Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[DiveCon]

^^^see more meaningless ,unimaginative, pointless post..so now put some arrows and type tpp..again...all work and no play...

its all dipshits like YOU deserve

btw, dipshit
how imaginable is it to copy and paste others peoples words, like YOU do
at least what i say are MY words
dipshit

oh I post many of my own opinions and words and if there was a word count mine would greatly out number yours furthermore mine are backed up with the links that you like to call other peoples words.. btw I believe the word you were so desperately searching for is imaginative not imaginable

again, dipshit, thats all i give YOU morons

 

[eots]

its all you got
if not PROVE IT
dipshit

lol

 

[stannrodd]

One could also easily be told, that the aircraft part was being placed by the "digger" .. rather than being exposed or lifted out by the digger .. to bury something ..

It's a bit like walking into a ball game backwards ..

.. and saying to security that you are leaving ..

which one is it ..

Faith versus forensics

Stann

 

[CurveLight]

One could also easily be told, that the aircraft part was being placed by the "digger" .. rather than being exposed or lifted out by the digger .. to bury something ..

It's a bit like walking into a ball game backwards ..

.. and saying to security that you are leaving ..

which one is it ..

Faith versus forensics

Stann

Not a reasonable speculation because there would be many many people on site at the time. The op claims it is an engine with absolutely no evidence of what part it is or what it belonged to. The interesting aspect I see in the pic is an absence of scorch marks. A commercial jet engine that just went through a huge explosion should have some type of visible burn tattoo but that part is very consistent in color.

 

[CurveLight]

its all dipshits like YOU deserve

btw, dipshit
how imaginable is it to copy and paste others peoples words, like YOU do
at least what i say are MY words
dipshit

oh I post many of my own opinions and words and if there was a word count mine would greatly out number yours furthermore mine are backed up with the links that you like to call other peoples words.. btw I believe the word you were so desperately searching for is imaginative not imaginable

again, dipshit, thats all i give YOU morons

You're just a dishonest whiny shitbag. Period. I posted the evidence of many family members demanding a new investigation to get justice for 9/11 and seeking an explanation for how the towers came down and you absolutely ignored all of it. Go ahead bitch, keep ignoring the evidence and respond with nothing but name calling.

 

[Gamolon]

I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed. You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.

So you agree that the towers and WTC7 came down due to fire and structural failure due to said fires like NIST explains?

From what I've seen NIST has not adequately explained the collapses and I believe the new WTC7 was COMPLETED 2 years before the official report came out on how the old one came down.

Ok.

Do you believe the towers came down because of structural failure due to fires, be it the columns failing or the floor trusses, or do you think it was something else that was the cause?

 

[CurveLight]

got proof it is rusty?

didnt think so. another twoofer pulling a stupid claim out of his ass.

You can't show evidence what part it is or where it came from but you demand a link about rust. You are saturated hypocrisy.

it was in the BIG FUCKING HOLE CAUSED BY THE AIRPLANE CRASH you moron

face it... the rust statement was completely made up. there is NOTHING to back that up.

You were asked several pages ago to produce evidence it was an engine from 93 and you did nothing but scurry away like a little mouse. You were also asked to produce evidence 95% of the plane was recovered and you ran like a little bitch. I fully agree it was wrong for eots to claim it is a rusty part. Maybe one day you can learn how to be honest.

The other fascinating part by the FBI is they concluded no explosives were used. They stated this in less than 13 days. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to believe they were able to run the lab tests in less than two weeks to verify no explosives were used? You probably don't care because if the fbi says what you want to hear then it is Divine Golden Gospel in your cobweb mind.

 

[Gamolon]

I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

 

[Gamolon]

I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed. You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.

So you agree that the towers and WTC7 came down due to fire and structural failure due to said fires like NIST explains?

nist said fires alone...that structural damage was not significant in the collapse

eots, I am not referring to the falling debris as structural damage. Read my post again. The fires CAUSED structural instability/failure.

 

[CurveLight]

I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

It's the Official explanation for 9E. The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes. To this day it is still a claim, thus a theory about all that happened because it has never been proven. You may not like the questions, and most OCTAs absofuxxinglootly hate facing the fact that you cannot answer those questions, but that doesn't change anything.

