• 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!

911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?

KokomoJojo

KokomoJojo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
7,544
Reaction score
1,503
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


Plane crashes result in enormous piles of debris. A smaller plane, 707 for instance is a pile about 25 ft high and 30ft diameter after cleanup. Where is the associated debris? It cant vanish into thin air? The most we have seen so far isnt enough to fill the box of a pickup truck.
 
Last edited:
KokomoJojo said:


Plane crashes result in enormous piles of debris. A smaller plane, 707 for instance is a pile about 25 ft high and 30ft diameter after cleanup. Where is the associated debris? It cant vanish into thin air? The most we have seen so far isnt enough to fill the box of a pickup truck.
Click to expand...

Even most CT's think no-planers are lower than pond-scum. If any of the cheerleaders around here actually had a pair (or were actually serious) they would denounce you. Not that it would matter because you aren't serious either. It is doubtful if you actually believe anything you post because every once in a while you let it slip that you are not the baffoonish imbecile you pretend to be.
 
Mark F said:
Even most CT's think no-planers are lower than pond-scum. If any of the cheerleaders around here actually had a pair (or were actually serious) they would denounce you. Not that it would matter because you aren't serious either. It is doubtful if you actually believe anything you post because every once in a while you let it slip that you are not the baffoonish imbecile you pretend to be.
Click to expand...

no-planers?

who said anything about no planes?

Why in the world would they think they are "scum" of all things? Such a psychotic display of vitriol and hatred for asking an obvious question. What are they hiding Mark? Are you sure they arent just pretending to be CT'ers?

This is a claim of 'no debriser' Mark.

Serious? Mark you are the one that was pushing a wall could fall while its paint remained standing and you accuse me of not being serious, wtf is up with that?

I am simply looking for more than a pickup truck full of debris between 3 alleged 757 crash sites. I am sure you have the evidence showing a 'mountain' of plane debris for 'each' site right Mark?



Everyone can see the mountain of debris from the maylasia event so everyone if they didnt already now knows how much debris it really is. Its a small mountain Mark.

If it is a plane dont need to be a rocket scientist to know a 757 makes a big pile that wont fit into a pickup truck like the scarcely few items typically shown as 'evidence'

So you dont mind showing us the rest of the debris from the 3 crash sites do you?, or are you simply going to continue making baseless personal attacks?
 
Last edited:
Occam suggests that the reason there was no piles of Boeing debris at either the Pentagon or Shanksville was because there actually were no Boeings at either place. Both sites looked like there was no Boeing because there was no Boeing.
 
Henry David said:
Occam suggests that the reason there was no piles of Boeing debris at either the Pentagon or Shanksville was because there actually were no Boeings at either place. Both sites looked like there was no Boeing because there was no Boeing.
Click to expand...

Occam called. He said stop using his name since you have ZERO understanding what he meant.
 
KokomoJojo said:
....Plane crashes result in enormous piles of debris......Where is the associated debris? It cant vanish into thin air?....
Click to expand...

:2bow:

 
Utility Man said:
:2bow:
Click to expand...

thats a tiny little jet, lets see your HUGE 757, and lets examine the debris from that test.

Sorry but I dont accept some bimbo news reporters hyperbole as an authority on what the actual "debris' looked like.
 
Fledermaus said:
Occam called. He said stop using his name since you have ZERO understanding what he meant.
Click to expand...

see fled this is where occams razor comes in.

Here we have an f4 phantom that you people want to use to show it turns to dust, despite virtually all that dust was from the concrete breaking up.



see the wing 'tips' get sliced off?

here is how debunkers shoot themselves in the foot. LOL





The wings dont even twist or move out of position.

then debunkers turn right around and try to sell this ****:



you see you simply cant have it both ways at the same time.

 
I am guessing we have Koko's normal mix of irrelevancies, ridiculous accusation, red herrings, etc.

As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

Come to think of it, no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.
 
Fledermaus said:
I am guessing we have Koko's normal mix of irrelevancies, ridiculous accusation, red herrings, etc.

As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

Come to think of it, no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.
Click to expand...

