[Repo]

911, the least you could do if your going to deny the official story is actually read up and understand what the official story is, and then counter it. As it stands, you aren't even getting the official story right so without that minimal effort theres no point having a discussion.

[911]

(09-14-2017 06:26 PM)Repo Wrote:  

Most of the worst conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if their supporters held the "contrasting evidence" to the same standards as the official story. See the flat earth thread. So many "unanswered" questions have been answered over and over and over again.

Just out of curiosity Repo (and others fully on board with official 9/11 narrative), do you also believe in the official version for the JFK assassination too (Lee Oswald single gun theory)?

(09-14-2017 08:52 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

From the link:

Quote:

Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites.

Muddying the waters. This allows the counter-shills to insult serious investigators by tossing out "are you one of the 'no plane' guys?"

Muddying the waters is a very good way to put it Len. They would usually combine elements of truth with some outrageous features that "poison the well", see Icke's exposing the Saville story, the private/Rothschild-owned fractional reserve debt system and slapping the reptilian shape-shifting crap on top of it...poison pill.

Along the same lines, the "no plane" thing is partially true too, because there was no plane hitting the Pentagon (unless you believe a Boeing could pull 5gs on a tight 270 turn and fly 6m off the ground at 800km/hr smack into the first floor, where the entire plane, wings, engines and tail, collapsed into a small hole leaving nearby glass windows unscathed). And there was no plane on the Shankville dirt pile either, so "no plane" is exactly half right, 2 out of 4. You take that base of truth, then slap that "no plane hit the WTC" poison pill on top of it.

[911]

(09-14-2017 11:13 PM)Repo Wrote:  

911, the least you could do if your going to deny the official story is actually read up and understand what the official story is, and then counter it. As it stands, you aren't even getting the official story right so without that minimal effort theres no point having a discussion.

The official story of Flight 93 is that the plane was hijacked, and passengers Beamer, Bingham and co. made a bunch of phone calls, including cellphone calls at high altitude, then rushed the hijackers, and the terrorist pilot plunged the 757 into the ground, smack into the middle of that Shanksville gash.

Most of the plane vaporized and/or disappeared into the meadow, while the rest of it bounced off and ended up in debris fields, some which 6 to 8 miles away from the impact point. That's one hell of a bounce through the forest (with no trail). This was, more or less, the official explanation for why there were no visible plane parts at the alleged plane impact point.

The first part of that official narrative is a heroic tale, which automatically makes one a commie traitor denier for being skeptical about it. The second part is physically impossible, another 9/11 singularity which was never observed among the dozens of jet plane crashes in decades past.

[SlickyBoy]

Quote:

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.

The pic was chosen because the author is about as thorough as any other conspiracy kook with the facts. Based on the lack of rebuttal to the evidence provided, I guess we've finally gotten past the "they moved the tail of the aircraft - It's a setup!" story?

Good. That's progress.

And yes, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.

[911]

(09-15-2017 10:04 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Quote:

The Siberian crash site looks very similar to the Shanksville site, a large green meadow surrounded by forest, I guess that is also why that pic was chosen.

The pic was chosen because the author is about as thorough as any other conspiracy kook with the facts. Based on the lack of rebuttal to the evidence provided, I guess we've finally gotten past the "they moved the tail of the aircraft - It's a setup!" story?

Good. That's progress.

And yes, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.

The author of that article must have been compelled to present that Siberian crash picture as the Shanksville alleged crash spot, because that dirt crater in the middle of a gash with no airplane parts or debris doesn't look like a real crash scene.

As Zel pointed out, that whole article is BS.

[Repo]

I am not as well read on the JFK assasination so I have no opinion on that. The only bone I'll throw regarding 9/11 is that officials are likely not disclosing how much was known beforehand and know now, and may have allowed certain events to proceed.