Debunking a 9-11 myth

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, the one at the Pentagon is of course no longer available, has been destroyed, as it is a witness, but we have that picture, and it has been matched to a missile, and compared to the impeller that the plane would have had, for a laugh of course, as the plane one dwarfs the missile one. If you are asking for a link?

http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonPlaneRotor.shtml

which i just pulled from

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...pentagon%20911

for transparency, and note my choice espouses a somewhat different theory, while agreeing that that compressor could not have come from that type of plane--a 757, was it? And let me reiterate that i don't know the truth--i just recognize the lie.

That picture is not the compressor part you are thinking of...its the part behind the fan as seen from this diagram

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That picture is not the compressor part you are thinking of...its the part behind the fan as seen from this diagram

i may have named the wrong part; it's been a few years since i saw the cruise missile comparo.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

It seems to me that you are being disingenuous here, especially in light of the gas station video comment, which i agree with. The assassination of a state's witness is a de facto admission of guilt to the public mind, which is likely why we have civil suits as well as criminal. The impeller has been matched to a cruise missile, which you no doubt are aware of already.

What gas station video? What assassination? what impeller?

[shazeep]

Ron Paul--what are you hiding, Washington?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ron...ding-role-911/

[shazeep]

well, the issue there is that those with the agenda also control/destroy the evidence, so we must rely on extrapolation of clues, and not everyone is a Sherlock. One would expect a 100 story building to collapse, after demolition, into a pile roughly 10 stories tall; not a pile less than a story with rivers of molten material for weeks, and a wall thrown up around that immediately to discourage photos etc.--never mind a non-demo/plane collision scenario, which of course they never tested for. Oh wait, yes they did, with a heavier plane. But as with most truth, to a certain denying segment, if God Himself came down and told us the truth, some would still deny it.

So unfortunately "gathering hard evidence" means different things to different people, as well. Some are satisfied with cartoons, wherein the truth may still even be discerned with a bit of digging; others insist upon the real video, which the gov btw does not even deny exists; you just can't see it as a matter of "Nat'l Security."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, the issue there is that those with the agenda also control/destroy the evidence, so we must rely on extrapolation of clues, and not everyone is a Sherlock.

You know what I find funny? Is that people who think that they can prosecute with circumstantial evidence. Would never be willing to have that gun barrel turned on themselves. You don't only need circumstantial evidence but direct evidence. All these components make for a strong case. Speculation and suspicion is all this whole story has to go on. The building falling down in demolition fashion, rivers of molten steel, is just not enough evidence for you to hang your suspect. Thank Jesus that we have a system like that in place (while it still lasts) but you don't understand that if you bypass the science of the judicial process, you yourself one day may fall under the wheels of what you yourself moved out of the way to prosecute your suspect. Sorry DB for the run of sentence.

Sherlock Holmes? I pray to God that we all could have the benefit of a Sherlock Holmes if we were ever under suspicion.

Originally Posted by shazeep

So unfortunately "gathering hard evidence" means different things to different people, as well.

No, this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Gathering hard evidence is what you need. End of story. I sure wouldn't want to live in a system where we could be sentenced for a crime without direct evidence.

Originally Posted by shazeep

Some are satisfied with cartoons, wherein the truth may still even be discerned with a bit of digging; others insist upon the real video, which the gov btw does not even deny exists; you just can't see it as a matter of "Nat'l Security."

Dude, you need evidence which links directly to the crime. I insist on the real video?

So should you?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You know what I find funny? Is that people who think that they can prosecute with circumstantial evidence. Would never be willing to have that gun barrel turned on themselves. You don't only need circumstantial evidence but direct evidence. All these components make for a strong case. Speculation and suspicion is all this whole story has to go on. The building falling down in demolition fashion, rivers of molten steel, is just not enough evidence for you to hang your suspect. Thank Jesus that we have a system like that in place (while it still lasts) but you don't understand that if you bypass the science of the judicial process, you yourself one day may fall under the wheels of what you yourself moved out of the way to prosecute your suspect. Sorry DB for the run of sentence.

Sherlock Holmes? I pray to God that we all could have the benefit of a Sherlock Holmes if we were ever under suspicion.



No, this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Gathering hard evidence is what you need. End of story. I sure wouldn't want to live in a system where we could be sentenced for a crime without direct evidence.



Dude, you need evidence which links directly to the crime. I insist on the real video?

So should you?

i suggest that you have condemned one of your children for a sin that they committed without direct proof, as you did not need it; and neither do we, in civil trials. Was OJ guilty? Criminally, no; civilly, yes. Which is truth?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i suggest that you have condemned one of your children for a sin that they committed without direct proof, as you did not need it; and neither do we, in civil trials. Was OJ guilty? Criminally, no; civilly, yes. Which is truth?

I condemned of my children for sin but had no proof? Are you kidding me?
Is that what you do with your children? Accuse them and punish them without PROOF? That is madness. Sorry, but you need proof. Repeat after me, conspiracy THEORY. Not conspiracy FACT. Big difference. You want to live in a world were people are guilty until proven innocent then good luck that. But I will stay with innocent until proven guilty. Shazzep, you are a Troll, who just wants to jerk people up, and get a laugh. May I suggest you find some other hobby. Why don't you go back to pulling wings off of flies?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I condemned of my children for sin but had no proof? Are you kidding me?
Is that what you do with your children? Accuse them and punish them without PROOF? That is madness. Sorry, but you need proof. Repeat after me, conspiracy THEORY. Not conspiracy FACT. Big difference. You want to live in a world were people are guilty until proven innocent then good luck that. But I will stay with innocent until proven guilty. Shazzep, you are a Troll, who just wants to jerk people up, and get a laugh. May I suggest you find some other hobby. Why don't you go back to pulling wings off of flies?

When in doubt, you might have queried them on the matter, but their expression and countenance tells you all you need to know. You can deny this if you like, but really, c'mon.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, the issue there is that those with the agenda also control/destroy the evidence, so we must rely on extrapolation of clues, and not everyone is a Sherlock. One would expect a 100 story building to collapse, after demolition, into a pile roughly 10 stories tall; not a pile less than a story with rivers of molten material for weeks, and a wall thrown up around that immediately to discourage photos etc.--never mind a non-demo/plane collision scenario, which of course they never tested for. Oh wait, yes they did, with a heavier plane. But as with most truth, to a certain denying segment, if God Himself came down and told us the truth, some would still deny it.

So unfortunately "gathering hard evidence" means different things to different people, as well. Some are satisfied with cartoons, wherein the truth may still even be discerned with a bit of digging; others insist upon the real video, which the gov btw does not even deny exists; you just can't see it as a matter of "Nat'l Security."

There was no river of molten metal, but if there was then it was not a controlled demolition like your conspiracy says