February 21, 2009

Only ONE photo shows alleged Flight 93 debris being excavated . . . and Pat Curley is a moron

On the Jim Fetzer show I did on Feb 11th, Jim and I were discussing how ridiculous it was that a 757 crashed in that empty field in Shanksville. I was mentioning how absurd it was that even though we were told that about 80% of Flight 93 was said to be recovered out of the hole it supposedly made after burrowing underground (even though there wasn't any actual hole visible, but just a crater), only one photo was released to the public that supposedly showed plane debris being excavated out of the ground; a photo of a small rusty-looking engine piece next to a backhoe bucket:

I showed in one of my Hoodwinked at Shanksville episodes that the engine in this photo was not dug out of the ground, but was merely placed in the excavated hole by the very backhoe bucket seen next to it in the photo.

ScrewLooseChange blogger, Pat Curley, apparently caught the show and tries to debunk my claim that only one photo shows any evidence of plane debris being excavated out of ground in Shanksville. He starts out with his well-known infantile name-calling in the blog title to try to character-assassinate me, then posts two photos of alleged recovered Flight 93 debris and asks why I neglected to talk about them.

Killclown on Fetzer

I happened to listen to these two jokers while on a ride this afternoon. I have not listened to the entire segment, but it's laughable how they stick with bogus claims that have been disproven repeatedly. At one point, Killtown talks about how they only pulled one piece of the plane out of the hole in Shanksville, something that looked like a motor.

But of course he neglects to talk about this piece...

Why is that, Killclown?

Well Pat Curley, (or should I call you childish names like "Pat Clown"?), the reason I neglected to talk about those two photo was because I was talking about photos that show plane debris being excavated out of the ground that would offer some evidence to support the official claim that 30+ cars-worth of debris was pulled out of that ground, not photos showing pieces of dirt-free plane debris just lying on top the ground moron.

Calling me childish names and trying to ridicule me for this claim, yet you got it totally wrong. How embarrassing for you. Maybe your Mom and Dad should have raised you to be more mature so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity to see how their grown child behaves.

Now since you mentioned the other two photos, let's do discuss them:

Exh. GX-P200061 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]

Exh. GX-P200062 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]

1. Other than a non-governmental website saying so, what hard evidence is there exactly that these two pieces of plane debris are from Flight 93, or that these two photos were even taken at the Shanksville scene?

All I see are a couple of photos that by themselves don't tell me where they were taken (unlike the photo of the engine scrap where you can see it's taken at the Shanksville scene) and of the pieces of debris themselves, how can you be sure those pieces didn't come from some other plane that crashed, or even from ones that were dismantled?

2. Since we were told Flight 93 crashed into a loose and uncompacted field at a whopping 580mph, how did those two big fuselage pieces manage to escape from burrowing underground when most of the plane, including both its black boxes located way back in the tail section were supposedly recovered 15ft and 25ft under?

3. About the window debris, all of its insulation (including its windows) have been totally stripped away from it and from the bent corners that expose its outside surface, its paint looks to be stripped away from it too.

How do you think it managed to get all of its insulation and paint totally stripped off of it, yet it seems to have landed in the forest(?) while most of the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed underground in the field and that other debris piece you showed seems to have all of its paint on its outside surface intact??? Since the window piece's paint scheme is missing on its exposed outside surfaces, how do you even know it comes from a United Airlines plane?

4. Why does the inside of the window piece look dark and rusty, yet the inside of the other piece you show is practically white?

Inside of window piece (left) looks darker and rusty.
Inside of painted piece (right) look practically white.

Is it also a coincidence that this widow piece looks a bit rusted like the engine scrap piece above that I showed how it was planted?!

5. Can you show me on a map where those two pieces were found?

6. If a government did fake a plane crash, do you think you would be able to spot that it's fake?

See if you can answer these questions without childish name calling, snide remarks, or drifting off topic. Remember, your actions reflect on how well your Mom and Dad raised you.


SJCP said...

The silence from Pat Clown speaks a thousand words! :)

Curtis said...

First time here, came from cryptogon.com and think your approach is great.

Maybe pat, can find a 4th little piece of a hugh plane for superduper extra yummy proof.