I am guessing we have Koko's normal mix of irrelevancies, ridiculous accusation, red herrings, etc.

fled it helps to read the OP otherwise you are trying to pin a tail on a donkey and not even in the same universe as the donkey! At least have someone escort you to the same room so your posts make sense.

As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements. Of the debris? We need debris fled not statements.

Visible impact damage. but fled visible damage has nothing to do with debris, please just post the debris.

In the case of one tower, plenty of video. video of the debris? Kool thats what Im talking about! Let see your debris video

Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc. But fled thats why its so important to read the OP, since that morsel has already been accounted for.

RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner. But it does not confirm debris fled

Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings. Wouldnt they all be dead fled?

Come to think of it, no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.

But fled until you understand what the thread is about you cant even think about much less comment on what is 'intelligent', your post was a waste of font ink. try reading the OP before you post next time.
 
As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

Come to think of it, no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.
 
Fledermaus said:
As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"
Click to expand...

fled you must have double posted, we seen how you completely missed the objective of the OP the first time.

the thread is about evidence but specifically debris fled.

see all that **** you put up is at best circumstantial and its always trumped by material evidence "debris".

Debris is material evidence that you need to prove that a plane in "FACT" did what you say it did.

So if your post is true then you should have absolutely no problem what so ever producing the debris. You can use the malaysia plane to get an idea how much debris is sufficient to prove your position.

If you cant come up with about the same about of debris then I am forced to conclude something sleight of hand may be going on with your position. You wouldnt want me to think that would you? So knuckle down and lets see the debris photos that account for at least 75% of the plane.
 
As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The EVIDENCE must be taken as a WHOLE.

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

And there is STILL no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.

INCREDULITY is not EVIDENCE.

INCREDULITY isn't even a good argument.
 
EXAMPLE: Flight 77...

Explain the debris consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the RADAR tracking consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the landing gear consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the wheel consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the engine consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the DNA consistent with Flight 77 passengers on the scene.
Explain the luggage and personal effects consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the damage to the building and building facade consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the EYEWITNESS reports on the ground consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the PHONE CALLS that ENDED with impact consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.

ANd some ignorant accusation of "planted" don't cut it with the adults in the room.
 
Fledermaus said:
As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The EVIDENCE must be taken as a WHOLE.

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

And there is STILL no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.

INCREDULITY is not EVIDENCE.

INCREDULITY isn't even a good argument.
Click to expand...

fled you need to get a computer repairman over right away!

You keep posting the same thing, none of which is DEBRIS, none of which proves beyond a reasonable mans doubt that a your position is FACT!

why are you being incredulous fled?

oh wait

YOU MEAN YOU CANT SHOW US THE DEBRIS! NO ****?
 
Fledermaus said:
EXAMPLE: Flight 77...

Explain the debris consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the RADAR tracking consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the landing gear consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the wheel consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the engine consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the DNA consistent with Flight 77 passengers on the scene.
Explain the luggage and personal effects consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the damage to the building and building facade consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the EYEWITNESS reports on the ground consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the PHONE CALLS that ENDED with impact consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.

ANd some ignorant accusation of "planted" don't cut it with the adults in the room.
Click to expand...

Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!
Explain why you cant show us the debris fled!

I am not a farmer I dont know anything about growing planes.
 
KokomoJojo said:
fled you need to get a computer repairman over right away!

You keep posting the same thing, none of which is DEBRIS, none of which proves beyond a reasonable mans doubt that a your position is FACT!

why are you being incredulous fled?

oh wait

YOU MEAN YOU CANT SHOW US THE DEBRIS! NO ****?
Click to expand...

Your computer must have a TRUTHER chip...

As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The EVIDENCE must be taken as a WHOLE.

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

And there is STILL no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.

INCREDULITY is not EVIDENCE.

INCREDULITY isn't even a good argument.

And...

EXAMPLE: Flight 77...

Explain the debris consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the RADAR tracking consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the landing gear consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the wheel consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the engine consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the DNA consistent with Flight 77 passengers on the scene.
Explain the luggage and personal effects consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the damage to the building and building facade consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the EYEWITNESS reports on the ground consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the PHONE CALLS that ENDED with impact consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.

ANd some ignorant accusation of "planted" don't cut it with the adults in the room.
 