 

[Gamolon]

did you come up with an explanation on how an engine was planted or are you just going to continue to ramble on off topic??

you men the photo of some piece of rusty metal in a hole somewhere
you were told was an engine ?

Even the courtroom exhibit doesn't say it's an engine and they carefully word it to avoid claiming it is from flight 93.

I love the added word "carefully" in your statement as if you were there when they created the exhibit and they did it intentionally. Every hint of "conspiracy" or "doubt" you can cast on this subject you try and do.

They don't have to put descriptions in the actual photo. I work directly with people who prepare trial exhibits for a living and they don't always put descriptions in their actual pictures. Many times the descriptions of the exhibit are in an another document that accompanies the exhibits.

 

[candycorn]

I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

During the marathon debate about "airplane mode" on a cell phone, he has been totally accusatory.

Additionally, he has accused the phone calls from the planes of being faked even if he didn't say so in so many words.

All in all, he's the yellow stripe down the middle of the road; cowardice personified.

 

[Gamolon]

I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

It's the Official explanation for 9E. The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes. To this day it is still a claim, thus a theory about all that happened because it has never been proven. You may not like the questions, and most OCTAs absofuxxinglootly hate facing the fact that you cannot answer those questions, but that doesn't change anything.

Do you believe the towers came down because of structural failure due to fires, be it the columns failing or the floor trusses, or do you think it was something else that was the cause?

 

[Gamolon]

The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes.

Ok.

What proof do you need to see that the 19 terrorists did it? What are you looking for? What would convince you?

 

[CurveLight]

I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

During the marathon debate about "airplane mode" on a cell phone, he has been totally accusatory.

Additionally, he has accused the phone calls from the planes of being faked even if he didn't say so in so many words.

All in all, he's the yellow stripe down the middle of the road; cowardice personified.

Great example of how OCTAs respond to facts they don't like. Instead of addressing the indisputable fact there is no objective evidence showing calls from 77 were made you try to deflect by calling someone a coward.

 

[CurveLight]

Really? Just asking questions?

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

It's the Official explanation for 9E. The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes. To this day it is still a claim, thus a theory about all that happened because it has never been proven. You may not like the questions, and most OCTAs absofuxxinglootly hate facing the fact that you cannot answer those questions, but that doesn't change anything.

Do you believe the towers came down because of structural failure due to fires, be it the columns failing or the floor trusses, or do you think it was something else that was the cause?

All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory. Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down. That is a contradiction. If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

It also doesn't make sense that as we approach the first decade milestone a scientific consensus cannot be reached. It took 7 years for the final report on WTC 7. Seems the best way to solve the problem is give 4 or 5 international engineering groups all of the info and let them independently produce conclusions that would all be revealed at the same time. From what I remember, after NIST's first attempt to conclude an explanation they quickly revamped when it was made public because peer reviews showed too many problems.

 

[CurveLight]

The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes.

Ok.

What proof do you need to see that the 19 terrorists did it? What are you looking for? What would convince you?

A new investigation with independently verified forensic evidence. May sound too vague but that is what needs to happen. Ie. The dna matching for the towers was outsourced to private companies but the dna matching for the pentagon was strictly under FBI control and even though they could have used dna to verify the hijacker's remains they chose not to.

 

[Fizz]

The interesting aspect I see in the pic is an absence of scorch marks. A commercial jet engine that just went through a huge explosion should have some type of visible burn tattoo but that part is very consistent in color.

source please.

 

[Fizz]

All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory. Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down. That is a contradiction. If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

if it doesnt make sense then let's see your research. how much energy is released when a several ton airplane crashes into a building at several hundred miles an hour and how much explosives would be needed to create the same amount of energy?

 

[CurveLight]

All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory. Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down. That is a contradiction. If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

if it doesnt make sense then let's see your research. how much energy is released when a several ton airplane crashes into a building at several hundred miles an hour and how much explosives would be needed to create the same amount of energy?

Common sense isn't too common after all. You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)