I can't see why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy.

[BenBurch]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.

[stateofgrace]

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the US would shoot down flight 93 and then not admit it.

Had they shot down this flight, had they got fighters up there, fully armed and had somebody taken the dreadful decision to actually do it, then it makes no sense whatsoever to cover it all up.

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.

Had an alternative series of events taken place, then it makes no sense, at all, as to why anybody would wish to cover it up.

[Jontg]

And as for the inevitable snarky comments about how cheesy "Let's roll!" sounds... this is America, people. Macho posturing is sort of what we do here.

[Magenta]

Why pick on the Flight 93 conspiracy? *None* of the 9/11 CTs make any sense! :p

[Calcas]

I'm betting Dom (TC329) will chime in soon. He sees himself as as a FL93 *expert.*

And, if he does, be prepared for a huge dose of more woo...

[Walter Ego]

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.


It's more than an opinion that some passengers were planning to storm the cockpit of Flight 93 and probably did storm it. That scenario is backed up by testimony (phone calls from passengers stating that intention) and the cockpit voice recordings and the erratic maneuvering of the plane before it crashed.

[OldTigerCub]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.


Twoofers continue to hold onto the "shot down" story, among others, for one principal reason in my opinion: The mainstream media reported something else.

The accounts of the MSM are consistant with the final reports made by the authorities. As long as the credibility of the accounts given of Flight 93 can be questioned, all of the MSM reports regarding the events of 9-11 can be regarded as invalid or unreliable (except, of course, those quotes, pictures, lists and explanations that can be taken oiut of context to their "advantage").

Since many CTs have a deep distrust of anything remotely tied to "the establishment" to the point of paranoia, it becomes necessary to make up some more elaborate scenario...one that makes the administration look sinister or at least incompetent. Better yet, claim that some invisible secret organization controls the world and is hiding the truth.:eek:

That's my take, anyway.:cool:

[RKOwens4]

I see no reason not to believe the commonly accepted opinion that the passengers fought back and this plane came down because of their valiant efforts. I see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this.

I think the truthers don't want to accept the fact that the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers because it goes in the face of their claim that "19 hijackers with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off this attack so successfully!" because when it comes to Flight 93, the hijackers WEREN'T able to successfully pull off their mission, despite boxcutters (and knives, and a bomb, and what was thought to be a gun).

They'd rather say the government shot it down. Of course, if they also believe that the government was the ones who put these planes up in the air, and therefore presumably had control over Flight 93, then it makes no sense why they would shoot down their own plane. If WTC7 is the smoking gun for the 9/11 truth movement, then Flight 93 is its Achilles Heel. No matter how you look at it, there's no logical way of it fitting into any overall conspiracy picture.

[eromitlab]

I think it's the same angle as why they push talk of WTC7... to (feebly and unsuccessfully) establish that the government lied and covered up things about it, therefore they're lying about Pentagon and WTC 1 & 2 since they can't gain any traction with their "facts" on Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

But I have noticed they've largely jettisoned talk of flight 93... few people drawn in by it, a lot of people offended by what little they have (fake phone calls, calls didn't happen, the story of the passengers taking the plane back is made up).

[T.A.M.]

Yes, and IIRC, so few of the truthers now bite on Flight 93, that TC has been left with CIT and PFT, as his only allies. Fringe of the fringe.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

[T.A.M.]

big statement, no proof.

Stick to LIHOP Red, it is where I like you best.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

big statement, no proof.

Stick to LIHOP Red, it is where I like you best.

TAM:)

That Flight 93 did crash in that ditch is the claim that requires proof. So where is it?

LIHOP is limited if WTC 7 was brought down by CD. Still, I'd trade MIHOP for prosecutable LIHOP any day of the week.

[T.A.M.]

Like I have said a hundred times, if you are expecting to be brought to a hangar to see the remains of the crash, it will not happen. If only that is good enough...well believe what you want.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Red, 95%+ of the aircraft and remains of most if not all passengers were recovered "from that ditch," OK? Just because the FBI doesn't give you a guided tour of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To the OP, two reasons.

First of all, Flight 93 has to have been shot down or otherwise done away with, or else the conspiracist narrative -- any flavor of it at all -- falls apart. This is because Flight 93 crashing on its own, in that fashion, proves the existence of highjackers. If the highjackers are real, then bin Laden is real, and all the speculation about remote control and WTC 7 and bombs and space beams comes to a jarring halt. I suppose the most evasive LIHOP hypothesis might yet survive, but for some reason, nobody ever gets interested in those.

Second, Flight 93 is even more "mysterious." Once one accepts that it had to have been deliberate, to keep pace with the other irreducible delusions, one next has to figure out just what its mission was. Crashing in a remote field in Pennsylvania just doesn't lend itself to obvious answers. So, was it engaging some hyper-risky target? Was it never there in the first place (the RedIbis solution)? Or was the plane itself the target, and some excuse needed to shoot it down?

It presents a fun little logical paradox for the conspiracy minded. For some reason, they seem to be drawn to them. I speculate it's because these relatively difficult (read: illogical) puzzles are harder to answer, and so whomever comes up with whatever cockamamie solution is more likely to be noticed in the paranoid community. Pure speculation, though, I really don't know.

[RedIbis]

Red, 95%+ of the aircraft and remains of most if not all passengers were recovered "from that ditch," OK? Just because the FBI doesn't give you a guided tour of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So we should just take their word for it. And you call yourself a skeptic?

Was it never there in the first place (the RedIbis solution)? Or was the plane itself the target, and some excuse needed to shoot it down?

We don't have the benefit of knowing how Flight 93 fit into the conspiracy. Can you say for sure what the terrorists were planning to do with the plane?

It presents a fun little logical paradox for the conspiracy minded. For some reason, they seem to be drawn to them. I speculate it's because these relatively difficult (read: illogical) puzzles are harder to answer, and so whomever(sic) comes up with whatever cockamamie solution is more likely to be noticed in the paranoid community. Pure speculation, though, I really don't know.

At least you're honest. So far you have the word of the FBI that 95% of the plane and its contents were recovered. Yet, the available photographs don't even come close to accounting for that figure. In other words, you don't have much.

This is why people bother researching yet another mystery in a whole series of mysteries.

[beachnut]

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.
A lie. No evidence, just make up a lie.

93 caused the impact crater, and was found in and around the crater. That is what it should look like.

Ironic, you have failed to understand 9/11 after 6 years, the passengers on Flight 93 figured 9/11 out in minutes. Irony, they took action, you don't. If you did you would take your evidence to the police, or news!

Oh, no evidence. Sorry.

[RedIbis]

A lie. No evidence, just make up a lie.

93 caused the impact crater, and was found in and around the crater. That is what it should look like.

Ironic, you have failed to understand 9/11 after 6 years, the passengers on Flight 93 figured 9/11 out in minutes. Irony, they took action, you don't. If you did you would take your evidence to the police, or news!

Oh, no evidence. Sorry.

100 tons of Flight 93 and its contents or a few scraps from the nearby scrapyard?

[T.A.M.]

Red:

You are talking about multiple institutions here, who must be lying for your theory to be true. You have the FBI, the First Responders, The prosecutors in the Moussaoui Trial, Numerous others who all have to be lying.

So you are saying that the FBI, and the dozens of agents who worked at the Flight 93 site are lying? The first responders, lying? Don't answer, as it is rhetorical.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

At least you're honest. So far you have the word of the FBI that 95% of the plane and its contents were recovered. Yet, the available photographs don't even come close to accounting for that figure. In other words, you don't have much.

This is why people bother researching yet another mystery in a whole series of mysteries.

Red... to be honest... every time I hear the canard that 'too little debris' was found at the crash site I think of Valujet 592, that crashed in '96. I was 9 years old when that happened, and I still remember the news clips of it... there wasn't anything recognizable left.... The claim that there wasn't enough debris is alone not enough to make anything suspicious because that easily has precedence. If I went by that same logic I'd have to as well consider the crash of valujet 592 as a conspiracy as well...

And 592, is far from the first to have ended up like flight 93...

[T.A.M.]

100 tons of Flight 93 and its contents or a few scraps from the nearby scrapyard?

SO your entire theory, that Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville, is based on a lack of photographic evidence to prove that 95% of the plane was recovered?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Red:

You are talking about multiple institutions here, who must be lying for your theory to be true. You have the FBI, the First Responders, The prosecutors in the Moussaoui Trial, Numerous others who all have to be lying.

So you are saying that the FBI, and the dozens of agents who worked at the Flight 93 site are lying? The first responders, lying? Don't answer, as it is rhetorical.

TAM:)

Evidence is required to prove the claim that Flight 93 crashed into the ditch. Where is the evidence? Where did the 95% end up? Can it be photographed? Was it incinerated? Where is it?

[T.A.M.]

1. Have you asked the people who were responsible?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then what did they say?
3. Just because you have not been privy to it, just because it is not available with a google search, does not mean it is not available or does not exist.

Starting points for your search... FBI, United Airlines.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

Evidence is required to prove the claim that Flight 93 crashed into the ditch. Where is the evidence? Where did the 95% end up? Can it be photographed? Was it incinerated? Where is it?

Who cares. The crash and its wreckage are verified by numerous witnesses and first responders. None of these people have expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion that anything other than the crash of United 93 took place there.

Why is that not good enough for you?

[T.A.M.]

See here is the problem.

You say you want proof, but,

If the FBI provided you with a statement confirming the 95% figure, that would not be enough, you would want an itemized list.

If the FBi then provided you with a list of the parts they found (given the number of small parts and bits found it is unlikely this exists, but lets say it did), you would require photos.

If the FBi then provided sample photos of a good portion of the plane parts, you would either call them fake (the photos or the parts), and demand to see the actual parts yourself.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

So we should just take their word for it. And you call yourself a skeptic?

Yes, unless I have evidence to the contrary. I don't. And everything about the event meets our expectations. Even though without such evidnece I don't have to, I've nonetheless run a number of calculations and looked into ancillary evidence, including the FAA and air maintenance data, Mrs. McClatchey's famous photograph, conversations with the Boeing Commercial Division, etc. It all checks.

That's true skepticism. Denying the facts out of hand isn't. That's knee-jerk contrarianism.


We don't have the benefit of knowing how Flight 93 fit into the conspiracy. Can you say for sure what the terrorists were planning to do with the plane?


I have some pretty good ideas, given what they did with the other three and confessions of conspirators. I've argued with others whether the Capitol or the White House would be a better target, but it doesn't matter. One can be pretty sure they weren't just borrowing it to get to the jamboree.


At least you're honest. So far you have the word of the FBI that 95% of the plane and its contents were recovered. Yet, the available photographs don't even come close to accounting for that figure. In other words, you don't have much.

There are lots of things for which I have, but also require, no photographs.


This is why people bother researching yet another mystery in a whole series of mysteries.

Mysteries, sadly, that are of one's own making...

[Corsair 115]

Starting points for your search... FBI, United Airlines.That's no good, TAM, because obviously those organizations are part of the conspiracy!

[DC]

if it makes sence or not if they shot it down or whatever happened to flight 93. it did for sure not crash in a 40° angle into the tiny crater we got presented as imprint.

[Corsair 115]

if it makes sence or not if they shot it down or whatever happened to flight 93. it did for sure not crash in a 40° angle into the tiny crater we got presented as imprint.Let me guess—your "common sense" tells you that? Certainly it can't be your years and years of experience with the NTSB...

[Walter Ego]

Red, 95%+ of the aircraft and remains of most if not all passengers were recovered "from that ditch," OK? Just because the FBI doesn't give you a guided tour of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Here's where the evidence is kept. I doubt if private citizens can have a look-see at it, though. ;)

P72v8zryZAE

[DC]

Let me guess—your "common sense" tells you that? Certainly it can't be your years and years of experience with the NTSB...

you dont have to be a rocketscientist to see it.....

but im sure you belive David Copperfield is a real magican, cause you have no experiance as a magican......

[Undesired Walrus]

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

No.

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.


"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."


Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.

Wallace Miller, the lanky, Civil War-studying county coroner, did see it. He sat at the family funeral home, his father, Wilbur, with him. They watched the second plane sweep in low, from nowhere. They winced when it hit.

"Boy, how'd you like to be the coroner there?" the son said.

He could have been out of town, at a coroners convention in eastern Pennsylvania. His colleagues had gone early, to golf. But his game had slipped, so he stayed back.

His secretary called.

He couldn't believe the scene. He saw the burnt trees, and some debris smoking in the dirt. He saw half a window frame. He saw shreds of that white cloth they put over the headrests.

He saw things in the trees.


Miller said he had identified 12 of the victims through dental records and fingerprints.


Over the weekend, about 300 volunteers combed a half-mile square around the crash site and found enough debris from the Boeing 757 to fill about one-third of a trash container.

[Brainster]

They assert Flight 93 was shot down because:

1. It is probably the most commonly believed 9-11 conspiracy theory. I can't tell you how many people who think the Troofers are nuts believe this one, but it's a fair number.

2. Their whole gig is based on creating as much doubt in people's minds as to the "official" story. Why concede anything? Let's remember, these folks won't give up "nine of the hijackers are alive" or "none of the hijackers appeared on any flight manifest".

3. These people operate on the assumption that "If we can prove just one thing wrong, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down." After all, they've seen it week after week on CSI.

[DavidJames]

3. These people operate on the assumption that "If we can prove just one thing wrong, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down." After all, they've seen it week after week on CSI.Related to this is that all the hijackings must be have some CT about them, if one doesn't that could undermines the rest.

[John Blonn]

One of my favorite aspects of the truth movement.

On one hand:

OMG NORAD stood down! No planes were sent to intercept! LOL CONSPIRACY!!

And on the other:

OMG the debris field reveals that the Air Force intercepted F93! LOL CONSPIRACY!!!!

[John Blonn]

I want to do an experiment here, if RedIbis would oblige.

Red, why do you believe that there were bodies discovered in the rubble of the towers?

