owner or the county coroner.

The FF was very successful.  Here it is 11 years later and most people are still deceived.  There was a time when I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry about that, but lately I've decided that laughter, in a perverse sort of way, is the only sane choice.

Well, actually Wally, in his role as the ME instead of coroner, and his band of merry assistants were inside the cordon gathering up bits and pieces of human remains - 4500 pieces weighing in at around 600 pounds if I remember right.  Anyway, some hard pieces did land that far away and paper & other light stuff went further than that.  This isn't surprising given the force of the impact.  At the same time, some was excavated from the hole that way too many people saw including the operator of the backhoe who wasn't FBI but local.  As to the site being exclusionary by the FBI, that's usual for a crime scene just like cops do for a local one - you know, robberies, murders, selling really bad donuts and the like.

In the case of a False Flag operation, though, you want as many witnesses as possible so they can support the whole "Now, look what dem dere bad boys done did!" requirement of such an operation.  You want as many witnesses as possible to the wreckage as found, to the body bitzenpieces as found, and to everything and anything else as found.  This is a situation where fabricated simply isn't good enough.  It has to be absolutely real.  Staging anything defeats the whole purpose of a False Flag operation.  This would also be the case in a shoot down since it can be turned into whatever it has to be to support pretty much any agenda one can think up.  In short, a False Flag has to follow the Official Version to the letter without exception and without getting creative in "making" evidence to suit.  It also means doing the unthinkable and flying those four airliners as described in the Official Version.  Flt 93's crashing early meant a quick rewrite of that part of the script but that would be very easily managed.  Script writers do that all the time.  It comes with the territory.

What it comes down to is that if there was no wreckage at Shanksville or anywhere else, then it could not have been a False Flag operation nor could Shanksville have been a shoot down.

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 28 December 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Well, not really back (see earlier post about the Waldos) but doing what I can to keep up.  Christmas was good, though.  I talked with my daughter for an hour on the phone which is always a good thing.

Well, actually Wally, in his role as the ME instead of coroner, and his band of merry assistants were inside the cordon gathering up bits and pieces of human remains - 4500 pieces weighing in at around 600 pounds if I remember right.  Anyway, some hard pieces did land that far away and paper & other light stuff went further than that.  This isn't surprising given the force of the impact.  At the same time, some was excavated from the hole that way too many people saw including the operator of the backhoe who wasn't FBI but local.  As to the site being exclusionary by the FBI, that's usual for a crime scene just like cops do for a local one - you know, robberies, murders, selling really bad donuts and the like.

In the case of a False Flag operation, though, you want as many witnesses as possible so they can support the whole "Now, look what dem dere bad boys done did!" requirement of such an operation.  You want as many witnesses as possible to the wreckage as found, to the body bitzenpieces as found, and to everything and anything else as found.  This is a situation where fabricated simply isn't good enough.  It has to be absolutely real.  Staging anything defeats the whole purpose of a False Flag operation.  This would also be the case in a shoot down since it can be turned into whatever it has to be to support pretty much any agenda one can think up.  In short, a False Flag has to follow the Official Version to the letter without exception and without getting creative in "making" evidence to suit.  It also means doing the unthinkable and flying those four airliners as described in the Official Version.  Flt 93's crashing early meant a quick rewrite of that part of the script but that would be very easily managed.  Script writers do that all the time.  It comes with the territory.

What it comes down to is that if there was no wreckage at Shanksville or anywhere else, then it could not have been a False Flag operation nor could Shanksville have been a shoot down.

Simply amazing!! He claims that no aircraft wreckage is visible at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville despite tons of evidence and yet he continues to push a false flag operation. I don't think he understands that in order to push a 9/11 false flag operation he has to present aircraft wreckage and then, account for passengers and crew of those flights.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 29 December 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Simply amazing!! He claims that no aircraft wreckage is visible at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville despite tons of evidence and yet he continues to push a false flag operation. I don't think he understands that in order to push a 9/11 false flag operation he has to present aircraft wreckage and then, account for passengers and crew of those flights.

A false flag operation is basically a 'frame-up', except grander in scale.

The primary goal is to successfully frame others for their own crimes.

For 9/11, they 'find' passports, etc. So goofy a fable yet somehow many still buy it