The Obama Deception

[DiveCon]

a 757 was fly by wire, a cesna wasnt
makes a huge difference

and who says the plane "vaporized"?
thats a new one
for it to vaporize, they wouldnt have had all the pieces they found

Experienced military pilots have questioned the probability of Hanjour maneuvering the AA77 plane in such a manner. There's obviously a damn good reason why they would. That was not an amateur maneuver. That incident is not without reason for questioning, as far as I'm concerned. My life wouldn't be over if I found out the government was in on it. I'd still be able to sleep. Apparently some wouldn't, because they refuse to ask any questions at all. That's pretty sad.

As far as the shanksville plane, how much did they find? I know they found some pieces of wreckage miles away, and they had "buckets" of pieces found at the crash site. No seats, no wheels, no recognizable pieces of fuselage. Just enough pieces of wreckage to fit into buckets. Maybe there's more to it that I haven't read about, if so please link me to it.

Regardless, vaporize or not, how does a bandana survive a crash of that magnitude and come out looking like this:

Barely anything recognizable left of a plane, but a bandana survives not only to be identified, but doesn't even have so much as a burn mark on it, or even a little bit of dirt??

I'm not supposed to at least question that?

stranger things have happened
and again, its too difficult to find legit sites in a google search because of all the fucked up troofer sites
otherwise i would search for actual photos

 

[DiveCon]

 

[DiveCon]

 

[DiveCon]

 

[DiveCon]

 

[DiveCon]

 

[DiveCon]

as for things surviving the crash, here are a couple more that the troofers ignore

 

[Paulie]

Thanks for the pics.

But sorry if "stranger things have happened" isn't quite enough to close out my line of questions and put them to rest.

I'm not going to knee jerkingly blame the government, but I'm certainly not going to just eat the entire official explanation up like candy because it sounds less painful than "the government did it".

I don't put ANYTHING past ANYONE. Everybody lies.

 

[Paulie]

And you don't at least WONDER how those kinds of SPECIFIC identifying items miraculously survive firey crashes that leave planes literally in little itty bitty pieces?

Drivers licenses, bandanas, etc. Those kinds of things are actually ON your person. A license is either in a purse or a pocket, and a bandana is ON YOUR HEAD. How do the bodies practically disintegrate, but those items are still easily recognizable?

That's tough for me to swallow until a better explanation comes along than stranger things have happened.

 

[DiveCon]

And you don't at least WONDER how those kinds of SPECIFIC identifying items miraculously survive firey crashes that leave planes literally in little itty bitty pieces?

Drivers licenses, bandanas, etc. Those kinds of things are actually ON your person. A license is either in a purse or a pocket, and a bandana is ON YOUR HEAD. How do the bodies practically disintegrate, but those items are still easily recognizable?

That's tough for me to swallow until a better explanation comes along than stranger things have happened.

now, if they found it for EVERYONE, yeah, i might be surprised, finding them for a few, nope
you are asking to explain something there is no explaination for
its like why can you do something hundreds of times and not get hurt, but suddenly on the 101th time you do


and who says that bandana wasnt in someones suitcase till it burst open on impact with the ground
you dont know

 

[Paulie]

And you don't at least WONDER how those kinds of SPECIFIC identifying items miraculously survive firey crashes that leave planes literally in little itty bitty pieces?

Drivers licenses, bandanas, etc. Those kinds of things are actually ON your person. A license is either in a purse or a pocket, and a bandana is ON YOUR HEAD. How do the bodies practically disintegrate, but those items are still easily recognizable?

That's tough for me to swallow until a better explanation comes along than stranger things have happened.

now, if they found it for EVERYONE, yeah, i might be surprised, finding them for a few, nope
you are asking to explain something there is no explaination for
its like why can you do something hundreds of times and not get hurt, but suddenly on the 101th time you do


and who says that bandana wasnt in someones suitcase till it burst open on impact with the ground
you dont know

I hear what you're saying. But I didn't see any suitcases still intact, so I wouldn't expect to see their contents still intact either after a fireball explosion from a plane crashing into the ground. And let's be real, the red bandana is the quintessential terrorist garb. How it was all folded up like that gives it the impression that it was obviously wrapped around someone's head.