[DC]

is there any evidence that they found bodys in the crater?

[Rika]

That isn't the point of the question.

[T.A.M.]

you dont have to be a rocketscientist to see it.....

but im sure you belive David Copperfield is a real magican, cause you have no experiance as a magican......

No, but being a crash investigator would help. And since none of the crash investigators had any issue with it, and no one else of the dozens on the scene had any issue with it, I'll take their word over yours.

TAM:)

[DC]

No, but being a crash investigator would help. And since none of the crash investigators had any issue with it, and no one else of the dozens on the scene had any issue with it, I'll take their word over yours.

TAM:)

yeah that doesnt involve thinking on your own :) thats the right way for you.

[chillzero]

yeah that doesnt involve thinking on your own :) thats the right way for you.

Yeah ... stupid to listen to people qualified to know what they're talking about, instead of jumping to your own conclusions. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Oh I think plenty on my own, but when it comes to a field that is out of my area of expertise, I rely on the collected evidence, and the collective wisdom of numerous experts that were part of the investigation.

That is the smart, rational, grown up thing to do...how do you approach it?

Oh yah, I forgot, you just google it.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

is there any evidence that they found bodys in the crater?

Did they find bodies in the Valujet 592 crash in the Florida everglades? Or did they just find small pieces? They were never able to identify all of the passenger remains from that crash, so since flight 93 had similar circumstance does that make both a conspiracy? Hell there was a lot of the plane that they couldn't recover in the everglades, Flight 93 seems to be a big success compared with that in terms of recovery...



WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION: The primary impact area was identified by a crater in the mud and sawgrass. The crater was about 130 feet long and 40 feet wide. Most of the wreckage debris was located south of the crater in a fan shaped pattern, with some pieces of wreckage found more than 750 feet south of the crater.

The majority of the wreckage was recovered by hand and placed on airboats that transported the pieces to a nearby levee for decontamination. The pieces were then transported by enclosed truck to a hangar for examination

The airplane structure was severely fragmented. In general, fewer pieces of right side forward fuselage skins were identified, and pieces from the right side were generally more fragmented. The majority of identified pieces were from the wing and fuselage aft of the wing box.

Examination of the engines revealed no signs of inflight or preimpact failure.

The tires and wheel assemblies from the landing gear system of the accident were recovered. The tires exhibited numerous rips and tears. Main landing gear actuators were found in positions corresponding to retracted landing gear.

The majority of both the left and right wings were recovered.

Most of the right and left horizontal stabilizers were recovered in fragments, including center sections, spars, skin panels, and both hinge fittings. No marks were found to identify pitch trim or elevator orientation at the time of impact with the swamp.

Several pieces of the rudder were recovered. The largest piece measured 57 inches by 43 inches. The preimpact position of the rudder was not determined.

Passenger service units from the cabin were found with the oxygen masks in the stowed positions.

Three hand-operated fire extinguishers were found, all with severe impact damage. Because of the impact damage, laboratory analysis could not positively determine if the extinguishers had been used.

FORWARD CARGO COMPARTMENT: All recovered wreckage identified as being from the area of the forward cargo compartment was assembled into a full-scale, three-dimensional mockup. These pieces included the cargo floor, cargo liners, and fuselage structure. They exhibited soot and heat damage.

Cargo CompartmentAbout 50 percent of the forward bulkhead and about 25 percent of the aft bulkhead of the forward cargo compartment were recovered.

Recovered airplane wiring was examined for heat and fire damage and evidence of arcing. Heat and fire damage was observed on many of the wire bundles and cables that ran adjacent to the forward cargo compartment. The heat-damaged wires and cables showed no evidence of electrical arcing, and the burn patterns on those wires and cables were consistent with those resulting from an external heat source.
Source (http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183026-1.html)

[RedIbis]

I want to do an experiment here, if RedIbis would oblige.

Red, why do you believe that there were bodies discovered in the rubble of the towers?

I don't mind obliging, but you're going to have to restate your question for clarity.

[T.A.M.]

Well if you never saw the bodies yourself, as you are demanding with regard to flight 93 plane parts, then how do you know they actually found bodies???

You obviously are believing some source that has told you through media, that bodies were recovered...So then, why do you believe one source, concerning the bodies at GZ, but not belief another source, perhaps even the same source, with regard to plane parts at Shanksville?

I think that is the essence of the socratic lead you were given.

TAM:)

[doobiedoright]

if it makes sence or not if they shot it down or whatever happened to flight 93. it did for sure not crash in a 40° angle into the tiny crater we got presented as imprint.



It must of have been scary standing there as it crashed beside you!

[DavidJames]

I don't mind obliging, but you're going to have to restate your question for clarity.

I think what Red is asking here is, he can't answer that question honestly, can you restate it so he can, using his gift of semantics, find a way to answer it and not actually admit to anything?

[RedIbis]

Well if you never saw the bodies yourself, as you are demanding with regard to flight 93 plane parts, then how do you know they actually found bodies???

You obviously are believing some source that has told you through media, that bodies were recovered...So then, why do you believe one source, concerning the bodies at GZ, but not belief another source, perhaps even the same source, with regard to plane parts at Shanksville?

I think that is the essence of the socratic lead you were given.

TAM:)

Talk about comparing apples and fig newtons. There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses. There are photos and video of bodies being removed from GZ. Is there anything similar from Shanksville?

[dudalb]

is there any evidence that they found bodys in the crater?

I think I hear the sound of Goalposts being moved.
Frankly, Gandhi would turn over in the Ganges that a total wackjob is using him as an atavar to try to gain sympathy for his crap.

[Mr.Herbert]

Truthers:

Do some REAL research. Contact the folks that were there. You know you won't. But just in case... here are some names and contact information. (thanks Gravy)

Paul Sledzik, Curator Armed Forces Institute of Pathology National Museum of Health and Medicine
Leader of flight 93 Disaster Mortuary (Team DMORT) Emil: sledzik@email.afip.osd.mil –

Dr. Dennis C. Dirkmaat, Chief Scientific Advisor to Somerset County Coroner's office in the flight 93 investigation; Director, Applied Forensic Sciences Department, Mercyhurst College, 501 E. 38th St. Erie, PA 16546 Email: dirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu –


Disaster Mortuary Team Main office: 1-800-USA-NDMS, ext. 205
DMORT Region 3 office (includes Pennsylvania) 410-676-4600

Wally Miller: Somerset County Coroner's Office: 555 Tayman Avenue, Somerset, PA 15501

you can also contact the many agencies that were there:

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company,
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department,
and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King

Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer

Former firefighter Dave Fox

Local FBI agent Wells Morrison

Jon Meyer, a reporter with WJAC-TV

Faye Hahn, an EMT

Rick Lohr: Director of Somerset County Emergency Management Agency

[scissorhands]

There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses. There are photos and video of bodies being removed from GZ.

How many pictures and videos of bodies have you seen?
All the bodies?
By your logic, the actual count of those that died at GZ is exactly the number you have actually seen photos of.
Why are you relying on the MSM to tell you that many more than that actually died?

[WildCat]

Truthers:

Do some REAL research. Contact the folks that were there. You know you won't. But just in case... here are some names and contact information. (thanks Gravy)



RedIbis won't be contacting any of them.

Correct Red? :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Talk about comparing apples and fig newtons. There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses. There are photos and video of bodies being removed from GZ. Is there anything similar from Shanksville?

There are plenty of photos of the plane parts recovered from UA93. Gravy's links will direct you, if you can manage to use them (they seem to displease you so much). You simply do not trust the photos...correct? So we are back to square one.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

There are plenty of photos of the plane parts recovered from UA93. Gravy's links will direct you, if you can manage to use them (they seem to displease you so much). You simply do not trust the photos...correct? So we are back to square one.

TAM:)

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

[WildCat]

RedIbis won't be contacting any of them.

Correct Red? :rolleyes:
And you won't be contacting any of the people who were there, correct?

[Corsair 115]

you dont have to be a rocketscientist to see it...So, you are able to see things NTSB investigators who have years and years of experinece in investigating aircraft crashes cannot see? I believe that's called hubris.

[John Blonn]

I don't mind obliging, but you're going to have to restate your question for clarity.

Don't be obtuse; my question was quite clear. Anyhow, you answered it in the following posts.

There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses.

Oh really? How do you know this? Did some shill tell you this? A member of the MSM? Rescue personnel's testimony? I want photographic proof.

OK Red, please present me with photos of every person who was 'alleged' to be killed in the towers collapse.

Why should I believe you, or "rescue personnel" or "FBI" agents. I want to see pictures of EVERY BODY. Otherwise how do I know it happened?

Your response, Red? Got some pictures? Or do you believe other standards of evidence are admissible in this instance?

[beachnut]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

Why do you think you have a body after stopping in 40 feet in 0.45 seconds. How many Gs is that? Oh, you got common sense, if your jet hit the ground at 600 mph, you jump to save your body! Why do you lack knowledge on Flight 93, the people who figured out 9/11 in minutes, and you can't in 6 years.

Got physics. No, you have hearsay and lies.

[John Blonn]

And actually, come to think of it, how do we KNOW planes crashed into the Towers?

We can't trust eyewitnesses, just like we can't trust the eyewitnesses of the wreckage of Flight 93.

Videos can be edited.

Red, show me pictures of plane parts in the towers. Otherwise, how do we know a plane crashed there?

[scissorhands]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

The fact that the bodies were reduced to tiny fragments of human tissue means you get to win on semantics.
Quite a piece of work arent you?

The relatives were given what remains could be found for burial, maybe you should ask them to dig them up in order for you to personally inspect them.

Now, why do you trust the mainstream media to tell you about the true number of fatalities at GZ when you have only seen photographic proof of a few?

[novice skeptic]

And as for the inevitable snarky comments about how cheesy "Let's roll!" sounds... this is America, people. Macho posturing is sort of what we do here.

I'm sorry but I don't find anything cheesy about it at all.

[T.A.M.]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

given the quote you quoted me in says "Plane parts", what is your point.

I did not say there were photos of body parts. So now you want photographic evidence of body parts?

If there were body parts, they would likely have been small fragments of bone, and muscle, likely not even that. So I guess the crash itself, which caused the lack of body parts, is in on the CT as well? once again, rhetorical.

TAM:)

[sleahead]

Red, let's pretend for a moment that UA93 did not crash at Shanksville. Please list the minimum number of things the alleged conspirators would have to have done in order to sustain the subsequent 'official' narrative.

[WildCat]

RedIbis won't be contacting any of them.

Correct Red? :rolleyes:

And you won't be contacting any of the people who were there, correct?
The RedIbis is a slippery bird... I wonder if he has a special ignore add-on so that he can't see the hard questions?

[njslim]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

Thats because gruesome pictures of body parts are not - to spare the families - posted
in public. The police (or in this case FBI/NTSB) will photograp body parts as they are
discovered, but will not release them. I've been to plane crash site and walked the
ground marking body parts for the coroner. The invesigators took pictures of the
body parts, but did not release them. Would you want bloody pictures of the
remains of your family member out in public for people to gawk at?

Whack jobs like you make me sick.....

[Mr.Herbert]

bump for RED

Have you contacted any of the first responders? Please let us know.

[OldTigerCub]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

Thats because gruesome pictures of body parts are not - to spare the families - posted
in public. The police (or in this case FBI/NTSB) will photograp body parts as they are
discovered, but will not release them. I've been to plane crash site and walked the
ground marking body parts for the coroner. The invesigators took pictures of the
body parts, but did not release them. Would you want bloody pictures of the
remains of your family member out in public for people to gawk at?

Whack jobs like you make me sick.....

I feel the same sentiment, njslim.
I have not personally been onsite at an air crash, but I did have the opportunity recently to speak with two FBI agents that work in the Pittsburgh region. One was involved with the investigation at Shanksville. Both indicated that there are copies of all of the pictures taken at the Flight 93 crash site archived at the Pittsburgh field office, but that they are not at liberty to share them with anyone not directly involved with the case without proper authorization. The same goes for pictures taken at any crime scene, especially those as sensitive as images of human remains.

[SDC]

Red I. is unlikely to oblige. I would like to put out his/ her use of "ditch." A word which implies a very small patch of ground.

I guess he /she is trying to move the argument away from NYC and the Pentagon, off to the wilds of Pennsylvania. That's the point.

[LashL]

Talk about comparing apples and fig newtons. There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses. There are photos and video of bodies being removed from GZ. Is there anything similar from Shanksville?


Well, let's do this one step at a time, then.


Step one: RedIbis, how many people do you believe died in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001? Please be specific.

[Hokulele]

Thats because gruesome pictures of body parts are not - to spare the families - posted in public. The police (or in this case FBI/NTSB) will photograp body parts as they are discovered, but will not release them. I've been to plane crash site and walked the ground marking body parts for the coroner. The invesigators took pictures of the body parts, but did not release them. Would you want bloody pictures of the remains of your family member out in public for people to gawk at?

Whack jobs like you make me sick.....


QFT.

[beachnut]

if it makes sence or not if they shot it down or whatever happened to flight 93. it did for sure not crash in a 40° angle into the tiny crater we got presented as imprint.

Flight 93 did crash in Pennsylvania, you are wrong. The evidence makes your statement a lie.

The impact cratered of 93 is what you get when a plane hits the ground at 600 mph. Your statement is a lie.

With a course in aircraft accident investigation you could learn to identify a high speed ground impact of an aircraft. Why are you making up lies without supporting evidence.

Other high speed ground impact of aircraft, showing the big pieces.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact5.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact3.jpg
Go talk to a trained aircraft accident investigator.

[LashL]

Thats because gruesome pictures of body parts are not - to spare the families - posted
in public. The police (or in this case FBI/NTSB) will photograp body parts as they are
discovered, but will not release them. I've been to plane crash site and walked the
ground marking body parts for the coroner. The invesigators took pictures of the
body parts, but did not release them. Would you want bloody pictures of the
remains of your family member out in public for people to gawk at?

