When confronted with the fact that there was no wreckage at the Shanksville crash site, Oozlefinch posted a pick of an auction car-lot where a DC-8 crashed. You saw it, and you saw the caption he placed beneath that pick. Tell me, Fallenangel, what do you suppose he meant by that?
I do not know what he exactly meant by that.
I do not know what he exactly meant by that.
The caption was: "Wow, where are the planes? This is just proof it is all a conspiracy!"
And his question regarding it was: Do any of you think I was seriously implying that there was no debris at those crash sites?
Very good PilotsForTruth, I was waiting only for your affirmation.Very good FallenAngel, at least you are honest.
The rest of the readers will decide for themselves. I cannot say it will be good for you though....
The comment was sarcasm, nothing more and nothing less.
So, you don't know what he meant by it. Yeah, that's what I thought.
And his question regarding it only came out of him after he was called out on equating crashes.
But why don't you give it a go now. He posted the car-lot crash pic and added his own caption. What was the purpose of the caption? What did he intend to convey with that caption?
Did "mike2810" really say the above? I question this because mike2810 has been reprimanding others over the past few weeks for using personal attacks.
Mike, did you really say the above?
And if so, do you think the people in my signature are "stupid"?
But why don't you give it a go now. He posted the car-lot crash pic and added his own caption. What was the purpose of the caption? What did he intend to convey with that caption?
Fallenangel,
Not asking you to read his mind. I simply asked your opinion of what you thought the pic and caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash site.
I already answered that I don't know what it was intended to convey
I already answered that I don't know what it was intended to convey, and I'm not going to start guessing - as I see it as a waste of time.
And yet you decided to defend what you admit you don't understand. Fair enough . . .
And yet you have spent the last two pages cheerleading for the very person in which you admit, "I don't know what it was intended to convey"
:lamo
No. I decided to answer a question by another poster, regarding his own post.
That is all, not defending, not accusing, nothing...very simple.
Fallen.
No. I decided to answer a question by another poster, regarding his own post.
Why don't you explain what the caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash? Not for any of us, but for yourself.
:lamo
I invite the readers to read at least the last two pages of discussion. It won't take long. The webmasters of this forum have done it right for flowing discussion and reading.
Maybe I was not aware that so many in here are so totally lacking of the "Sarcasm Gene" that they would not get it for the sarcasm that it was intended to be.
Maybe I was not aware that so many in here are so totally lacking of the "Sarcasm Gene" that they would not get it for the sarcasm that it was intended to be.
No, that is a photograph of a rusted out mess of metal which obviously was posed for a photo-op next to a backhoe bucket.... somewhere.
You were told that is the engine from "Flight 93".
This is what the engine looks like in real life....
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6199/6072389882_9f8ce7c445_o.jpg
Of course, it won't look like that after "impact", but surely it won't look like a rusted out mess of metal which is the fraction of the size of a backhoe bucket. Perhaps this is why none of the 9/11 Aircraft were never positively identified?
By the way, the 757 has two engines. Where is the photo of the other "engine"?[/QUOTE]
Thank you!. I knew one of you would show the classic tactics used by truthers.
I was told? um so were you...
The aircraft were identified.
In the end you are just parroting a opinion that you heard elsewhere. As entertaining as it may be its far from definite information. Face it you have no facts just opinions. And the fact that people disagree with your opinions rubs you raw. if I point out that you would need to be delusional to believe all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, you would return with some cookie cutter reaction. Such is the life of a follower.
Thank you!. I knew one of you would show the classic tactics used by truthers.
I was told? um so were you...
The aircraft were identified.
In the end you are just parroting a opinion that you heard elsewhere. As entertaining as it may be its far from definite information. Face it you have no facts just opinions. And the fact that people disagree with your opinions rubs you raw. if I point out that you would need to be delusional to believe all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, you would return with some cookie cutter reaction. Such is the life of a follower.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?