It's almost patronizing to be shown a picture of a red bandana as if it's supposed to conjour up the idea of "see, there were terrorists on this plane".

Just as easily as you can take the official explanation and be satisfied enough with it that you can sleep at night, you can question almost all of it. I just happen to be someone who questions some of it, that's all. It's not like the government's been making a good case for their ethical standards the past few generations, especially lately. I truely don't put ANYTHING past them anymore. Not even 9/11. I'm fucking fed the fuck up with just about everyone in the public sector at this point. I really don't think there's anything they wouldn't involve themselves in if it meant more money and more power. It's a festering blob that has completely outgrown and overstayed its welcome.

 

[DiveCon]

And you don't at least WONDER how those kinds of SPECIFIC identifying items miraculously survive firey crashes that leave planes literally in little itty bitty pieces?

Drivers licenses, bandanas, etc. Those kinds of things are actually ON your person. A license is either in a purse or a pocket, and a bandana is ON YOUR HEAD. How do the bodies practically disintegrate, but those items are still easily recognizable?

That's tough for me to swallow until a better explanation comes along than stranger things have happened.

now, if they found it for EVERYONE, yeah, i might be surprised, finding them for a few, nope
you are asking to explain something there is no explaination for
its like why can you do something hundreds of times and not get hurt, but suddenly on the 101th time you do


and who says that bandana wasnt in someones suitcase till it burst open on impact with the ground
you dont know

I hear what you're saying. But I didn't see any suitcases still intact, so I wouldn't expect to see their contents still intact either after a fireball explosion from a plane crashing into the ground. And let's be real, the red bandana is the quintessential terrorist garb. How it was all folded up like that gives it the impression that it was obviously wrapped around someone's head.

It's almost patronizing to be shown a picture of a red bandana as if it's supposed to conjour up the idea of "see, there were terrorists on this plane".

Just as easily as you can take the official explanation and be satisfied enough with it that you can sleep at night, you can question almost all of it. I just happen to be someone who questions some of it, that's all. It's not like the government's been making a good case for their ethical standards the past few generations, especially lately. I truely don't put ANYTHING past them anymore. Not even 9/11. I'm fucking fed the fuck up with just about everyone in the public sector at this point. I really don't think there's anything they wouldn't involve themselves in if it meant more money and more power. It's a festering blob that has completely outgrown and overstayed its welcome.

i'm sorry, but who said that was a "terrorists bandana"?
that is not the same as what the terrorists use

 

[DiveCon]

this is

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you know Paulie we DO have a few 9/11 threads here to discuss this you know? Lol.

 

[Paulie]

now, if they found it for EVERYONE, yeah, i might be surprised, finding them for a few, nope
you are asking to explain something there is no explaination for
its like why can you do something hundreds of times and not get hurt, but suddenly on the 101th time you do


and who says that bandana wasnt in someones suitcase till it burst open on impact with the ground
you dont know

I hear what you're saying. But I didn't see any suitcases still intact, so I wouldn't expect to see their contents still intact either after a fireball explosion from a plane crashing into the ground. And let's be real, the red bandana is the quintessential terrorist garb. How it was all folded up like that gives it the impression that it was obviously wrapped around someone's head.

It's almost patronizing to be shown a picture of a red bandana as if it's supposed to conjour up the idea of "see, there were terrorists on this plane".