Whack jobs like you make me sick.....

Agreed. I have, unfortunately, had to look at more than enough horrific crime scene photos and autopsy photos to last me a lifetime, and I can't even imagine where idiots like 9/11 "truthers" get off on thinking that such should be made publicly available. It's absolutely sickening.

[Arus808]

oh please. when my 2nd cousin was murdered by a crack dealer back in the 90's, I never got to see the photos of the crime scene or her body when the police investigated. I however, attended the trial of the man who was her murderer, but images from the crime, were never shown to us (only to the jury).

If family members can't even see the images from a crime scene, what makes anyone think that Joe Public has a right to see those pics?

[RedIbis]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/Flight93MossauiExhibit.jpg

[LashL]

So,

Talk about comparing apples and fig newtons. There were thousands of people in those bldgs before the plane crashes and bldg collapses. There are photos and video of bodies being removed from GZ. Is there anything similar from Shanksville?

Well, let's do this one step at a time, then.

Step one: RedIbis, how many people do you believe died in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001? Please be specific.



Well, RedIbis? How about step one?

[John Blonn]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/Flight93MossauiExhibit.jpg

Brilliant!

All my questions were answered!

9/11 WAS an inside job, folks!

[John Blonn]

Truther Mindset:

- Government hires "witnesses" to lie and claim they saw Flight 93 crashing.
- Government digs up a hole in Shanksville.
- Government goes to a local scrap yard, picks up some pieces of metal, and puts them in the crater.
- Government gets 'rescue personnel' to lie about what they saw.
- Government gets "Wally Miller" to "identify" the "bodies" of all passengers + hijackers.

- Government DOES NOT fake photos of an airplane broken up and scattered across the landscape like a plane "should" look after it crashes.

Hey Red, why did the government choose to make that REALLY SUSPICIOUS crater instead of setting up a "REALISTIC" crash scene? I mean, really, they had the capability to do both, so why pick the one that would alert internet sleuths like you to the truth?

[beachnut]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/Flight93MossauiExhibit.jpg
High speed aircraft impact. Just like the photos I posted, high speed impacts. Good job, I show you high speed impacts, you find one too. Who said truth movement apologists can't be trained?

The impact crater and ejected parts are a result of the kinetic energy of 93 at 600 mph. Anyone who denies 93 crashed in PA lacks knowledge, and the ability to make logical conclusions. Those who lie and say 93 did not crash in PA, are calling everyone who recovered remains, identified remains, and picked up 93 aircraft parts, liars. Pathetic, they make up this lie without evidence.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg
High speed aircraft impacts. Why are truth movement members unable to figure out the impact crater? So far all their statements about the crater are based on complete ignorance, not based on the reality of high speed aircraft ground impacts.

The dumbest idea may be 93 bouncing off the ground, or there should be large parts like the tail sitting there, or some other stupid statement. If only kinetic energy calculation could be made by truthers, or understood.

[TC329]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.


i can't figure out what the implications of proving the Bush Administration fabricated a story in order to rally a nation into war without an investigation....no shades of tillman or lynch here.

[TC329]

I'm betting Dom (TC329) will chime in soon. He sees himself as as a FL93 *expert.*

And, if he does, be prepared for a huge dose of more woo...

yeah wait til i dump my interview with wally....;)

[TC329]

It's more than an opinion that some passengers were planning to storm the cockpit of Flight 93 and probably did storm it. That scenario is backed up by testimony (phone calls from passengers stating that intention) and the cockpit voice recordings and the erratic maneuvering of the plane before it crashed.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/19/flight93-recordings.htm)
The relatives of the passengers and crewmembers also said they heard the sounds of screaming, yelling and rushing wind moments before the jet crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pa.

i bet even you can figure out whats wrong above....

[TC329]

I think the truthers don't want to accept the fact that the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers because it goes in the face of their claim that "19 hijackers with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off this attack so successfully!" because when it comes to Flight 93, the hijackers WEREN'T able to successfully pull off their mission, despite boxcutters (and knives, and a bomb, and what was thought to be a gun).

yeah i cant figure out why the government would shoot the plane down out of fear the revolt would be successful and their entire operation would have been exposed had there been a safe landing.

They'd rather say the government shot it down. Of course, if they also believe that the government was the ones who put these planes up in the air, and therefore presumably had control over Flight 93, then it makes no sense why they would shoot down their own plane.

yes it does the passengers revolting would jeopardize the entire operation. you don't put your 'critical thinking' hat on when you come here, do you?

If WTC7 is the smoking gun for the 9/11 truth movement, then Flight 93 is its Achilles Heel. No matter how you look at it, there's no logical way of it fitting into any overall conspiracy picture.

yeah now i remember why i was able to run you off the lc boards.....lol

[TC329]

Who cares. The crash and its wreckage are verified by numerous witnesses and first responders. None of these people have expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion that anything other than the crash of United 93 took place there.

Why is that not good enough for you?

lol you can tell who has actually spoken to people and who hasn't thats for sure.....

[TC329]

is there any evidence that they found bodys in the crater?


no there is no photographic evidence of such.

there were remains photographed outside the crater.

remains said to have been recovered from inside arrived at the DMORT set up where wally miller and company were. there was no official documentation to their recovery locations.

wally miller also wasn't allowed to grid the field properly as is done with all airplane crashes the fbi was opposed to it saying there wasn't enough man power.

[TC329]

It must of have been scary standing there as it crashed beside you!

yeah trust me you guys dont want to hear what the guy is crashed right beside has to say about it. ;)

[TC329]

Truthers:

Do some REAL research. Contact the folks that were there. You know you won't. But just in case... here are some names and contact information. (thanks Gravy)

Paul Sledzik, Curator Armed Forces Institute of Pathology National Museum of Health and Medicine
Leader of flight 93 Disaster Mortuary (Team DMORT) Emil: sledzik@email.afip.osd.mil –

Dr. Dennis C. Dirkmaat, Chief Scientific Advisor to Somerset County Coroner's office in the flight 93 investigation; Director, Applied Forensic Sciences Department, Mercyhurst College, 501 E. 38th St. Erie, PA 16546 Email: dirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu –


Disaster Mortuary Team Main office: 1-800-USA-NDMS, ext. 205
DMORT Region 3 office (includes Pennsylvania) 410-676-4600

Wally Miller: Somerset County Coroner's Office: 555 Tayman Avenue, Somerset, PA 15501

you can also contact the many agencies that were there:

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company,
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department,
and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King

Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer

Former firefighter Dave Fox

Local FBI agent Wells Morrison

Jon Meyer, a reporter with WJAC-TV

Faye Hahn, an EMT

Rick Lohr: Director of Somerset County Emergency Management Agency





lol

your about to eat those words.....

[TC329]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

thats because there are none. trust me i did the contacting for you. :D

[funk de fino]

Exactly what operation would the passengers have rumbled?

What would have been discovered if the plane had been taken back by the passengers and a hollywood style landing by one of the passengers at an airport had happened?

What plane shot it down and what type of missile would it have been?

Why did a missile hit not show on the FDR/CVR data?

[funk de fino]

thats because there are none. trust me i did the contacting for you. :D

Why would there be?

Does this mean you have actually contacted someone on this list? Let me guess, Wally Miller? I hope you will not misrepresent his words like most scumbag truthers?

[DC]

mmmh the conspiracy-deniers more and more resort to namecalling, figures.

[T.A.M.]

So the entire theory that UA93 did not crash in Shanksville, is based on a lack of PUBLICLY AVAILABLE photographic evidence, and that the photos available "don't look right" to the untrained eyes of people who are not CRASH SITE INVESTIGATORS.

Brilliant.

And that is the "mainstream" truther theory...I am not even going to touch the fringe of fringe stuff...lol

TAM:)

[SDC]

Don't you see that TC329 has re-interviewed everyone involved, and they have admitted their complicity in an immense conspiracy? Or so he is hinting. And poor Red I., I guess, expects to see the oft-cited Wiley Coyote equivalent outline of flight 93 in the ground -- or else it won't count. A ditch indeed.

Makes me think of a favorite literary quote ... Mary McCarthy (?) said of Lillian Hellman something like, "Every word she says is a lie, including 'a' and 'the'." (I'd look up the exact wording but I should go to work now.)

[DC]

so the entire official theory about 93 is based on what we got told and was never proven....

brilliant

[DC]

a wiley coyote like imprint is what we got presented........
and the conspiracy-deniers dont even rise an eyebrow.......
LOL

[John Blonn]

a wiley coyote like imprint is what we got presented........
and the conspiracy-deniers dont even rise an eyebrow.......
LOL

Why would the government fake a 'wile e. coyote like imprint' if it's just so obvious to internet sleuths like you that it's wrong?

Why not fake a 'real plane crash?' Did it just slip their minds?

[T.A.M.]

Don't you see that TC329 has re-interviewed everyone involved, and they have admitted their complicity in an immense conspiracy? Or so he is hinting. And poor Red I., I guess, expects to see the oft-cited Wiley Coyote equivalent outline of flight 93 in the ground -- or else it won't count. A ditch indeed.

Makes me think of a favorite literary quote ... Mary McCarthy (?) said of Lillian Hellman something like, "Every word she says is a lie, including 'a' and 'the'." (I'd look up the exact wording but I should go to work now.)

Like I said, I am not going to touch the fringe stuff...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

so the entire official theory about 93 is based on what we got told and was never proven....

brilliant

No, for flight 93, the official story is based upon witness testimony, phone calls, FBI Investigation, crash site investigation testimony, first responder testimony, coroner testimony and DNA analysis.

So like Red, I will assume that short of being allowed access to the original plane debris and the original DNA samples, you assume it is all lies...The coroner, the FBI, all lying to you.

And you wonder why the "truth" seven years later, remains a small collection of paranoiacs.

TAM:)

[DC]

No, for flight 93, the official story is based upon witness testimony, phone calls, FBI Investigation, crash site investigation testimony, first responder testimony, coroner testimony and DNA analysis.

So like Red, I will assume that short of being allowed access to the original plane debris and the original DNA samples, you assume it is all lies...The coroner, the FBI, all lying to you.

And you wonder why the "truth" seven years later, remains a small collection of paranoiacs.

TAM:)


like i thought, no evidence that the presented imprint is indeed the crashscene :)

[DC]

Why would the government fake a 'wile e. coyote like imprint' if it's just so obvious to internet sleuths like you that it's wrong?

Why not fake a 'real plane crash?' Did it just slip their minds?

for US education standards, it was enough :)

[chillzero]

Off topic posts and bickering removed. Please stay on topic, and keep it civil.

[T.A.M.]

like i thought, no evidence that the presented imprint is indeed the crashscene :)

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM:)

[DC]

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM:)

pictures when they digging in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

[WildCat]

yeah wait til i dump my interview with wally....;)
Oooooh! The latest smoking gun from the thoroughly incompetent CIT!

Proof that 9/11 was an inside job! It comes out just as soon as it can be edited to make the interviewees look like they are saying something they're not... :rolleyes:

[Mr.Herbert]

yeah wait til i dump my interview with wally....;)

dump your interview with Wally?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/walle_lg.jpg

My son is going to LOVE it!

[funk de fino]

pictures when they digget in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

Digget is not a word, try again.

There is more than one picture of the scene. Fail again.

[Hokulele]

ok, since you are obviously being obtuse about this, why not answer this for me...

What evidence do you require in order to prove that UA93 crashed in Shanksville, at the site we all have come to know as the crash site.

TAM:)


The problem with asking this question to CTists is that they will think of something that is a) almost impossible to find and b) almost completely irrelevant given the amount of evidence that already exists. Just note the repeated demands for an aircraft part showing serial numbers.

The CTists don't want concrete evidence. Ever. That will kill their fantasies and force them to face reality, unpleasant as that may be.

This is one reason I never bother with questions of this nature, as it always give them a reason to retain their unreasonableness.

[Pardalis]

I've checked Gravy's links and no pictures show bodies being removed from the Shanksville site.

That's because there weren't any bodies left, just a few body parts.

If you actually read Gravy's links, you would have read this:

"the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact.[...] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."

Not gruesome enough for you? Still feel the need to insult the death of these people?

[Corsair 115]

i can't figure out what the implications of proving the Bush Administration fabricated a story in order to rally a nation into war without an investigation....no shades of tillman or lynch here.Perhaps I've got my conspiracists mixed up, but aren't you the fellow who claims an A-3 Skywarrior is what really impacted the Pentagon?

[Calcas]

Perhaps I've got my conspiracists mixed up, but aren't you the fellow who claims an A-3 Skywarrior is what really impacted the Pentagon?
Nah, I think that was Terral.

The CIT fools don't have a theory. They just think they know what didn't happen...

[Travis]

i can't figure out what the implications of proving the Bush Administration fabricated a story in order to rally a nation into war without an investigation....no shades of tillman or lynch here.

A terrible friendly fire incident and a POW rescue prove 9/11 was an inside job? I can't wait to hear the convoluted logic behind that one.

[T.A.M.]

pictures when they digging in the crater for example, not only the one we got shown with the one engine.

BS. If they had a picture of them digging in the crater, you would likely say this...

(A) Oh look, funny we can't see out wide enough to tell if this is even the Shanksvilles site...I'm not convinced.

(B) Funny we see them digging, but I don't see any plane parts, or any body parts...I'm not convinced.

(C) Funny we see them digging, and that could be a plane part, but how do we know they didn't fake the shot and the parts...I'm not convinced.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

As for any new witness interviews...

IT IS 2008. THE EVENT OCCURRED SEVEN ****ING YEARS AGO!!!!

For god's sake. There is absolutely no accuracy, no validity, nothing, that you can take from a recounting of an incident that took but a few seconds, that was witnessed from a distance, that occurred that long ago.

Any new, magical witnesses are as useless as the rest of the interviews TC and CIT have....

TAM:)

[TC329]

As for any new witness interviews...

