Large 9/11 Plane Part Just Discovered in NYC

[NoMoreWarNow]

This is very weird:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315518/Plane-fragment-9-11-wedged-Manhattan-buildings.html

[ocpagu]

1. No. Not weird at all.

Makes as much sense as everything else related to 9/11 official theory. None.

[William Seger]

3. That makes as much sense as everything else related to the "truth movement"

None.

Don't be so lazy. If you think there's a point to be made about this debris, then make it. Or are you simply pretending to have a point?

[ocpagu]

6. My point...

... is that this piece was obviously planted.

[William Seger]

7. Ah.

You're still being lazy. Please share the "obvious" reasoning that leads to that conclusion.

[ocpagu]

8. Sigh...

[William Seger]

9. I see...

... nothing resembling a reason to believe it was "obviously planted," and even more mystifying would be a reason. Surely, you can spare a sentence of two?

[ocpagu]

10. Of course you don't.

Your take in the subject is made upon denial after denial. The acceptance of it is made coincidence after coincidence.

By coincidence, exercises involving airplanes hitting towers were made some time previously. By coincidence, a far right private organization with several ties to far right Bush junta talked about a "new Pearl Harbor" some time before in their "plan for the American 21st century". By coincidence, passports were found intact among the debris. By coincidence, three buildings collapsed due to fire - something that had never happened anywhere in the world, at any time in history. By coincidence, three buildings - hit by two airplanes - collapsed in a quite similar manner of those buildings that collapse due to controlled demolition. By coincidence, there are no videos available that shows a identifiable airplane hitting the Pentagon. By coincidence, the Bush junta transformed the commission appointed to investigate the facts in a fraud.

By coincidence this part of the airplane fell in a place like that and went unnoticed for 12 years.

[William Seger]

11. Not by coincidence, we've been discussing that nonsense here for years

... and if memory serves, you've been involved. I suppose we could pointlessly wade through it all one more time, but the one I'm asking about is this:

> By coincidence this part of the airplane fell in a place like that and went unnoticed for 12 years.

And I was wondering if you had some reason to claim that it was "obviously planted." I'll take your response as no, you're just begging the question. Thanks for nothing.

[ocpagu]

12. I won't even waste my time.

I know your modus operandi. It's childish, illogic... won't even bother going there. The fact that you pretend you don't see anything awkward with the location where this piece was found shows that you're not interested in genuine debate. You simply disregard and deny anything that doesn't fit your convictions.

BTW, nice rope. Where did it come from?

[William Seger]

13. Well, "obviously," whoever planted the part

... didn't want to damage it -- that would completely ruin the story that it had been ejected from a 530mph crash, tossed 2 blocks and dropped 800 feet -- so instead of just dropping it from the roof they carefully lowered it on that rope. Then instead of going into the alley to remove the rope, they just dropped it and hoped nobody would notice. But you're too sharp for them, huh.

Or maybe someone found the part and tied the rope to it to try to drag it out of there, but gave up.

Or maybe the rope really is an unrelated coincidence.

Or... whatever, you're being asked why you said it was "obviously" planted, and all you've got for an answer is the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

> I know your modus operandi. It's childish, illogic... won't even bother going there.

My modus operandi is to challenge conspiracy bullshit with facts and reason. If it's not bullshit, then respond with facts and reason. If that's " childish, illogic" to you, that would explain a lot.

> You simply disregard and deny anything that doesn't fit your convictions.

Bullshit. Anyone who actually reads this board should know that I give very specific reasons for everything I challenge, and I put a lot of time into explaining it as clearly as I can. You are the one in denial.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. What makes you think it's rope?

Why can't it be corroded steel cable? Even if it is rope, it's possibly just laying on the part. The part has been there a long time, a window washer or roof worker might have tossed in there with everything else that looked like garbage. Never worked construction, have you?

[William Seger]

16. Or maybe...

... this explains it.

[zappaman]

17. How is it "obvious" it was planted?

[cpwm17]

2. How is it weird?

A lot of parts broke off the aircraft when they crashed. It seems likely that some parts may be hidden.

[NoMoreWarNow]

4. it's a large part wedged in a weird spot and just found now?

next to a mosque-- seems like there's a bit more to the story

[NoMoreWarNow]

5. related article here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread943649/pg2

on another landing gear chunk that hit one of the buildings... not clear how this large piece wouldn't do equal amount of damage if it hit a wall on a building, rather than slide down into a narrow alley.

Plus, hard to believe in NYC, no one went in that spot for 11 years. Plus, there is that rope tangled with it.

[William Seger]

15. For reference, here's where it was found

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

... relative to UA175's engine and another landing gear.



So, what's "very weird" about it?

<EDITED to reflect Boeing identification as wing flap support instead of landing gear>

[NoMoreWarNow]

18. the weird parts are

1) that is was only found 11.5 years later
2) that it was found in such a tight place, and very unlikely that it ended up there after the crash.

The basic premise, supported by the rope, is that it was planted there-- lowered into that gap, for some reason.

[William Seger]

19. If "it was found in such a tight place"

... it seems to me that would explain why it "was only found 11.5 years later." Actually, there's no way to know if it was seen many times in that trash-filled alley but just not recognized for what it is. Yes, it's "unlikely that it ended up there," but so what? Unlikely things happen all the time; that certainly doesn't means it didn't happen.

> lowered into that gap, for some reason.

The rope has been explained -- the cops who found the piece used a rope they found to turn it over -- and to me, it's the "some reason" part that makes "lowered into that gap" implausible.

[NoMoreWarNow]

20. I think we can safely say the part didn't fall into that little gap originally

the question is why it was there, and why it was found.

IMO, it is very convenient for the authorities to find remembrances of 9/11 every so often, to keep it in the news and remind people of the terror threat. This find was particularly convenient after the Boston bombing.

Of course, there is the issue of planted plane parts. But I will not get into that right now.

[zappaman]

21. 'I think we can safely say the part didn't fall into that little gap originally"

You don't speak for me and, after perusing this thread, many others either.
I can safely say it likely did fall into that gap.
The fact that you cannot, doesn't change my assessment or the assessment of others who see it the same way.
The only problem is how YOU see it.

Carry on.

[Politicalboi]

22. What plane?

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

<a href="http://imgur.com/i0mBqyb"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>


I found this on a video that caught my eye. The reason it caught my eye was I felt the "plane" went in too fast. Then I slowed it down, and got this. This makes sense since in ALL 9/11 photos, there are NO seats. Would explain the "flash" we see before impact. A homing devise would be the flash. Say what you will, a plane would of had resistance at some point upon impact. There may have even been a wing sheered off, but that doesn't happen as we all know.

Picture NOT photo shopped. I could barely crop it as you can see. I have NO talent when it comes to trickery if you will. I even had to take a picture with a camera from the video to get this. This is just what I happened to catch one day of the many years I have been watching these videos. I know it sounds crazy and all, and I can't explain every detail of 9/11, but I have spent more time studying it than the original 9/11 "terrorist" and even I would have taken off from JFK that day, than fly a hijacked plane over military bases. But that's just me. How about you? Years in the making, but no box cutters foils your attack. Laughable to say the least.

[William Seger]

23. Two things

First, it might help if you explain what you think you are seeing in that image, and then perhaps compare it to what you think we ought to be seeing. That would make it somewhat easier to discuss.

Second, how about a link to the original video?

[NoMoreWarNow]

24. yes, I'm not really sure what happened

but so many videos of UA175 hitting the south tower look fake, and of course lots of people think no planes hit the WTC on 9/11. There was a great amount of weirdness that day.