Just as easily as you can take the official explanation and be satisfied enough with it that you can sleep at night, you can question almost all of it. I just happen to be someone who questions some of it, that's all. It's not like the government's been making a good case for their ethical standards the past few generations, especially lately. I truely don't put ANYTHING past them anymore. Not even 9/11. I'm fucking fed the fuck up with just about everyone in the public sector at this point. I really don't think there's anything they wouldn't involve themselves in if it meant more money and more power. It's a festering blob that has completely outgrown and overstayed its welcome.

i'm sorry, but who said that was a "terrorists bandana"?
that is not the same as what the terrorists use

That bandana was an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial. Evidence from passenger cell phone calls suggest that it was worn by one of the terrorists on flight 93:

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Investigation ties attack to '93 bombing

Investigators were also intrigued to learn from cellphone calls made by passengers on the Newark flight that the hijackers who commandeered that jet donned red bandanas before they took over the plane. Red bandanas have been a signature of Islamic Jihad in its attacks on Western tourists and Coptic Christians in a bloody insurgency against the Mubarak government throughout the 1990s.

And we all remember Jeremy Glick:

''They're wearing red bandanas,'' Jeremy Glick, a New Jersey man who was on the Newark flight, said in a mobile phone conversation with his wife in the moments before the plane crashed, a source who reviewed the transcripts of the conversation said.

 

[DiveCon]

I hear what you're saying. But I didn't see any suitcases still intact, so I wouldn't expect to see their contents still intact either after a fireball explosion from a plane crashing into the ground. And let's be real, the red bandana is the quintessential terrorist garb. How it was all folded up like that gives it the impression that it was obviously wrapped around someone's head.

It's almost patronizing to be shown a picture of a red bandana as if it's supposed to conjour up the idea of "see, there were terrorists on this plane".

Just as easily as you can take the official explanation and be satisfied enough with it that you can sleep at night, you can question almost all of it. I just happen to be someone who questions some of it, that's all. It's not like the government's been making a good case for their ethical standards the past few generations, especially lately. I truely don't put ANYTHING past them anymore. Not even 9/11. I'm fucking fed the fuck up with just about everyone in the public sector at this point. I really don't think there's anything they wouldn't involve themselves in if it meant more money and more power. It's a festering blob that has completely outgrown and overstayed its welcome.

i'm sorry, but who said that was a "terrorists bandana"?
that is not the same as what the terrorists use

That bandana was an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial. Evidence from passenger cell phone calls suggest that it was worn by one of the terrorists on flight 93:

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Investigation ties attack to '93 bombing

Investigators were also intrigued to learn from cellphone calls made by passengers on the Newark flight that the hijackers who commandeered that jet donned red bandanas before they took over the plane. Red bandanas have been a signature of Islamic Jihad in its attacks on Western tourists and Coptic Christians in a bloody insurgency against the Mubarak government throughout the 1990s.

And we all remember Jeremy Glick:

''They're wearing red bandanas,'' Jeremy Glick, a New Jersey man who was on the Newark flight, said in a mobile phone conversation with his wife in the moments before the plane crashed, a source who reviewed the transcripts of the conversation said.

while they may have worn red bandanas, there is nothing that proves that was actually one of them

 

[Paulie]

i'm sorry, but who said that was a "terrorists bandana"?
that is not the same as what the terrorists use

That bandana was an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial. Evidence from passenger cell phone calls suggest that it was worn by one of the terrorists on flight 93:

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Investigation ties attack to '93 bombing

And we all remember Jeremy Glick:

''They're wearing red bandanas,'' Jeremy Glick, a New Jersey man who was on the Newark flight, said in a mobile phone conversation with his wife in the moments before the plane crashed, a source who reviewed the transcripts of the conversation said.

while they may have worn red bandanas, there is nothing that proves that was actually one of them

See, that's a prime example of cognitive dissonance. You're looking for any explanation that can sure up YOUR belief on the matter, even in the face of what appears to be pretty solid evidence that the bandana was probably worn by one of the terrorists.

First you say no one said it was a terrorist bandana, but now after being shown that it most likely was, you're looking for the last resort option to keep an alternative explanation from entering your conscience. It's classic cognitive dissonance, no offense divecon. What are the odds that a random passenger ALSO had a red bandana all neatly folded up around his head? Or do you think maybe a passenger folded it up for headwear, but instead decided to pack it away in the suitcase and it just happened to pop out on impact?

Come on dude.