IT IS 2008. THE EVENT OCCURRED SEVEN ****ING YEARS AGO!!!!

For god's sake. There is absolutely no accuracy, no validity, nothing, that you can take from a recounting of an incident that took but a few seconds, that was witnessed from a distance, that occurred that long ago.

Any new, magical witnesses are as useless as the rest of the interviews TC and CIT have....

TAM:)

admit it TAM this was one of your alter egos wasn't it :

"Sorry -you got it backwards. I don't have an open mind, I was taught bettern then that."
anonymous duh-bunker "1975" (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=112931&t=441384)

[TheRedWorm]

Any physical evidence yet, TC?

[gumboot]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.



The sole objective of all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists is to prove the official account wrong. In any way they can. They don't care about the ramifications of their claims - that's why so many of theirs contradict each other.

The official account says UA93 was not shot down. That's why they say it was.

[TC329]

Any physical evidence yet, TC?

oh great anonymous armchair researcher "TheRedWorm" please tell me what it is that i have to do to convince you?

do i have to present you plane debris?

human remains?

missile fragments?

what is it that you require almighty anonymous god of all truths?

[TheRedWorm]

please tell me what it is that i have to do to convince you?

do i have to present you plane debris?

From a plane that is not flight 77? Yes, that would go a very long way in proving your case.

human remains?

I can't honestly think of who would be dead at the Pentagon that would prove whatever theory you are promoting, but if you have an idea, let me know.

missile fragments?

Most definitely. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not flight 77, and you were to provide physical evidence of said missile, then I would be convinced that your theory was true.

what is it that you require almighty anonymous god of all truths?

Physical evidence. Now that I have responded to your questions, answer mine: What piece(s) of evidence or line of reasoning would it take for you to accept that flight 77, hijacked by Islamic terrorists, deliberately struck the Pentagon?

[TC329]

From a plane that is not flight 77? Yes, that would go a very long way in proving your case.

well i don't have access to the debris to confirm through maintenance logs through serial numbers since its tucked away in an underground city at iron mountain arguably the most secured location on earth.

but you'll have to just take my word for now that flight 77 didn't crash in the field in shanksville. :p



I can't honestly think of who would be dead at the Pentagon that would prove whatever theory you are promoting, but if you have an idea, let me know.

well people who worked at the pentagon would be dead there but this has nothing to do with that. you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.....



Most definitely. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not flight 77, and you were to provide physical evidence of said missile, then I would be convinced that your theory was true.

i dont believe a missile hit the pentagon.
i dont believe flight 77 hit it either but i don't see the relevance to this and how it pertains to this thread.



Physical evidence. Now that I have responded to your questions, answer mine: What piece(s) of evidence or line of reasoning would it take for you to accept that flight 77, hijacked by Islamic terrorists, deliberately struck the Pentagon?

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.

[WildCat]

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.
In other words, you require a ridiculous amount of proof for the universally accepted course of events but you require only the most flimsy of evidence involving a tiny percentage of the witnesses (all of whom say Flight 77 hit the pentagon) who have been cajoled into saying the plane went vaguely north of the Citgo and an FDR found in the Pentagon misinterpreted by the dolts and hacks at PffffT.

Your reasoning skills are pathetic TC.

[beachnut]

no there is no photographic evidence of such.

there were remains photographed outside the crater.

remains said to have been recovered from inside arrived at the DMORT set up where wally miller and company were. there was no official documentation to their recovery locations.

wally miller also wasn't allowed to grid the field properly as is done with all airplane crashes the fbi was opposed to it saying there wasn't enough man power.
The remains were identified. You lack the ability to understand reality, and have little airplane flying around PA under wires right, as in a few feet above cars. You are funny, and sick as you manufacture false ideas on 9/11 as easy as breathing.

u, debunked by thousand of pieces, tiny pieces of evidence since 2001.

Even the terrorist understand you are making this up. r they are laughing at your ideas?

[TC329]

In other words, you require a ridiculous amount of proof for the universally accepted course of events but you require only the most flimsy of evidence involving a tiny percentage of the witnesses (all of whom say Flight 77 hit the pentagon) who have been cajoled into saying the plane went vaguely north of the Citgo and an FDR found in the Pentagon misinterpreted by the dolts and hacks at PffffT.

Your reasoning skills are pathetic TC.

really wildcat?

where are the southside lightpole smashing treetop trimming generator crushing witnesses at? got any? film any?

whats that?

oh you got none. but the corporate media that skeered you and the rest of these people that saddam was linked to al qaeda and had wmd's and the next warning was going to be a mushroom cloud on the horizon went out and did it for you.......right?

to date there has not been a single piece of plane debris from any of the 4 crash sites that has been positively identified as being from the plane the united states government claim it is from......considering they recovered so much debris you would think this would have been the first thing they did since this is typical operating procedures in all incidents involving aircraft and then followed up with a reconstruction of those parts ......like every other crash in aviation history.

[WildCat]

really wildcat?

where are the southside lightpole smashing treetop trimming generator crushing witnesses at? got any? film any?

whats that?
So you require video of every claim? You are not a rational person TC.

oh you got none. but the corporate media that skeered you and the rest of these people that saddam was linked to al qaeda and had wmd's and the next warning was going to be a mushroom cloud on the horizon went out and did it for you.......right?
No TC, the overwhelming evidence did. And it is indeed overwhelming and conclusive.

to date there has not been a single piece of plane debris from any of the 4 crash sites that has been positively identified as being from the plane the united states government claim it is from......considering they recovered so much debris you would think this would have been the first thing they did since this is typical operating procedures in all incidents involving aircraft and then followed up with a reconstruction of those parts ......like every other crash in aviation history.
If this was an accident you'd have a point. But it wasn't, you lose again. In fact, yours is the paranoid ranting of a street-corner lunatic.

[TC329]

So you require video of every claim? You are not a rational person TC.

cit brought videos of eyewitnesses saying the opposite.

you guys cannot duh-bunk them except to make fun of them. perhaps you could find real breathing eyewitnesses to the attack to duh-bunk them?

come on, we both know you can't and neither can any of your brethern....


No TC, the overwhelming evidence did. And it is indeed overwhelming and conclusive.

remember how bush wasn't even in office for 30 days before firing the first missiles into iraq?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.html

remember how in march of 2002 time magazine reported [and cnn and other corporate news outlets all carried it] that bush said to 3 senators a full year earlier "**** saddam, we're taking him out".....?

how about when weapons inspector ritter stated multiple multiple times that saddam did not have a single wmd?

is that the overwhelming and conclusive evidence you speak of?

9/11 and osama bin laden all justified the invasion of iraq that the majority of the world supported even though the entire world was outraged when bush started firing missiles into iraq as soon as he was sworn into office.

my how murdering 3000 of your own people can change world opinion........


If this was an accident you'd have a point. But it wasn't, you lose again. In fact, yours is the paranoid ranting of a street-corner lunatic.

oh mildcat, a street-corner lunaitc?

your words are so flattering. :D

[Norseman]

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/19/flight93-recordings.htm)
The relatives of the passengers and crewmembers also said they heard the sounds of screaming, yelling and rushing wind moments before the jet crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pa.

i bet even you can figure out whats wrong above....

Oh yes, we understand very well what you are hinting at here TC329. This is where you want us believe that an air to air missile caused an explosive decompression of the cabin.

The problem is that does who have listened to the tape does not support you:

Deena Burnett, the wife of Thomas Burnett, said that sounds appeared muffled and that the rushing of wind could be heard as the plane flew far too fast for its low altitude. In the final seconds, the jetliner hit the ground at 575 miles an hour, officials have said.
New York Times 2002: A NATION CHALLENGED: FLIGHT 93; Families Say Tapes Verify Talk of Valor (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DC153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B 63)

In New York's federal court, a handful of people watching the proceedings via closed circuit included Elsa Rensaa, a World Trade Center survivor who said that hearing the cockpit recording debunked some conspiracy theories.

"It clears up the fact that the U.S. Air Force did not shoot down the plane in Pennsylvania," Rensaa said. "You could hear from the cockpit voice recorder that the hijackers flew wildly and erratically to get people away from the door."

Clayton Patterson, another survivor, called the trial a chance to air key facts and dispel myths about Sept. 11.
USA Today 2006: Sept. 11 families say tape shows heroism (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-12-moussaoui-families_x.htm)

[Grizzly Bear]

really wildcat?
where are the southside lightpole smashing treetop trimming generator crushing witnesses at? got any? film any?

whats that?

oh you got none. but the corporate media that skeered you and the rest of these people that saddam was linked to al qaeda and had wmd's and the next warning was going to be a mushroom cloud on the horizon went out and did it for you.......right?

Let's see if you notice the question I asked you in the other thread this time... So, if flight77 did not hit the light poles knocking them over, what did? Or doe you think they were planted... in front of hundreds of bystanders?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one

considering they recovered so much debris you would think this would have been the first thing they did since this is typical operating procedures in all incidents involving aircraft and then followed up with a reconstruction of those parts

Why do they reconstruct the plane TC? Tell me... Usually reconstruction is a follow up to determine what caused the plane to crash do they not? For the trade centers they know the planes crashed because well... they were intentionally rammed into both towers. The Pentagon crash, which you reject, another plane was driven into a building... In shankeville the plane was essentially out of control with the chaos inside... None of the four planes had anything particularly wrong with their mechanical systems....

Flight 800 for example was reconstructed for that purpose: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DD1F30F935A15753C1A9609582 60

Suggesting how confounding the mystery of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 has become, Federal officials have tentatively decided to take a series of new steps in the inquiry, including reconstructing a large section of the Boeing 747 that exploded on July 17 and blowing up another 747 to test various theories about the crash.

The object is to determine whether the explosion that destroyed the plane and killed all 230 people on board was caused by a mechanical failure, a bomb or a missile.

At a meeting yesterday, officials of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation reached a tentative decision to rebuild as much as 92 feet of the 230-foot-long plane by affixing the pieces of plane to scaffolding, officials who participated in the meeting said. The area of the plane they are considering rebuilding is roughly from the forward door to just behind the wings, a board official said.

Investigators working in a former Grumman hangar in Calverton, L.I., are working on a reconstruction of the plane's center fuel tank, but they hope that by more than doubling the area of the reconstruction they will get a more complete view of the damage to the plane. The investigators have determined that the center fuel tank exploded, but they do not know the cause.

They can identify the plane from radar pickups, and other methods non exclusive to the debris itself.

......like every other crash in aviation history.
Give me one example of a hijacking where a plane was intentionally crashed to kill several thousand people... Last I checked... most aviation crashes are accidental and the reason for the crash isn't known until after wards... It's pretty self-evident why they crashed

[TC329]

Oh yes, we understand very well what you are hinting at here TC329. This is where you want us believe that an air to air missile caused an explosive decompression of the cabin.

The problem is that does who have listened to the tape does not support you:


New York Times 2002: A NATION CHALLENGED: FLIGHT 93; Families Say Tapes Verify Talk of Valor (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DC153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B 63)


USA Today 2006: Sept. 11 families say tape shows heroism (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-12-moussaoui-families_x.htm)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DC153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B 63

The families were not allowed to take notes or use recording devices as they listened to the voice recorder and viewed the transcript of the final 30 minutes of the flight, which crashed outside of Shanksville, Pa.,

Before they listened to the tape at a hotel here, family members of the passengers and crew were required to sign a waiver issued by the Department of Justice, agreeing not to sue the F.B.I., Justice Department or the federal government for any matter connected to the playing of the tape.

Family members were also strongly urged not to reveal the contents of the voice recorder, because federal officials plan to introduce it into evidence in the forthcoming trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.




seems like even if there was a shoot down the family members would not be allowed to discuss such.

[beachnut]

.....considering they recovered so much debris you would think this would have been the first thing they did since this is typical operating procedures in all incidents involving aircraft and then followed up with a reconstruction of those parts ......like every other crash in aviation history.
How can you be more wrong? No major parts survive to put back together! Why would they put the plane together in a CRIME? When the cause is unknown they try to put plane back together to figure out the cause. The only people who do not know the cause of 9/11, CIT, you, p4t and other groups too dumb to understand the reality of 9/11, an event which you think is some political crap with aliens, small planes flying over vans and under wires, etc. Explain? The NTSB puts planes back together to figure out WHAT did it. 9/11, I know you have problems, massive problems understanding 9/11, but it was cause by a WHO, not a WHAT, and the WHO committed a crime, not an ACCIDENT. Do you understand on purpose and an accident. We learned this in grade school. When a terrorist take a plane, that is a crime, when a terrorist crashes the plane while committing a crime it is murder, and another crime. The terrorist committee lots of crimes on 9/11. When we know who did it we do not need to reconstruct a plane which is smashed beyond all possible recognition due to a 600 mph impact into the ground. Your lack of logic is noted, and confirms you are you posting things you usually say. Identification confirmed!

This idea is like most of your stupid ideas, and make you easy to debunk, at many levels of abstraction.

[LashL]

seems like even if there was a shoot down the family members would not be allowed to discuss such.



What a remarkably stupid thing to say.

There is and was nothing prohibiting the family members from discussing what they heard.

Exhibit 1: the New York Times article to which you linked, in which family members discussed what they heard.

[Dr Adequate]

yeah i cant figure out why the government would shoot the plane down out of fear the revolt would be successful and their entire operation would have been exposed had there been a safe landing. So, let's see if I've got this straight.

(1) 93 was shot down, which would of course have left a crater, wreckage, fragments of bodies.

(2) At the Shanksville site, there were, according to all the evidence we have, a crater, wreckage, and fragments of bodies.

(3) Nonetheless, the whole Shanksville site is a fake, and 93 actually came down somewhere else. There are no witnesses to this, but what the hey.

[chillzero]

Several off topic posts removed. Keep it on topic, and don't personalise matters, please.

[TC329]

So, let's see if I've got this straight.

(1) 93 was shot down, which would of course have left a crater, wreckage, fragments of bodies.