Fledermaus said:
Your computer must have a TRUTHER chip...

As far as the OP... "911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?"

The EVIDENCE must be taken as a WHOLE.

The evidence is:

Eyewitness statements.
Visible impact damage.
In the case of one tower, plenty of video.
Add to that debris consistent with the airliner in all three locations. Engines, landing gear components, etc.
RADAR confirms they were the hijacked airliner.
Statements of the passengers and aircrew corroborate the hijackings.

And there is STILL no intelligent argument can be made for anything other than the airliners striking the three buildings.

INCREDULITY is not EVIDENCE.

INCREDULITY isn't even a good argument.

And...

EXAMPLE: Flight 77...

Explain the debris consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the RADAR tracking consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the landing gear consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the wheel consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the engine consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the DNA consistent with Flight 77 passengers on the scene.
Explain the luggage and personal effects consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the damage to the building and building facade consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the EYEWITNESS reports on the ground consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.
Explain the PHONE CALLS that ENDED with impact consistent with Flight 77 on the scene.

ANd some ignorant accusation of "planted" don't cut it with the adults in the room.
Click to expand...




sure fled but when all you can find for debris easily fits on a kids tonka trailer the debris overrules every time. Thats just the way it is. That is why I am asking you once again to provide the actual evidence by providing the actual debris.

with all that circumstantial evidence it should be easy for you to provide all the necessary photos to validate the circumstantial claim.

There is simply no other way to do it and you cant use circumstantial evidence to prove your case and make it stick when material evidence that we know must exist and you refuse to show it.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
View attachment 67169968View attachment 67169969View attachment 67169970View attachment 67169971View attachment 67169972
Click to expand...


yes fled we have accounted for the morsels of debris you posted, you are supposed to use this:



as a guide to help you understand that morsels are simply insufficient evidence. In other words you need more than a picture of a plane to show a plane actually impacted. the building as you claim.

use the above malaysia plane crash debris pics as a guide, that is a lot of **** man, look at how small the people look when standing by the plane debris.

Explain the lack of debris consistent with a "WHOLE" 757.



again fled lets see your photos of 75% of the plane, that would take about 30 pickup trucks heaped.
 
Last edited:
Koko is back and doing his thing I see.
Amazing people still seem to think hes a truther
 
.


Yes we have taken note fled that your response to this:


KokomoJojo said:
yes fled we have accounted for the morsels of debris you posted, you are supposed to use this:



as a guide to help you understand that morsels are simply insufficient evidence. In other words you need more than a picture of a plane to show a plane actually impacted. the building as you claim.

use the above malaysia plane crash debris pics as a guide, that is a lot of **** man, look at how small the people look when standing by the plane debris.

Explain the lack of debris consistent with a "WHOLE" 757.



again fled lets see your photos of 75% of the plane, that would take about 30 pickup trucks heaped.
Click to expand...

is this!

Fledermaus said:
Back to ignore on the POE
Click to expand...


Your total disregard for legal procedure, due process, with regard to material evidence, and its standing, that attitude is the primary reason the debunker movement has failed and debunkers have become the laughing stock of the world.

Proving the existence of a piece of luggage or the existence of a plane seat only proves the existence of a piece of luggage and a plane seat NOTHING MORE.

Translated into debunker that means IT DOES NOT PROVE IT RESULTED FROM A 757 PLANE. Providing the evidence showing the debris does prove it resulted from a 757 plane.

That said:

ALL planes are constructed with a KNOWN specific amount of MATERIAL.

Suffice to say you have just proven that you are incapable of "MATERIALLY" proving that a '757' plane did in FACT impact the building. Your failure to provide MATERIAL evidence for that which you are required to provide overrules your circumstantial claims.

You can hide from me but you cant hide from that fact.


Is there anyone here who actually has sufficient evidence to prove that 757 planes were involved. For my purposes I will accept 75% of the total wreckage as having demonstrated reasonably that a '757' plane was involved and not just some trash dumped off the back of someones pickup truck. (since that is all you have now)
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
What a dumb thread. Truthers will try any dishonest tactic to circulate their bilge.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like a virus that keeps mutating. Confront one delusion and a new one pops up to replace it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom