Why are you wasting your time if you have no interest, nota bene? You do understand what your moniker means, do you not?
I actually forgot this thread was on Flight 93. I don’t discuss that because, as I think I said in this thread, if the gvmt shot it down, I wouldn’t be surprised.
If they shot down Flight 93, then they murdered 2900 some people and demolished six to ten buildings, Maggie.
But doubt we’d ever know that for sure.
It's easy to find out, have a real investigation. Isn't the USA supposed to be a rule of law country with an established judiciary?
As to the crash site, if they really felt it necessary, they could sacrifice a perfectly good airplane, and with black box data, duplicate the crash to see what remained.
They don't even want to do a real investigation, never have, why in the hell do you think they would do this?
I do know that they found remains of 40 crew and passengers through DNA and four unidentified that they assume to be the hijackers’. That’s enough for me.
Do you really know this, Maggie? Remember, these are the very people who lied about pretty much everything.
Since either way it happened would be understandable, I have no interest in debating it.
You find your government murdering innocents to be "understandable"?
I actually forgot this thread was on Flight 93. I don’t discuss that because, as I think I said in this thread, if the gvmt shot it down, I wouldn’t be surprised.
If they shot down Flight 93, then they murdered 2900 some people and demolished six to ten buildings, Maggie.
It's easy to find out, have a real investigation. Isn't the USA supposed to be a rule of law country with an established judiciary?
As to the crash site, if they really felt it necessary, they could sacrifice a perfectly good airplane, and with black box data, duplicate the crash to see what remained.
They don't even want to do a real investigation, never have, why in the hell do you think they would do this?
Do you really know this, Maggie? Remember, these are the very people who lied about pretty much everything.
You find your government murdering innocents to be "understandable"?
If they did bring down that airplane, that in no WAY means they brought down the other three buildings.im pretty sure I made my position clear as to why it’s understandable if the gvmt did being down that plane.
You are suspicious. I get that. But please don’t expect me, of all people, to engage you any more than I have. Don’t look for,zebras when horses are running all over the place. Yours is a futile argument. I appreciate that it keeps your brain busy. But I’m not interested in the subject. My mind is closed just as yours is.
I am someone who willingly looks at all evidence put forward in an honest manner by people who are seeking the truth. All you do, all you guys ever do is malign these folks when they are doing exactly what citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, - question their governments!!!
Do you hold that it is wrong to questions your governments and what they do? Do you acknowledge that they repeatedly lied about a large number of very important issues?
You tell me what happened to 93.
.
Lionel Nation says he encourages anyone to ask whatever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they want for as long as they want.
Don't you think that that is a good thing? Isn't it, in your mind, an American thing? Do you agree with Mr Nation?
One can learn, Maggie and one can draw adult, sensible conclusions from the evidence presented. Are you going to refuse jury duty because you are "educated" enough?
1. No steel framed high rise towers have ever collapses due to fires in all their history. Three did so on 911. The odds of that happening are 500 trillion to one. Office fires burning full tilt cannot compromise steel enough to cause a collapse, even with jet fuel added.
The combination of office furnishings and jet fuel burning as it did in WTCs 1 & 2, can burn for your and your kids' lifetimes and never melt steel [2,750F] or molybdenum [4,700F] or vaporize lead [3,180F] OR create the by products of a nanothermite reaction. For the last one, ONLY the US government/US military have access to this NON-COMMERCIALLY available supper explosive invented by US military labs in the 1990s.
How did this nanothermite get into the WTC twin towers and especially into WTC7?
You should be able to draw some adult, sensible conclusions from this evidence presented, or at the least, want to ask more questions, wonder about these impossible anomalies.
But that is exactly what should have happened with all three towers, they should have toppled,
fell in a haphazard halting manner according to the laws of physics. They all fell in a very symmetrical fashion, thru the path of greatest resistance, Maggie. The path of greatest resistance means all the numerous stories below that were stone cold steel which got progressively larger as you went down. They did so without any jolt, which also defies the laws of physics.
The French uses a method called verinage, which uses the weight of the top to help bring down the entire building. Half or more than half of a building's top floors is collapsed by hydraulics which causes the lower half to collapse. BUT, the crucial thing to remember in this is that there is ALWAYS A JOLT, which means there is ALWAYS a slowing down of the rate of descent in accordance with the laws of physics.
That did not happen to the twin towers. They accelerated throughout the collapse - a total impossibility according to the very laws of physics that the entire world acknowledges and believes in.
WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Again, that is an impossibility according to the same laws of physics.
You most assuredly may ask, assert, state anything you damn well please, Maggie.
Isn't that what we are supposed to be about? Why do you sit silent when others try to cow people into silence, when they shout them down, when they ridicule their offerings/evidence/beliefs/assertions/inquiries/... ?
I question your engineer's ideas. Just consider one thing. If what she said had any validity, 1. why did she feel the need to draw you aside and "inform" you in secret.
2. If what she said had any validity then there would never be any need for controlled demolition companies.
3. If what she said had any validity, by what method would the steel "twist and then fall straight down on itself"! Steel that is designed to carry the dead and live loads cannot also be designed to "twist".
[PART B TO FOLLOW]
maggie:
If they did bring down that airplane, that in no WAY means they brought down the other three buildings.im pretty sure I made my position clear as to why it’s understandable if the gvmt did being down that plane.
Maggie, please, it is not possible for you to be that gullible. Well, considering the ludicrous things you accepted from that "engineer", maybe you are very gullible.
If there was some special reason for the always lying US government to bring down Flight 93, then why did they lie their asses off, why did they use it as totally false propaganda, why would they murder those people without any justification or explanation, why would they lie to the families?
I know that you folks are used to this lying, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, ... but that doesn't make it moral or legally justified.
You are suspicious. I get that. But please don’t expect me, of all people, to engage you any more than I have. Don’t look for,zebras when horses are running all over the place. Yours is a futile argument. I appreciate that it keeps your brain busy. But I’m not interested in the subject. My mind is closed just as yours is.
I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.
Again, you seem to be totally uninterested in the criminal activity of people you are supposed to be able to trust.
But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?
But you should look under my screen name and then wonder anew why I might be reading a thread in which I have no interest.
Ok. That’s it. “Why did she choose to inform you in secret?” You’re beyond hope on this subject, Camlot.
Maggie, please, the histrionics won't get you anywhere. This is about science, remember?
Why are you IGNORING all the totally insane things your "engineer" told you to focus on this one relatively unimportant issue?
And if you ARE, then talk to other structural engineers. I’m sorry to say that I’m done here. Your mind is made up just as mine. Beating a dead horse expecting it o get up and pull the plow is hopeless.
You entered this discussion, Maggie, you weren't dragged here. But you have shown that you are completely refusing to think, you are refusing to address all the total impossibilities in the USOCT. All you do is what all the other supporters of this fable do, focus on the most inane ideas and beat them to death. Those are simply distractions mean to obscure the truth.
You are not capable, by your own admission, of deciding whether the horse is dead or not. Agreed?
For dog's sakes, NB, by your own admission, repeatedly, you state, "I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic", but still you soldier on in your ignorance attempting to cause only distraction.
Maggie: As for my comments that others say it wouldn’t just pancake down...that it looked like a controlled demolition? She said something like, “That building collapsed exactly how it was designed. And that is the ONLY way controlled demolition is designed to function.”
Maggie: Long story short, she believes the commission’s report on the collapse. That right there, her very educated opinion with no dog in the fight, is enough for me...and especially when I add it to my own common sense belief that a conspiracy so sophisticated and vast would take way too many people for it to ever remain secret.
Maggie: And since I am not an expert, I have nothing to contribute to continuing discussion about any of it.
I agree with your last sentence. Carry on.
Here one for you cam. A site along your views states 93 did in fact crash. However, it goes on to state it was most likely also hit by a missile strike
"
How is this "one for me", mike? It should be one for anyone interested in finding out the truth.
You can no longer say I do not provide information to back up what I post.
I can say that with perfect conviction because you don't. You throw out sources the size of the old bull**** US encyclopedias and expect people to unbundle them for you. YOU never say anything, [none of you USGOCT supporters do] so how can one know without going thru these huge dumps and attempting to divine what you are trying to say from the aforementioned massive dump.
Now, are you going to answer questions asked of you.
Your gigantic, open ended questions that you will all pounce on because of a misplaced comma? You "never answer any questions" folks have a lot of gall to ask this of people who seek the truth. There are myriad questions/impossibilities as regards the USOCT that you folks have never addressed and for you to pretend that is your purpose here is highly disingenuous.
When you LIKE a beefheart, zyzygy, quag, ... post where there is zippo discussion/evidence you illustrate exactly where you are at as regards dealing with the truth/science. The same place you have all been since I first posted here - distractions, diversions, never any salient discussion and a complete aversion to the truth, attacking both posters here and the "famous front man" of organizations who challenge the zero evidence USOCT.
Never any mention by you USOCT supporters, by name, of the people who support the zero evidence USGOCT. That is awfully telling, mike.
Now would you post what you accept happened to Flight 93.
Another answer questions with questions. Not very mature of you.
Lord dog almighty, you have a lot of unmitigated gall, mike. You self describe again. This, above, is you guys - hear any one of the myriad impossibilities of the USOCT and you guys are all over yourselves asking any old inane question just to divert from the topics that scare you all ****less!
What important issues are you asking about?
Unbelievable!!! Here you are doing the very thing you mention two sentences earlier.
Is it wrong for someone to question Gage and his work? How about questioning Capt. Bob and his work? Is it wrong to question CIT?
Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct? Who lied?
I don't know for sure. I do know that,
1. No parts have been identified to establish that the USGOCT has any veracity. Even if 93 went directly into the ground as alleged, there would be many parts remaining to identify the airliner.
2. A surviving passport was put forward as USOCT "evidence", if you can believe that, which of course, none of you do yet you are ALL so strangely silent on this.
3. The debris field was huge, at least 3 to 6 miles, including an engine 2000 feet from the alleged impact zone.
9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93
4. Also, a red bandana was found, totally unblemished, like an FBI agent had just purchased it from a WalMart. This was to prove that these were Muslim radicals from a particular sect, only the alleged Muslim "radicals" never wore red bandanas. The lying US government had the wrong sect.
"Perhaps the jet-crash-proof bandana is made from the same material as the jet-crash-proof passport that emerged from the fiery crash of Flight 11 into the North Tower. We shouldn't be too surprised that the suicide hijackers had access to undreamt-of materials technologies, given their ability to achieve air supremacy over America's trillion-dollar military." 9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93
You lied before and you are lying now. And like always, you caught yourself out.
It's not wrong to question anyone so why are you again being so damn dishonest, suggesting that is what I called you out for. You know VERY WELL that questioning people and their beliefs/theories/contentions is not what I called you out on.
You were VERY dishonestly slandering people when they had no chance to defend their ideas. You even pretended they were wrong all based on "honest" mike's evaluation. You possess neither the honesty or the scientific courtesy to put forward their ideas and yours in an evenhanded, scientific manner for people to judge.
And then to boot, you double down on your patent dishonesty trying desperately to take the focus off your dishonesty with - "Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct?", instead of just being a man and admitting your error and your dishonesty.
If anyone is dishonest, it[sic] you and your posts.
Research and you will know that Gage (AE911T) and the members of CIT had their falling out. They do not agree.
Same with Gage (AE911T) and Prager regarding nukes.
Such is science, mike. I wonder how that has escaped a science guy like you.
Your post also indicates you do not know what dishonesty means.
I know exactly what dishonesty means and just how dishonest you have been. Here again you try to squirm out of your dishonesty by focusing on the inanities you always raise.
You stated things about other people for which you had/have no proof, for which you have given no proof. You provided zero proof, just mike's recollection of his being right and others wrong. Still you continue with this instead of being a man and manning up.
You guys do this all the time. With nothing more than your "full" posts being single sentences declaring others provide no evidence/proof.
Your continue[sic] failure to answer questions tells the readers you have no intention on[sic] an adult discussion.
It seems you have learned nothing from your timeout.
I have learned nothing, mike, oh the gall! Here you are still denying your lies about Bob and others, and note well, still with zero proof from mike.
True. You have learned nothing.
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?