(2) At the Shanksville site, there were, according to all the evidence we have, a crater, wreckage, and fragments of bodies.

(3) Nonetheless, the whole Shanksville site is a fake, and 93 actually came down somewhere else. There are no witnesses to this, but what the hey.


i do not support statement #3.

parts of flight "93" came down somewhere else but the majority of it came down in shanksville.

[eeyore1954]

yeah i cant figure out why the government would shoot the plane down out of fear the revolt would be successful and their entire operation would have been exposed had there been a safe landing.



yes it does the passengers revolting would jeopardize the entire operation. you don't put your 'critical thinking' hat on when you come here, do you?




So it appears to me from these statements that you believe the government wasn't planning to shoot down the flight but it happened because the government was afraid when the passengers were took over if they were able to land safely the whole plan would be exposed.

So they weren't planning to do this yet they were ready at a moments notice to get the fake debris and hole planted somewhere in Western PA.
Also does this mean you believe the plane was hijacked by someone.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

cit Brought Videos Of Eyewitnesses Saying The Opposite.

so What Are Those Idiots Doing With That Evidence? What Are They Waiting For To Bring The Real Criminals To Justice?
why are you sucking up to CIT?

[Norseman]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E4DC153FF93AA25757C0A9649C8B 63

The families were not allowed to take notes or use recording devices as they listened to the voice recorder and viewed the transcript of the final 30 minutes of the flight, which crashed outside of Shanksville, Pa.,

Before they listened to the tape at a hotel here, family members of the passengers and crew were required to sign a waiver issued by the Department of Justice, agreeing not to sue the F.B.I., Justice Department or the federal government for any matter connected to the playing of the tape.

Family members were also strongly urged not to reveal the contents of the voice recorder, because federal officials plan to introduce it into evidence in the forthcoming trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.




seems like even if there was a shoot down the family members would not be allowed to discuss such.

As pointed out already by LashL nothing prevented the relatives from discussing it. They were only urged not to reveal the content of the tape because of the upcoming Zacarias Moussaoui trail. Despite this they discussed it to some extent with the press.

This is why they had to sign a waiver, in case you did not understand it TC329:
The participating family members were asked to sign a release excusing the government from any responsibility for emotional distress the family may experience.
Source: CNN - Families hear tape from hijacked Flight 93
(http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/04/18/rec.flight.93/index.html)

And as should be evident from the second article I linked, the tape was played at the Zacarias Moussaoui trail in public with the press present on april 12th 2006. So once again since you obviously missed this part or conveniently ignored it:
New York's federal court, a handful of people watching the proceedings via closed circuit included Elsa Rensaa, a World Trade Center survivor who said that hearing the cockpit recording debunked some conspiracy theories.

"It clears up the fact that the U.S. Air Force did not shoot down the plane in Pennsylvania," Rensaa said. "You could hear from the cockpit voice recorder that the hijackers flew wildly and erratically to get people away from the door."

Clayton Patterson, another survivor, called the trial a chance to air key facts and dispel myths about Sept. 11.
USA Today 2006: Sept. 11 families say tape shows heroism
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-12-moussaoui-families_x.htm)
My bolding.

None of the Flight 93 relatives who have listened to the tape supports your idea that the plane where shot down, not in 2002 and not in 2006. Neither does others who listened to tape in 2006 as should be evident from the above quote. Quiet the contrary, they are convinced that it was the passengers who singlehandedly prevented the terrorists from reaching their intended target with Flight 93.


Here are some other reports from the 2006 playing of the tape:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-12-moussaoui_x.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12cnd-moussaoui.html?ex=1145505600&en=7a9a1d555088255e&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

[sleahead]

i do not support statement #3.

parts of flight "93" came down somewhere else but the majority of it came down in shanksville.

I see. Please describe what the crash scene should have looked like if an airplane was deliberately crashed at high speed. I'm hoping you're not going to use that drawing of a tail section sticking up out of the ground which someone (Avery?) produced.

[TC329]

So it appears to me from these statements that you believe the government wasn't planning to shoot down the flight but it happened because the government was afraid when the passengers were took over if they were able to land safely the whole plan would be exposed.

correct that is my current belief.

i also believe tom burnett told the truth when he told his wife one of the hijackers had a gun.

So they weren't planning to do this yet they were ready at a moments notice to get the fake debris and hole planted somewhere in Western PA.

uhhhhhhhhh no.

[Dr Adequate]

i do not support statement #3.

parts of flight "93" came down somewhere else but the majority of it came down in shanksville. So you think Shanksville's the real deal? This did not come over in your posts, but that's excellent. You can turn your attention to the Truthers who think it's fake, and I shall get the popcorn and watch.

[TC329]

So you think Shanksville's the real deal? This did not come over in your posts, but that's excellent. You can turn your attention to the Truthers who think it's fake, and I shall get the popcorn and watch.

yeah like suddenly you're not the enemy anymore......

[pomeroo]

cit brought videos of eyewitnesses saying the opposite.

you guys cannot duh-bunk them except to make fun of them. perhaps you could find real breathing eyewitnesses to the attack to duh-bunk them?

come on, we both know you can't and neither can any of your brethern....




remember how bush wasn't even in office for 30 days before firing the first missiles into iraq?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.html

remember how in march of 2002 time magazine reported [and cnn and other corporate news outlets all carried it] that bush said to 3 senators a full year earlier "**** saddam, we're taking him out".....?

how about when weapons inspector ritter stated multiple multiple times that saddam did not have a single wmd?

is that the overwhelming and conclusive evidence you speak of?

9/11 and osama bin laden all justified the invasion of iraq that the majority of the world supported even though the entire world was outraged when bush started firing missiles into iraq as soon as he was sworn into office.

my how murdering 3000 of your own people can change world opinion........




oh mildcat, a street-corner lunaitc?

your words are so flattering. :D


Tell us about the survivors of the Titantic who thought the ship went straight down. They were watching from nearby lifeboats, you know. Were they "lying"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

You can run, but you can't hide.

[Calcas]

correct that is my current belief.


Oh, finally, a theory!

Please tell us more what you believed happened at Shanksville...or anywhere else on 9-11.

[OldTigerCub]

i do not support statement #3.

parts of flight "93" came down somewhere else but the majority of it came down in shanksville.

Do tell! Where did these parts come down? Stoystown? Jennersville? Ligonier? The resort at Seven Springs? Stahlstown, or maybe even somewhere in the dense forests of Lynn Run, Laurel Hill, Kooser, Laurel Mountain or Laurel Ridge state parks? Has there been a part found in any of the places along the flight path?

There was some debris documented downwind of the crash in New Baltimore, but nothing more substantial than small scraps of paper and fabric were found there, and all of the rest of the debris found in the Indian lake area was found downrange of the crater, in the direction the jet was heading. So far, no parts of Flight 93 have been found, outside of the crash site and downrange/downwind.

The FDR indicates that the plane was intact, all systems normal, aside from the erratic movements of the controls, which put the plane into the dive which ultimately resulted in a CFT.
The transcript of the CVR supports the conversations between passengers and family members that they were going to try to take back the plane.
The closest fighter pilot was Billy Hutchinson, who had just finished refuelling over the D.C. area when UAL93 hit the ground, and he had only about 105 rounds of training rounds in his guns, and no missiles. By the time he could be vectored in the right direction, and get a radar blip from Flight 93, the plane was already heading down and disappeared from his scope long before he was within range..

So, why do you still maintain that Flight 93 must have been shot down?

[Bananaman]

Oh God, TC, not another one. Aaargh. (OK, Bananaman, turn off the tired old debunker act, because you've never debunked anything, understand?. Roger.)

Where was I? Oh yes. TC thinks flight 93 was shot down after it became apparent to the people in contact with the aeroplane (little aside there for a couple of pals of mine who actually fly, and hate the word 'plane', anyway...) that the passengers had issues.

Where does one start?

"Er, sir, flight 93 isn't going according to plan"
"What?"
"Sir, we have reports that flight 93 may have a passenger revolt."
"Blow it out of the sky."

Now, do any troofers who are semi-sane see any problems with the above scenario?

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them either work it out for themselves or, as a rather amusing alternative, watch them bury themselves in their own, ahem, poo.

Bananaman.

[TC329]

Tell us about the survivors of the Titantic who thought the ship went straight down. They were watching from nearby lifeboats, you know. Were they "lying"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

You can run, but you can't hide.

perhaps if flight 93 had some survivors we could ask them ron.

what the **** is wrong with you?

[X]

So, umm...

Why exactly did the passengers on 93 pose problems to the government?

Was it because they were wresting control away from the government operatives who had taken over the plane and let everyone know of the taekover (if it's the government, why not just replace the pilots quietly before takeoff and let the passengers be none the wiser?) and therefore the government decided to shoot down their own plane killing the innocent civilians and their own agents?

Was it because the passengers caught wind of the remote control systems installed in the plane (which somehow escaped the pilot's notice and which would have been impossible to design, install and use effectively) and wer egoing to disconnect it and fly in to safety, so the government shot down a commerrcial airliner killing innocent civilians?

Was it because there were no hijackers, and the passengers would have proved it, so they shot the airliner down?

Was it because somehow, mysteriously, the survival of FLight 93 threatened to exposed the supposed controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and the supposed faking of the Pentagon, through some as-yet unsuggested means, so the governemnt shot the aircraft down?

Ohh! I know! Flight 93 was carrying the crew that installed the explosives/thermite/thermate/squibs/keebler elves/lasers/whatever to fake the attacks! And it was shopt down to cover the crime!


Seriously, TC, I am very confused as to just what threat Flight 93 posed to the government's "plan". Can you please clarify the reasoning behind this?

If you admit there were innocent passengers but no Al-Quaida hijackers, why were they rebelling? Who told them the plan? Could've just swapped in suicidal pilots at the airport ahead of time, and the passengers never would have known.

Why shoot down the plane, if your government agants had guns? A couple shots into people they'd be killing anyways (I feel [censored word for "utterly horrible"] writing such a thing) would've quelled any uprising.

And if you think it was shot down, where is the evidence of a missile, or guns, or any other means to do it with?


We have evidence that Flight 93 crashed (nosedived, basically) in Shanksville.
We have evidence that Flight 93, and the others, were hijacked by Al-Quaida terrorists.
We have evidence that the crash was the result of the passengers bravely trying to wrest control from the hijackers, upon deducing their evil motives.

Where is your evidence of a shoot down?
Burden of proof, TC. The Al-Quaida hijack/passenger revolt has been backed up by an overwhelming amount of evidence, from all sorts of areas.
Your fancy little hypothesis (not even a theory) has, to date, ZERO evidence. Only twisted meanings, mined quotes, and a helluva lot of incredulity.

And no, saying "the crash site looks wrong" does not count. It's a logical fallacy (argument from incredulity), and it's been shown that when a plane nosedives into soft ground at high speed, the result is exactly like what was seen at Shanksville.

[TC329]

There was some debris documented downwind of the crash in New Baltimore, but nothing more substantial than small scraps of paper and fabric were found there, and all of the rest of the debris found in the Indian lake area was found downrange of the crater, in the direction the jet was heading. So far, no parts of Flight 93 have been found, outside of the crash site and downrange/downwind.

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

indian lake marina owner jim brandt and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli all hear the engines of a low flying plane prior to the crash.

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

indian lake groundskeeper chris smith hears a 'screaming' thing fly overhead towards the crash site prior to the explosion.

val mcclatchey hears a low flying plane pass over her house towards the crash site prior to the explosion. it in fact enables her to turn her head and see out the window the plane plummeting to the ground. her house is between the crash site and indian lake.

jim stop is fishing in indian lake and sees a plane fly by "breaking apart in the sky" prior to the explosion.

[TC329]

;3913512']
And no, saying "the crash site looks wrong" does not count.

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.

[X]

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.



Strawman?

All I'm doing is asking WHY the government felt threatened enough by the civilian passengers on Flight 93 that they had to shoot down the plane to prevent the exposure of their vast, complicate dconspiracy.

I merely suggested some possible scenarios. It's not my fault if your idea, fo0llowed through to it's logical end, appears infantile and silly.


So please, explain what these passengers knew that made it necessary for the government to shoot down the plane, thus allowing the brave scholars at PfT and CIT to expose their evil plot.


It's your hypothesis. Now you get to try and defend it.
Or you can run. Sometimes it's smart to run, especially from a fight you can't win...

So where is your evidence?



Regarding the quote:
It's not a quote of you. It's an attempt to forestall any claims (based on incredulity, and shown to be false) that the crash scene is suggestive of anything more than a nosedive into the ground.

[jhunter1163]

i'm not interested in why do this and why didnt they do that nonsense. sorry i have no interest in your strawman arguments.

and i hope you're not trying to attribute that quote to me and if you are please source it.

You're not interested in showing motive because you can't.

[Tweeter]

If you cant bother with the 93 conspiracy, how about the
Flight 93 Memorial Conspiracy. I live 40 miles from Shanksville so we get their local news. It seems families of the crash? victims are up in arms over this. The memorial will be shaped like a Crescent Moon.
http://www.zombietime.com/flight_93_memorial_project/
Our local paper seems to be downplaying it and suggesting the families dont like the location.

[beachnut]

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

indian lake marina owner jim brandt and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli all hear the engines of a low flying plane prior to the crash.

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

indian lake groundskeeper chris smith hears a 'screaming' thing fly overhead towards the crash site prior to the explosion.

val mcclatchey hears a low flying plane pass over her house towards the crash site prior to the explosion. it in fact enables her to turn her head and see out the window the plane plummeting to the ground. her house is between the crash site and indian lake.

jim stop is fishing in indian lake and sees a plane fly by "breaking apart in the sky" prior to the explosion.

Darn, they heard the plane. It is called sound it travels and reflects off the hills around the lake. The lake being the lowest area around if you would check your facts. Sound, oops, they didn't see it, because it was crashing and already crashed!

You already made this error before and failed!

Your ideas are so biased to false junk. How do you invent this much stupid stuff?

And the witnesses even saw the plane upside down as the FDR reports. And this heading proves Jim Stop did not see the plane over the lake. It takes some knowledge of heading and flying, but you may be able to figure this out. But so far you have just posted hearsay as your support. What is your idea on the shoot down fantasy spread by some?

Here is Jim Stop's story as told by a news source.

As you can see the only quote attributed to Jim is "I heard the engine whine and scream,". This means the news source just said he looked up and saw flight 93 overhead based on the notes they took. This is pure hearsay and you have interpreted overhead to mean straight up, and there is not one shred of evidence to back up your idea. Most first and second graders understand cause and effect; do you.


Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.

“I heard the engine whine and scream,” Stop said.

He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html))

Why are you spreading lies?

[Caustic Logic]

Assuming they could prove it WAS shot down, so what? (And for the record, it wasn't.)

1. It probably should have been shot down. (We'll leave the ethics to the ethicists on that one.)

2. It was in a good place to be shot down with respect to collateral damage.

3. It does not prove ANYTHING about the rest of the truther's "inside job" fantasy.

4. Covering it up would only prove that the Bush Administration went into damage control mode after the passenger revolt story came out.

So, why do they latch on to this as something that will advance their cause?

I just don't get it.


Good point. I still remember back when there was no Loose-Change-style "9/11 Truth" inside job line. It was all just questions, and this was just one of them. I always thought it was just evident it was shot down, but I've seen so much BS I'm not so sure now. It's not my field and I'm real rusty outside that.

I always figured it'd be revealed someday, and that people would just say "oh! Well... I guess they should have, something went right." The "Let's Roll" story would be revealed as morale-boosting sugar-coating. It's actually pretty cynical, so I didn't expect the change overnight, probably decades off.

Personally I can see several reasons they might want to not admit to it.

But as we see, the shoot-down was just not "Truthy" enough, so we had the no plane there at all canard emerge. This is just so stupid. There's no plane parts, so there's no plane! We know there was no plane, so when we finally see plane parts, they must be planted. Of course! They faked the scene! They didn't fake it well enough tho that it really looked like a plane crashed there, which is how we know it had to be faked. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. ...

[Caustic Logic]

perhaps if flight 93 had some survivors we could ask them ron.

what the **** is wrong with you?

Did all the Flight 93 witnesses you interviewed die? No? Then his analogy is just as applicable here as it is at the Pentagon, to the extent that you rely on peoples' often confused recollections. I don't know how applicable it is really, as I haven't seen your work on this yet. Is it available? I will say your take on 93 is not normal CIT-stupid, at least on its face.

[Caustic Logic]

If you cant bother with the 93 conspiracy, how about the
Flight 93 Memorial Conspiracy. I live 40 miles from Shanksville so we get their local news. It seems families of the crash? victims are up in arms over this. The memorial will be shaped like a Crescent Moon.
http://www.zombietime.com/flight_93_memorial_project/
Our local paper seems to be downplaying it and suggesting the families dont like the location.

I always heard they were upset about the shape too. It is an odd choice. The CTist in me wonders if the company wanted to suck up money for one design they knew wouldn't fly, then get a second dose to re-design?

[Hokulele]

;3913534']So please, explain what these passengers knew that made it necessary for the government to shoot down the plane, thus allowing the brave scholars at PfT and CIT to expose their evil plot.


Seriously. I mean, even if the passengers were about to blow the government's cover, why shoot it down? Why couldn't the government operatives just, er, drive it into the ground?


(Wow, I feel filthy even thinking about such things. Ech, time for a bath.)

[X]

(Wow, I feel filthy even thinking about such things. Ech, time for a bath.)


You too, eh?
It does disturb one, to think such thoughts.

Perhaps its the sheer inhumanity of it.


I really hope TC329 has a good answer to my (perfectly valid, IMHO) question.

[BenBurch]

Might have something to do with the fact that Flight 93 never ended up in that ditch.

Liar.

[beachnut]

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

...
mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was. You never get anything right! Are you trying to mess up everything? How can you be this bad.

The debris is south of the impact crater, not west! The debris at Indian Lake floated on the air to the lake. Did you miss that? The wind was blowing it to Indian Lake, did you check the wind!?

Please prove there is not a trail of debris to Indian Lake. Do you just make up stuff and see if it floats?

No you are a liar. Mayor Barry Lickty never said 93 flew over his house, he said this.


My wife and I were watching CNN about what was happening in New York and Washington. We heard a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile. We both ducked. Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor.

Mayor Barry Lickty never said 93 flew over his house, and he had more to say.

There were rumors that Flight 93 was shot down. I was at the crash site within fifteen minutes. If it had been shot down, there would have been debris spread over a much wider area. The debris was confirmed to where it crashed, forward of that in the trees, and down wind here at Indian Lake.
Guess what they found between the impact crater and the lake. Sorry, why are you making up stuff?

, like charred seatbelts, ledger sheets, papers, and lighter things like that.

So far you have messed up everything.

[Tweeter]

I always heard they were upset about the shape too. It is an odd choice. The CTist in me wonders if the company wanted to suck up money for one design they knew wouldn't fly, then get a second dose to re-design?
I watched the news tonight and couldnt believe it.
The families are seriously pissed. One father was evening asking who the real terrorists were. He looked to be joining the woo very soon.
http://www.wjactv.com/news/17076321/detail.html

[Caustic Logic]

Beachy - thanks for the researched facts. I probably won't look into this myself, but does TC care to prove you wrong with graphics that illustrate the directions of of the crater and debris? How does this direction line up with the FDR?

[beachnut]

Beachy - thanks for the researched facts. I probably won't look into this myself, but does TC care to prove you wrong with graphics that illustrate the directions of of the crater and debris? How does this direction line up with the FDR?
The wind lines up to drop junk on the Lake.
The heading was south and junk is all over the ground south of the impact.

I have to look it all up again. TC is the worse research analyst I have seen. Or at least equal to CIT and p4t. One massive black hole for facts, and out pops pure junk, that is TC.

In any aircraft accident some things are ejected all over. But as I learn more their stupid ideas get more lame. They never think about what things mean.

But I already know the debris was scatted to the south, and light stuff was blown on the wind.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/93crater.jpg
South, you can see other photos with junk all along those houses./

Mag heading 187, about -3 drift, 184 impact.
The plane was rolling back from 153 to 142 at 9 degrees a second.

[Caustic Logic]

Right on. Good stuff. If that photo is oriented due north I'd say it IS a bit west, but more SSW, or basically south, pretty close to 187-ish heading. Calling this just "west" is a play right from the Aldo C-130 playbook.

TC is looking CIT-stupider all the time.

[Norseman]

Right on. Good stuff. If that photo is oriented due north I'd say it IS a bit west, but more SSW, or basically south, pretty close to 187-ish heading. Calling this just "west" is a play right from the Aldo C-130 playbook.

TC is looking CIT-stupider all the time.

Yes the photo is oriented due north. The road that runs through the wood is running along the north-south line, just deviating a bit SSE. This can be confirmed by looking at this aerial photograph of the area in Google Maps, the maps and photographs in Google Maps is of course oriented due north.

Google Maps: Shanksville Flight 93 Crash Site (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shanksville&ie=UTF8&ll=40.050187,-78.904002&spn=0.004312,0.006909&t=h&z=17)

The burned out wood patch in the photo Beachnut posted has been cut down, but the outline of where the trees stood are clearly identifiable in the aerial photograph.

[Mr.Herbert]

From Gravy's site:

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/Debris_Field-full-1.jpg

[RedIbis]

Liar.

Is that the totality of what you have to offer?

[tsig]

yeah like suddenly you're not the enemy anymore......

Reality is your enemy.

[Wolrab]

What's to stop the crack investigating team from rolling up their sleeves and going to Shanksville (other than residents and their shotguns) and scouring the area for missed debris? If all the wreckage wasn't in the impact crater, wouldn't there still be debris in the large area they claim? The original searchers wouldn't have been able to find every last scrap. The crack investigating team, being so much smarter than the official conspiracists, should be able to find evidence that supports their theory (they certainly wouldn't publish anything that doesn't support it). Hell, if they got a raging clue that pays off, they could be legends in minds other than their own.

I understand this might involve actually walking around and possibly getting bugs in your hair, but just think of the thrill of finding just one missile part or even a body part to fondle and covet.

[Lensman]

but you'll have to just take my word for now that flight 77 didn't crash in the field in shanksville. :p


So you want us/the gubmint to present you with a ridiculous amount of hard factual evidence, but you want us to just accept your word, is that it?

[John Blonn]

I still don't get why the gubmint would fake a crash scene that was so 'obviously' fake. I guess it all makes sense somehow in a conspiracists Weltanschauung.

[Grizzly Bear]

Is that the totality of what you have to offer?

I could badger you with the valujet 592 crash scene... just to play with your mind... I've mentioned that crash a few times already but it flies over everybodies head...

Care to locate that plane in the crater?
LINK (http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/images/30.jpg)

If "There's not enough debris in the crater" is the only argument you have to offer as to why you believe flight 93 didn't crash in Shankesville you need to come up with a better argument red.

I still haven't gotten an answer... I don't want you or TC to tapdance around this. I'll repeat this as many times as necessary.

[RedIbis]

I could badger you with the valujet 592 crash scene... just to play with your mind... I've mentioned that crash a few times already but it flies over everybodies head...

Care to locate that plane in the crater?
LINK (http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/images/30.jpg)

If "There's not enough debris in the crater" is the only argument you have to offer as to why you believe flight 93 didn't crash in Shankesville you need to come up with a better argument red.

I still haven't gotten an answer... I don't want you or TC to tapdance around this. I'll repeat this as many times as necessary.

I'm not quite sure why you would compare a crash site in a swamp with one in a dirt clearing. Also, there are 592 pics of large pieces of the plane kept in a hangar. There's nothing comparable to that with 93.

[WildCat]

I'm not quite sure why you would compare a crash site in a swamp with one in a dirt clearing. Also, there are 592 pics of large pieces of the plane kept in a hangar. There's nothing comparable to that with 93.
Without looking through the rest of the thread, you have no intention of contacting any of the people who worked the "ditch", recovering arcraft and body parts, correct? And instead, you will accuse them of being liars and in on it.

Red will run away from this question, that's the kind of guy he is.

[OldTigerCub]

so you're theory is the plane was flying towards indian lake despite the amount of physics you have to ignore from the fact that the blast trajectory of the debris is going west into the woods and away from indian lake?

fascinating explain how that happens.

I don't have a theory. I look at the physical evidence and come to a conclusion. I did not say Flight 93 was heading toward Indian Lake when in impacted, rather that the debris field was determined by the direction of the crash and the direction of the wind. Indian Lake was downwind of the crash on that day.
The magnetic heading at impact was 187deg (slightly west of due south) and the immediate obvious damage to the treeline corresponds directly with that heading. Up to that point the aircraft had been on a heading of 120 - 122 deg until the time that the passeger revolt began. From that point it veered to the north-east, then made a turn back toward the south-east and then south as it made it's final dive into the ground.
To say that the blast was to the west is immaginative at best, and an outright and deliberate misinterpretation at the worst.


add into the fact that there isn't a trail of debris from the crater to indian lake but 2 fields entirely separate.

indian lake marina owner jim brandt and his employees carol delasko, john fleegle, & tom spinelli all hear the engines of a low flying plane prior to the crash.

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

indian lake groundskeeper chris smith hears a 'screaming' thing fly overhead towards the crash site prior to the explosion.

val mcclatchey hears a low flying plane pass over her house towards the crash site prior to the explosion. it in fact enables her to turn her head and see out the window the plane plummeting to the ground. her house is between the crash site and indian lake.

jim stop is fishing in indian lake and sees a plane fly by "breaking apart in the sky" prior to the explosion.

Once again, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in any investigation.

Edit: By the way, I'm on the way out the door to take a service call at Ligonier, and will probably stop by the memorial if I have time. Do ya want any pictures of the construction? :)

[TC329]

Did all the Flight 93 witnesses you interviewed die? No?

ron is talking about people who were aboard the titanic adam. please pay attention.

since no one on board of flight 93 survived i don't think it's fair to try and compare them.

ron is one sick individual imo.

Then his analogy is just as applicable here as it is at the Pentagon, to the extent that you rely on peoples' often confused recollections.

well april gallop survived the attack on the pentagon and she insists it wasn't hit by a plane.

I don't know how applicable it is really, as I haven't seen your work on this yet. Is it available?

susan mcelwain's interview is easily available. go to google video.
wally miller's interview is next. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54)

I will say your take on 93 is not normal CIT-stupid, at least on its face.

i don't call the eyewitnesses [all 13 of them] that place the plane over the navy annex and between citgo and arlington national cemetary "stupid".

i also don't believe officer roberts is "stupid" for seeing the plane fly over.

hopefully when you attempt to debunk the shoot down of this plane you will have better arguments that it's "stupid".

[DavidJames]

i don't call the eyewitnesses [all 13 of them] that place the plane over the navy annex and between citgo and arlington national cemetary "stupid".

i also don't believe officer roberts is "stupid" for seeing the plane fly over. Readers please note - What an eyewitness says and what CIT report on often aren't the same thing.

As this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119980) shows, people like TC and CIT lie about what they hear and read.

[TC329]

The debris is south of the impact crater, not west! The debris at Indian Lake floated on the air to the lake. Did you miss that? The wind was blowing it to Indian Lake, did you check the wind!?

after seeing adam get fooled by your disinformation i thought i would temporarily take you off ignore just to humiliate you for old times sake.

please post a picture capturing the wooden area destroyed in the attack and indian lake. then prove those woods are south of the crash site and not west/southwest blast trajectory. the world will be waiting for you to admit you are both ignorant as an ass and completely wrong as usual.


No you are a liar. Mayor Barry Lickty never said 93 flew over his house, he said this.

Several local people believe they hear a missile overhead just before Flight 93 goes down. Barry Lichty, a US Navy veteran and mayor of Indian Lake Borough (just to the east of where Flight 93 crashes), is watching television with his wife. He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile.… Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor. My first reaction, as a former utility employee, was that maybe someone shot a missile into the substation.” He says Flight 93 “did not come over my house. I don’t know what we heard.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 158-159 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972103163/centerforcoop-20)]

mayor barry lichty confirms that a plane did indeed fly over his house at indian lake before the explosion and was later told it wasn't flight 93 and was never told what plane it in fact was.

so what plane flew over his house prior to the crash in shanksville about a mile or two west of his house troll?


Guess what they found between the impact crater and the lake. Sorry, why are you making up stuff?

i don't know, what?

wally miller said the debris all blasted into that wooden area which is the opposite direction of indian lake. in fact all the 'bystanders' would be standing in this imaginary debris trail you insist exists but like always have no evidence to support your baseless insane conspiracy theories with.

So far you have messed up everything.


you sure do beachy.....this is why you're on ignore with bobert.
2 peas in a pod and half a brain shared between you two......

[TC329]

Right on. Good stuff. If that photo is oriented due north I'd say it IS a bit west, but more SSW, or basically south, pretty close to 187-ish heading. Calling this just "west" is a play right from the Aldo C-130 playbook.

adam i can see you're almost being honest but then you side with the neonazicon loyalists in the end.

hey adam would you say indian lake was in the direction of the blast trajectory into the woods?

TC is looking CIT-stupider all the time.

says the man following dishonest trolls.........

[X]

ron is talking about people who were aboard the titanic adam. please pay attention.

since no one on board of flight 93 survived i don't think it's fair to try and compare them.

ron is one sick individual imo.




You are deliberately misrepresenting what Pomeroo is asking of you.
That is highly dishonest.

You know damn well that he is not suggesting you ask survivors of Flight 93 for their accounts. Pretending otherwise is immitating idiocy to aviod looking like a moron by answering a logcal quesiton that will undermine your adherence to those 13 witnesses (of how many?).



Ron is making a point about that eyewitness testimony of an event (in this case, people watching the sinking of the Titanic from lifeboats or the water) resulting in differing accounts.
Individual eyewitness accounts will vary, depending on the individual's mental state at the time, their perceptions, and where they were located.

Whether or not the witnesses were escapees from a sinking ocean liner or civilians on the ground as an aircraft passed over head DOES NOT MATTER!

You know this.
Why are you being so dishonest on this point?


And using your intentional misrepresentation to try to insult Ron is despicable.


Grow up, TC.

[TC329]

From Gravy's site:

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/Debris_Field-full-1.jpg


wow mark roberts being dishonest again.....

who would have thought?

it is clearly evident that the blast trajectory into the woods is not consistent with this image as the woods are not south/southeast of the crash site.

amazing how you people all believe conspiracy liars when you're all exposed as fools by anyone smart enough to figure out how to use google maps......

[Reheat]

ron is one sick individual imo.

That is really funny coming from you. You....on the other hand??????

well april gallop survived the attack on the pentagon and she insists it wasn't hit by a plane.

Among other things she says is that the Pentagon had a missile defense system. My, my you have such incredible witnesses to quote....

i also don't believe officer roberts is "stupid" for seeing the plane fly over.

He didn't see an aircraft flyover, but you are stupid for believing that he did.

hopefully when you attempt to debunk the shoot down of this plane you will have better arguments that it's "stupid".

Well, anything that anyone provides to debunk anything you say is infinitely better than what you have - a train load full of stoopid!

[TC329]

I still don't get why the gubmint would fake a crash scene that was so 'obviously' fake.


quit trying to discredit me by associating me no planers troll.......

[TC329]

Readers please note - What an eyewitness says and what CIT report on often aren't the same thing.

As this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119980) shows, people like TC and CIT lie about what they hear and read.

readers please note - david did not actually say anything i said was a lie because he can't because it is all true.

so david please tell the 'readers' what part of the following is a lie :

i don't call the eyewitnesses [all 13 of them] that place the plane over the navy annex and between citgo and arlington national cemetary "stupid".

i also don't believe officer roberts is "stupid" for seeing the plane fly over.

[Reheat]

Several local people believe they hear a missile overhead just before Flight 93 goes down. Barry Lichty, a US Navy veteran and mayor of Indian Lake Borough (just to the east of where Flight 93 crashes), is watching television with his wife. He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile.… Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor. My first reaction, as a former utility employee, was that maybe someone shot a missile into the substation.” He says Flight 93 “did not come over my house. I don’t know what we heard.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 158-159 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972103163/centerforcoop-20)]

There's those similes again.

What kind of air-to-air missile makes a whistling sound? What kind of air-to-air missile makes a roar? Did Barry Lichty ever hear and air-to-air missile in his life?

Did he or have you ever heard a big "honking" aircraft diving toward the ground with engines at near full throttle?

Troofers amuse me with their "logic" and you are one of the winners in that category. Not many others are close.....

You even make my dog laugh.....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11810)

[TC329]

Among other things she say is that the Pentagon had a missile defense system. My, my you have such incredible witnesses to quote....

hmmmmmm april gallop pentagon employee who would know this.....

'reheat' super anonymous armchair research authoritive.....

yep she's still way more credible than the troll.......



He didn't see an aircraft flyover, but you are stupid for believing that he did.

so you're argument is to call officer roosevelt roberts a liar?

yeah that's gonna help your side win an argument. maybe you should be like ron and start calling the guy a drunk without a single drop of supporting evidence to help protect bushco?


Well, anything that anyone provides to debunk anything you say is infinitely better than what you have - a train load full of stoopid!

"stoopid" is how i feel for giving this post the time of day.

[TC329]

There's those similes again.

What kind of air-to-air missile makes a whistling sound? What kind of air-to-air missile makes a roar? Did Barry Lichty ever hear and air-to-air missile in his life?

Did he or have you ever heard a big "honking" aircraft diving toward the ground with engines at near full throttle?

Troofers amuse me with their "logic" and you are one of the winners in that category. Not many others are close.....

You even make my dog laugh.....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg

reheat you can make fun of people or you can explain what flew over indian lake prior to the explosion in shanksville less than 2 miles away.

i bet you'll stick with the first option.

troll.

[WildCat]

reheat you can make fun of people or you can explain what flew over indian lake prior to the explosion in shanksville less than 2 miles away.
Nobody cares TC. The fact is that the remains of Flight 93 and its passengers and crew was found at the crash site.

i bet you'll stick with the first option.
I bet you will continue to ignore the overwhelming physical evidence and instead continue in your campaign of cherry-picked quote mining.

troll.
Pot, the kettle is calling... :rolleyes:

[Reheat]

hmmmmmm april gallop pentagon employee who would know this.....

Hehehehe, her evidence is a tour in which the guide said "This is the most secure building in the world". That's her evidence. Prove otherwise?

so you're argument is to call officer roosevelt roberts a liar?

Nope, not at all, but you are for saying that he witnessed a flyover.

yeah that's gonna help your side win an argument. maybe you should be like ron and start calling the guy a drunk without a single drop of supporting evidence to help protect bushco?

A rational person would need to be dead drunk to believe your crap.

"stoopid" is how i feel for giving this post the time of day.

In reality you should feel the same way regarding ALL of your posts.

[Reheat]

reheat you can make fun of people or you can explain what flew over indian lake prior to the explosion in shanksville less than 2 miles away.

Don't be confused, I'm poking fun at YOU.

How 'bout NOTHING flew over Indian Lake? Now, that was easy, wasn't it?

[Alt+F4]

I'm not quite sure why you would compare a crash site in a swamp with one in a dirt clearing. Also, there are 592 pics of large pieces of the plane kept in a hangar. There's nothing comparable to that with 93.

In the Valujet crash, the depth of the water in the swamp ranged from 6-inches to 5-feet, but underneath the water was muck that was as deep as 30-to 40-feet (underneath that was bedrock). You would think that all that muck would have slowed the plane down before being destroyed against the bedrock, but crashing at 500 mph, that's not what happened.

Only 75% of the plane was ever recovered and only 37 of the 110 victim's bodies were found.

[jhunter1163]

TC, maybe you missed this in the other thread:

On May 18, 1980, I was visiting some friends of mine in southwestern Washington State when Mt. St. Helens erupted. At the time of the eruption, I was walking down a Forest Service road. I saw the entire northwest side of the mountain just kind of slide off, followed by an enormous explosion.

Now, as it turned out, it was the northeast side of the mountain that collapsed. I would have sworn in court that it was the northwest side. I spent many, many hours of my youth on those Forest Service roads, and I knew exactly where I was in relation to the mountain. Still and all, I was simply... wait for it... mistaken.

What can we conclude from this little story? Eyewitnesses, even to dramatic events, are not infallible and should not be treated as such.

Now, I'm not equating a volcanic eruption to a plane crash. I was a good 30 miles away from the mountain and knew I wasn't in immediate danger. Still, it was the most dramatic thing I ever saw, and I got an important detail wrong.

My point is that your NoC witnesses, and your Shanksville witnesses too, are at best mistaken. Not lying, mistaken. At worst, they've had their stories twisted and quote-mined to support some bizarre theory that doesn't even rise to the level of wrong.

[Reheat]

Several local people believe they hear a missile overhead just before Flight 93 goes down. Barry Lichty, a US Navy veteran and mayor of Indian Lake Borough (just to the east of where Flight 93 crashes), is watching television with his wife. He says he hears “a loud roar above the house that sounded like a missile.… Shortly thereafter, we heard an explosion and a tremor. My first reaction, as a former utility employee, was that maybe someone shot a missile into the substation.” He says Flight 93 “did not come over my house. I don’t know what we heard.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 158-159 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972103163/centerforcoop-20)]

The amusing thing about these statements is the following:

I have actually fired several air-to-air missiles and I actively participated in the war in Southeast Asia, but I have NEVER ever heard an actual air-to-air missile from the ground except in manufacturer produced videos and testing videos produced by the USAF. That's not Hollywood produced films, but actual films of missiles above air-to-air ranges.

To quote a US Navy Veteran's testimony without further evidence of his job or specific experience as if it's a proven fact is quite simply deceitful.

To think that these witnesses actually heard UA93 in a fatal dive to the ground apparently never occurs to those who want to continue their delusion of a increasingly impossible conspiracy. It's more intriguing to continue these delusions of a nefarious plot by the US Government to destroy the aircraft for some reason concocted by agenda driven fools.

There was no air-to-air missiles fired near Shanksville or anywhere else on 9/11. There were no fighters anywhere near UA93 and TC329's imaginary drone was not capable of carrying or firing an air-to-air missile no matter who kind of vehicle he imagines it to have been.

He needs to keep putting the CIT moniker behind his name as it is the same unadulterated crap misconstrued by agenda driven idiots with absolutely no common sense of reality.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm not quite sure why you would compare a crash site in a swamp with one in a dirt clearing.
No visible debris means no plane right? You seem to have forgotten the point of showing you that. So by your logic if there was not enough visible debris on the crash site there is not enough evidence of a plane right? Hell, they couldn't identify all of the passengers because they were all shredded to tiny pieces by the impact into peat and bedrock. Flight 93 hit solid ground, I'm not sure why it surprises you that there were no intact bodies pulled out or for the matter much in the way of intact air craft.


Also, there are 592 pics of large pieces of the plane kept in a hangar. There's nothing comparable to that with 93.
You missed the point, which I stated above. You made a judgment based on appearance of the crash site. 592 isn't the only example aside from flight 93. I'm aware that what they crashed into is apples and oranges, but that's not what I was getting at.

[BenBurch]

Is that the totality of what you have to offer?

No, but it *is* the totality of what you have offered. And you know it, what's more.

[Calcas]

FYI for those of you who may have missed it.

TC329 has been suspended for one month for "repeated breaches of his membership agreement." Then he goes on permanent probation.

I think this thread has run it's course.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120172

[Caustic Logic]

So you want us/the gubmint to present you with a ridiculous amount of hard factual evidence, but you want us to just accept your word, is that it?

Uh, considering that he said:
Originally Posted by TC329
"but you'll have to just take my word for now that flight 77 didn't crash in the field in shanksville."

You might want to take his word over your own possible doubts. ;)

[Caustic Logic]

ron is talking about people who were aboard the titanic adam. please pay attention.

since no one on board of flight 93 survived i don't think it's fair to try and compare them.

ron is one sick individual imo.


He's not talking about recollections of the dead, evasive faking-dumb non-dumb guy. Survivors - people who saw it and survived to have memories. In boats at the Titanic, on the ground near flight 93, at the citgo and elsewhere at the Pentagon, etc. On chat forums you can find surviving witnesses to you acting like an idiot and just spewing nonsense and failing at life. Some might remember you being brilliant and correct and courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that you actually were a big liar and sank.

well april gallop survived the attack on the pentagon and she insists it wasn't hit by a plane.

there was no plane, she says, because there was no jet fuel, no plane parts at all, and this is known to be wrong. Yet she calmly says "the plane story is there to brainwash people," and she had men in black insist she beeter say plane or else... nothing. April also said incorrectly that she climbed out of a small "perfectly round" hole the plane couldn't fit in (there was no such hole at the front, where she was) . She also says her wristwatch was stopped by the bombs at 9:32. Actually that's acc. to Honegger, who also maintains April also says SHE blew up the Pentagon, by pressing the power button on her computer (see "Clout" program, Air America, May 15 2008). She is insane, attention-seeking, lying, disinfo, distorted in her words, or something other than right. Not a witness to come back at me with!

i don't call the eyewitnesses [all 13 of them] that place the plane over the navy annex and between citgo and arlington national cemetary "stupid".

i also don't believe officer roberts is "stupid" for seeing the plane fly over.

What??? The witnesses are just wrong, or grossly misread, or both, Not "stupid," and I never said this. I said "CIT-stupid" not "witnesses-stupid." Please take a remedial reading comprehension class. IMO they are not actually stupid anyway. It takes a certain intelligence to craft a CIT-stupid argument.