 

[DiveCon]

That bandana was an exhibit in the Moussaoui trial. Evidence from passenger cell phone calls suggest that it was worn by one of the terrorists on flight 93:

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Investigation ties attack to '93 bombing

And we all remember Jeremy Glick:

while they may have worn red bandanas, there is nothing that proves that was actually one of them

See, that's a prime example of cognitive dissonance. You're looking for any explanation that can sure up YOUR belief on the matter, even in the face of what appears to be pretty solid evidence that the bandana was probably worn by one of the terrorists.

First you say no one said it was a terrorist bandana, but now after being shown that it most likely was, you're looking for the last resort option to keep an alternative explanation from entering your conscience. It's classic cognitive dissonance, no offense divecon. What are the odds that a random passenger ALSO had a red bandana all neatly folded up around his head? Or do you think maybe a passenger folded it up for headwear, but instead decided to pack it away in the suitcase and it just happened to pop out on impact?

Come on dude.

by using the word "probably" you are admitting my statement correect, you DONT KNOW

and NO, i didnt say what you are claiming
you still havent shown someone claim that WAS used as evidence that someone DID wear it

so maybe its you with the cognitive disonance

 

[Paulie]

while they may have worn red bandanas, there is nothing that proves that was actually one of them

See, that's a prime example of cognitive dissonance. You're looking for any explanation that can sure up YOUR belief on the matter, even in the face of what appears to be pretty solid evidence that the bandana was probably worn by one of the terrorists.

First you say no one said it was a terrorist bandana, but now after being shown that it most likely was, you're looking for the last resort option to keep an alternative explanation from entering your conscience. It's classic cognitive dissonance, no offense divecon. What are the odds that a random passenger ALSO had a red bandana all neatly folded up around his head? Or do you think maybe a passenger folded it up for headwear, but instead decided to pack it away in the suitcase and it just happened to pop out on impact?

Come on dude.

by using the word "probably" you are admitting my statement correect, you DONT KNOW

and NO, i didnt say what you are claiming
you still havent shown someone claim that WAS used as evidence that someone DID wear it

so maybe its you with the cognitive disonance

You also don't know that WTC7 collapsed because of collateral damage, but you believe it.

Because it seems like the most probable explanation to you. Same thing with the bandana. Passengers confirmed terrorists were wearing red bandanas. A red bandana was found at the crash site. Occam's Razor suggests the red bandana was MOST LIKELY a terrorist's.

 

[DiveCon]

See, that's a prime example of cognitive dissonance. You're looking for any explanation that can sure up YOUR belief on the matter, even in the face of what appears to be pretty solid evidence that the bandana was probably worn by one of the terrorists.

First you say no one said it was a terrorist bandana, but now after being shown that it most likely was, you're looking for the last resort option to keep an alternative explanation from entering your conscience. It's classic cognitive dissonance, no offense divecon. What are the odds that a random passenger ALSO had a red bandana all neatly folded up around his head? Or do you think maybe a passenger folded it up for headwear, but instead decided to pack it away in the suitcase and it just happened to pop out on impact?

Come on dude.

by using the word "probably" you are admitting my statement correect, you DONT KNOW

and NO, i didnt say what you are claiming
you still havent shown someone claim that WAS used as evidence that someone DID wear it

so maybe its you with the cognitive disonance

You also don't know that WTC7 collapsed because of collateral damage, but you believe it.

Because it seems like the most probable explanation to you. Same thing with the bandana. Passengers confirmed terrorists were wearing red bandanas. A red bandana was found at the crash site. Occam's Razor suggests the red bandana was MOST LIKELY a terrorist's.

it may have been
but as you have already stated, it doesnt look like it had been worn
so then you have to go to the next logical conclution, and you refuse to


as to WTC7, yes i DO know why it collapsed
it had fires on several floors that were not being fought
it had huge damage done to it by the collapse of WTC1
the combination was more than it was able to stand and that was why they pulled the fire fighters out of that bulding before noon time, and it didnt fall till after 5 pm
sorry paulie, but thats a logical conclution whether you like it or not