[Caustic Logic]

FYI for those of you who may have missed it.

TC329 has been suspended for one month for "repeated breaches of his membership agreement." Then he goes on permanent probation.

I think this thread has run it's course.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120172

Should read to the end - Mighta saved me some time.

[Pardalis]

Red, I believe you haven't responded to my post yet (among others)

That's because there weren't any bodies left, just a few body parts.

If you actually read Gravy's links, you would have read this:

"the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact.[...] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."

Not gruesome enough for you? Still feel the need to insult the death of these people?

So, how do you account for the forensic experts and pathologists' testimonies, or do you choose to remain "agnostic" in face of the evidence?

You also left this post unanswered:
bump for RED

Have you contacted any of the first responders? Please let us know.

[RedIbis]

Red, I believe you haven't responded to my post yet (among others)



So, how do you account for the forensic experts and pathologists' testimonies, or do you choose to remain "agnostic" in face of the evidence?

You also left this post unanswered:

I really hope you're not waiting around for me to answer hypothetical, leading questions.

As for Mr. Herbert's post, what first responders I have or haven't contacted is of no relevance to this topic. You suffer from the preconception that because you disagree with my POV, I could not have possibly done outside research, including speaking with people on the scene, during 9/11. Playing the "who have you contacted" gambit is cheap and transparent.

Although I've stated this in every possible way, I'm only responding now in hopes that you'll disavow yourself of obnoxious cross thread stalking and bumping threads for irrelevant "questions."

[Pardalis]

How do you account for the forensic experts and pathologists' testimonies that they did, in fact, recover body parts and DNA from the passengers and crew?

This seems like a relevant and pertinent question.

Answer.

Your pathetic attempts to avoid the question will not make the evidence go away.

[gumboot]

For what it's worth I've seen a photograph of human remains recovered from Shanksville. It was bone fragments, in a bucket (white, from memory).

[ktesibios]

For what it's worth I've seen a photograph of human remains recovered from Shanksville. It was bone fragments, in a bucket (white, from memory).

There's a copy of it here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HumanRemainsShanksvillecopy.jpg/HumanRemainsShanksvillecopy-full;init:.jpg) on Gravy's site. I remember the original source being a pdf about the work of volunteers at the crash site published by one of the local agencies involved.

The remains in that photo were recovered in a final sweep made of the crash site after the major work of recovering debris and remains was finished, to find any small items that had been missed by the original searches. IIRC, they recovered three plastic buckets full of bone fragments as well as a number of small bits of the airplane.

[Pardalis]

Could you answer now RedIbis?

[LashL]

I really hope you're not waiting around for me to answer hypothetical, leading questions. <snipped additional blather>

It is plain and obvious that you have consistently failed and refused to respond to numerous legitimate questions in numerous threads, RedIbis, and that you consistently run away from them, disappear from the threads in which they are asked, only to resurface later in other threads with the same old tinhat conspiracy crap and the same old troll-like behaviour.

This is a skeptics forum. Around here, evidence is required in support of one's assertions, allegations and accusations. You consistently fail and refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of your numerous unsupported assertions, allegations and accusations.

Instead, you have consistently run away every time your baseless accusations have been challenged by reality, or, alternatively, tried to derail a thread with semantics.

It matters not a whit what you or I or anyone else for that matter thinks or says insofar as the events of 9/11 are concerned unless and until one is willing to both state a position and support it with facts and evidence. Most of us here have stated our positions and supported it with evidence, but you keep refusing to do so. Do you seriously wonder why nobody takes you seriously in light of your poor behaviour and your refusal to back up your evidence-free assertions and your baseless allegations?

It really is way beyond time for you to put up or shut up.

So, let's have it. For purposes of this thread, spell out your take on the plight of UA93 on September 11, 2001. (And please don't play silly buggers yet again - just spell it out from your perspective.)

[RedIbis]

So, let's have it. For purposes of this thread, spell out your take on the plight of UA93 on September 11, 2001. (And please don't play silly buggers yet again - just spell it out from your perspective.)

I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch in Shanksville. There just isn't enough material to account for it crashing in that location.

[ElMondoHummus]

Good Lord... recycling's good for the environment, but bad for enlightenment.

[Pardalis]

I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch in Shanksville. There just isn't enough material to account for it crashing in that location.

What about the testimonies of first responders, forensic experts and pathologists?

[Alt+F4]

I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch in Shanksville. There just isn't enough material to account for it crashing in that location.

Are you referring to the fact that only 90% of the plane was recovered?

[Grizzly Bear]

Here we go again... :\

[Pardalis]

How much longer is RedIbis going to keep running away from reality like this?

For once I'd like him to acknowledge at least one fact.

[RedIbis]

Are you referring to the fact that only 90% of the plane was recovered?

Actually CNN reported that 95% of the plane was recovered. Ok, show pictures of this 95% of Flight 93. Next, tell me where it's being stored, or was it incinerated? That's a lot of tons of material to have seemingly disappeared, leaving behind what looks mostly like half a commercial container's worth of scrap from the nearby scrapyard.

[Pardalis]

That's a lot of tons of material

Tons? :rolleyes:

How much did the plane weigh, you think?

[Alt+F4]

Actually CNN reported that 95% of the plane was recovered. Ok, show pictures of this 95% of Flight 93. Next, tell me where it's being stored, or was it incinerated? That's a lot of tons of material to have seemingly disappeared, leaving behind what looks mostly like half a commercial container's worth of scrap from the nearby scrapyard.

As I mentioned in a previous post, only 75% of ValueJet Flight 592 was recovered after it crashed. That plane (a DC-9) weighted 114,000 lbs. which means that 28,000 lbs. (14 tons) are unaccounted for. Does that mean it didn't crash there?

[DC]

Tons? :rolleyes:

How much did the plane weigh, you think?

around 100 tons?

[RedIbis]

Tons? :rolleyes:

How much did the plane weigh, you think?

Probably just short of the maximum takeoff weight of about 100 tons. So where is 95% of that?

[Pardalis]

Oh, so now you decide to answer my posts all of a sudden? Why don't you answer my other post now?

[WildCat]

For once I'd like him to acknowledge at least one fact.
Facts and RedIbis haven't been on speaking terms in a very long time.

[RedIbis]

Oh, so now you decide to answer my posts all of a sudden? Why don't you answer my other post now?

Whine if I answer your posts, whine if I don't. Is this all you got?

[Pardalis]

Whine if I answer your posts, whine if I don't. Is this all you got?

I've been asking you for almost a month the same question, and you evade it.

Answer.

[Alt+F4]

Getting back to the Valujet crash for a minute, I've yet to see a photograph that even comes close to showing the 82,000 lbs. of wreckage that was said to be recovered.

Hmmm....

[AZCat]

Probably just short of the maximum takeoff weight of about 100 tons. So where is 95% of that?

Less fuel, it's about 90 tons IIRC.

[Pardalis]

Answer.

Still nothing?

[beachnut]

Probably just short of the maximum takeoff weight of about 100 tons. So where is 95% of that?

So you figured out a big conspiracy theory where the plane can't be found. You have failed, failed to take this information to the authorities because the truth is, you are making it up!

You don't even know the weight of flight 93! The real weight to be recovered is 63.76 tons. - the insulation which blew away on the wind. - burnt parts.

The 60,000 pounds of fuel is gone, and the 4 tons of people, both don't count as aircraft parts.

A few people out of ignorance can't figure out where the plane is.

[PhantomWolf]

Probably just short of the maximum takeoff weight of about 100 tons. So where is 95% of that?

United Airlines has most of it, it was given back to them. If you want to know what they did with it, you'll have to ask them.

What I would like to ask you however, and though I asked DC in another thread he could answer here as well...

What are you planning to do about what you believe? KSM is on trial for his life, don't you think that you should be sending all your evidence that 93 didn't crash as the charges claim to his defence team? How can you sleep at night knowing that an innocent man is going to be tried and put to death for something you don't belive he did and knowing that you have the evidence that could not only prevent that, but put the real villians in front of the court and that all you are doing about it is typing posts on an irrelevant website forum? Why are you still here? Why aren't you working to get him and his co-accused freed from the Bush/Cheney torture camp where they are falsely imprisoned?

[1337m4n]

I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch in Shanksville. There just isn't enough material to account for it crashing in that location.

So...what? Did it crash into a different ditch?

Before you answer, remember the title of the subforum we are in.

[1337m4n]

As for Mr. Herbert's post, what first responders I have or haven't contacted is of no relevance to this topic. You suffer from the preconception that because you disagree with my POV, I could not have possibly done outside research, including speaking with people on the scene, during 9/11. Playing the "who have you contacted" gambit is cheap and transparent.


On the contrary, it is VERY relevant. If you had contacted any of the first responders, you would not be asking us how much of the plane was recovered because you would already know.

I assume you wish to know what happened on 9/11. I am also guessing that you find the answers of us here at JREF to be unsatisfactory. Why, then, do you not look ELSEWHERE for these answers? Say, by asking the people who actually handled the debris?

If you do not contact the first responders, it proves that you are not actually interested in learning about 9/11, and are instead just interested in trolling, in which case everybody here should be placing you on Ignore. Why should we talk to a troll? We should only be talking to the people who are genuinely interested in learning about 9/11. Are you one of those people? Yes? Then prove it.

[1337m4n]

Whine if I answer your posts, whine if I don't. Is this all you got?

I believe he asked you

What about the testimonies of first responders, forensic experts and pathologists?

The polite thing to do, when people ask you a question, is to answer them. This is no attempt at trolling or attacking you, it is a very pertinent and legitimate question: If indeed Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, why are all these people saying that it did? They cannot ALL be liars.

[1337m4n]

Found another example for ya Red:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/23/world/23plane.1_600x272.jpg

Source: http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/world/europe/23plane.html

For reference, an undamaged Tupolev 154 looks like this:

http://www.icfn.net/bluesky/air1/RA-85640%20-%20TUPOLEV%20154M%20(AEROFLOT%20DON).jpg

[1337m4n]

Recovered at the crash scene of Flight 93:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_P200060-11.jpg

[1337m4n]

Apparantly, Truthers have magic eyes that are incapable of seeing evidence that they are unable to quickly explain away.

[lee5]

I am sure this has been said many times but proving that 93 was shot down would prove that it wasn't an inside job.

Why shoot down your own remote controlled plane then cover it up?!?

:boggled:

[lee5]

Recovered at the crash scene of Flight 93:



Gees, for something that exploded so high in the sky that engine is sure buried deep!

:confused:

[DC]

I am sure this has been said many times but proving that 93 was shot down would prove that it wasn't an inside job.

Why shoot down your own remote controlled plane then cover it up?!?

:boggled:

because the passangers took back controll on the plane, and when they would manage to land, it could have exposed the full operation. so they shot it down.

who knows.

[DC]

and the second engine? and the rest of the 95% of the wreckage that was recovered acording to the FBI?

[funk de fino]

and the second engine? and the rest of the 95% of the wreckage that was recovered acording to the FBI?

The second engine was not in the crater, it bounced some distance from that area IIRC

[funk de fino]

because the passangers took back controll on the plane, and when they would manage to land, it could have exposed the full operation. so they shot it down.

who knows.

how would it expose the operation?

[WildCat]

because the passangers took back controll on the plane, and when they would manage to land, it could have exposed the full operation. so they shot it down.

who knows.
How could they take control of a remote-controlled plane? :confused:

[RedIbis]

You don't even know the weight of flight 93! The real weight to be recovered is 63.76 tons. - the insulation which blew away on the wind. - burnt parts.
\ [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Source?

[TheRedWorm]

I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch in Shanksville. There just isn't enough material to account for it crashing in that location.

What about the testimonies of first responders, forensic experts and pathologists?


I'm interested in an answer to this.

[RedIbis]

I'm interested in an answer to this.

Without questioning anyone's sincerity, reporting evidence is not the same as evidence.

[TheRedWorm]

So, you don't want to accuse them of lying, but you insinuate that they are lying. Nice.

[RedIbis]

Found another example for ya Red:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/23/world/23plane.1_600x272.jpg



Thank you for providing an example of a plane crash. It looks nothing like the ditch in Shanksville. See the engine off to the side? See all the dispersed plane material? See how big the crash zone is?

[RedIbis]

So, you don't want to accuse them of lying, but you insinuate that they are lying. Nice.

No, I'm making the distinction between physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

[TheRedWorm]

So why do you not believe them when they said that they handled the plane debris and pieces of people?

[DC]

So why do you not believe them when they said that they handled the plane debris and pieces of people?

why dont you belive the ppl that reported Explosions and think it was explosives?

why dont you belive withnesses that saw the plane on the northside of Citgo?

[TheRedWorm]

Those are questions for another thread. Please bump those, and I will be happy to answer.

[RedIbis]

So why do you not believe them when they said that they handled the plane debris and pieces of people?

It's not a matter of believing them. If you look at an empty ditch and someone says a plane crashed there, it's natural to ask where the pieces are.

[TheRedWorm]

WTF are you talking about? The people who were there that handled to plane and people, why do you not believe that they did?

[RedIbis]

WTF are you talking about? The people who were there that handled to plane and people, why do you not believe that they did?

Please post quotes of people saying they handled "the plane." From what I've read of the quotes, most of them describe very small pieces of metal scattered around, described much like the scrap in the scrapyard a half mile away.

[TheRedWorm]

And when they recovered jet engines, is it not a fair assumption to make that the pieces of metal recovered were from a plane? And you didn't address the issue of body pieces.

[DGM]

I've contacted United Airlines about the wreckage and received a couple of responses. The latest (today) is that they are forwarding my message to corporate public relations and to the finance arm of United who ultimately would have taken possession. For all it's worth the customer service rep who contacted me seems to think they still have it and is being stored for possible inclusion in a memorial.

I'll let everyone know what I find out.