[Merged] What? Passports survive plane crash and fire? [Archive]

bje

15th July 2009, 08:09 AM

"(CNN) -- A passenger plane carrying 168 people smashed into the ground in northwestern Iran Wednesday, killing everyone on board and creating a huge smoldering crater.... Video of the crash site showed a huge crater in the earth scattered with charred pieces of the plane and tattered passports....'The aircraft all of a sudden fell out of the sky and exploded on impact, where you see the crater," a witness told Press TV from the crash site.-"http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/

IMPOSSIBLE, 9/11 Truthers claim.

dtugg

15th July 2009, 08:11 AM

Must have been an inside job.

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 08:13 AM

Hello all

I think this wasn't covered, if it was please merge the threads or something :)

As you probably know, there was a plane crash in Iran today (15th July 2009), which killed all 168 on board. Tragic though this is, it may be somewhat illuminating to show this photo from the CNN website, showing the crash site:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/art.iran.crater.afp.gi.jpg

Anyone who has ever seen the CT claims in regards to the crater of Flight 93 should quite readily recognise the many similarities between the two. A deep crater, no identifiable debris or bodies anywhere, only small pieces of airplane, etc.

The link to the CNN article is here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html

BBC also shows some identification papers that apparently survived the crash. It's a video, though.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151327.stm

It should be funny to bring this to the attention of anyone who claims Flight 93 didn't crash near Shanksville :) As of today, believing it requires Iranians to be in on it.

McHrozni

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 08:14 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/

IMPOSSIBLE, 9/11 Truthers claim.

What plane? I don't see a plane's worth of debris.

Suffice it to say I'm reluctant to give this any bit of sarcasm being a tragedy. :(

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 08:15 AM

Posted it 1 minute before you ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148231

McHrozni

Bad_Doggie

15th July 2009, 08:16 AM

As of today, believing it requires Iranians to be in on it.

McHrozni

Hell it’s an ever expanding conspiracy so why not.

Woof!

deep

15th July 2009, 08:24 AM

Crazytimes

15th July 2009, 08:38 AM

I dont see a plane therefore no plane crashed there. I also don't see any bodies. It must have been shot down.

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 08:39 AM

You must have read the Wolfowitz manual on pre-emptive strikes only you twisted it to pre-emptive 9/11 CT debunking. What is this a race to see who posts first you or LCF?

Molinaro

15th July 2009, 08:41 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html

Should we expect people to claim that no plane hit that spot?

Travis

15th July 2009, 08:45 AM

We should expect someone to claim it was shot down by an American missile.

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 08:53 AM

Wonder if there were shouts of Allah Akbar...

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 08:55 AM

You must have read the Wolfowitz manual on pre-emptive strikes only you twisted it to pre-emptive 9/11 CT debunking. What is this a race to see who posts first you or LCF?

Since when is responding to a claim made several years ago with a current event "preemptive"?

Oh, and who or what is LCF? :)

McHrozni

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 08:57 AM

I dont see a plane therefore no plane crashed there. I also don't see any bodies. It must have been shot down.

Yeah! And just LOOK at that crater, it's not burned or singed or anything. The plane was in the air for just 16 minuted and full of fuel. Something is very fishy indeed!!

/twoof

I do wonder if any twoofer who claims Flight 93 didn't crash near Shanksville will ever respond to this crash :)

McHrozni

Kestrel

15th July 2009, 08:58 AM

We should expect someone to claim it was shot down by an American missile.

When someone claimed an Iranian airliner was shot down by an American missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) back in 1988, it turned out to be correct.

bje

15th July 2009, 08:59 AM

Yeah! And just LOOK at that crater, it's not burned or singed or anything. The plane was in the air for just 16 minuted and full of fuel. Something is very fishy indeed!!

/twoof

I do wonder if any twoofer who claims Flight 93 didn't crash near Shanksville will ever respond to this crash :)

McHrozni

They'll just claim Flight 93 "should have left a crater."

scissorhands

15th July 2009, 09:02 AM

Video of crash site showing no plane, just a few scraps of metal and two suspiciously intact passports.
Inside jorb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151327.stm

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 09:02 AM

Posted it 1 minute before you ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148231

McHrozni

I sense a three-som (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148234)

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 09:05 AM

Since when is responding to a claim made several years ago with a current event "preemptive"?

Oh, and who or what is LCF? :)

McHrozni
You mean someone made the claim that this plane crashed in Iran a few years ago?

ETA - LCF is Loose Change Forums...guess you can include 9/11 blogger, ATS and all the other 9/11 bs sites that I am too lazy to include.

BigAl

15th July 2009, 09:07 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/

IMPOSSIBLE, 9/11 Truthers claim.

The plane was a Tu154 and I think somewhat smaller than a 757/767.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-154

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 09:09 AM

What I find eerie is that this crash killed 168 people and at a meeting yesterday at work we had a few bottles of soda from WalMart that cost 1.68 each so WalMart apparently caused the plane crash.

headscratcher4

15th July 2009, 09:18 AM

IF it was a Russian airplane, it of course would have essentially disintegrated. Everyone knows that an American airplane isn't so flimsy. See? Easilly done. Next?

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 09:19 AM

I am not sure if there is some misinterpretation here.

What I am getting from the OP, and what I find compelling, is that the above photo is similar to the UA93 site, both in terms of the ditch shape, but more importantly in the absence of any significant debris.

So what it proves is that the absence (or minimal presence) of significant size debris is not unusual, is not unprecedented, and really is to be ignored as an argument that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville.

Here we have a plane crash not involved in the 9/11 attacks, with a somewhat similar crash site to UA93, and presumably this particular crash DID take place, and presumably DID NOT involve a conspiracy.

Am I out on a limb here? I do not see any "preemptive" attempt at anything here. Simply adding to the body of evidence in opposition to the claim that the crash site of UA93 was not in keeping with the official explanation of what happened.

TAM:)

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 09:22 AM

Here we have a plane crash not involved in the 9/11 attacks, with a somewhat similar crash site to UA93, and presumably this particular crash DID take place, and presumably DID NOT involve a conspiracy.
Read post 6 sheeple, it was a WalMart job

Sabrina

15th July 2009, 09:23 AM

Oscar

15th July 2009, 09:27 AM

I'm reading from the same script as you T.A.M.

I'm betting RedIbis will ignore this news and implications for the Shanksville site completely.

In fact, unlike Heiwa who wagered a mythical million pounds, I'm willing to bet a genuine bar of chocolate of your choice that RedIbis runs a mile from this.

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 10:01 AM

You mean someone made the claim that this plane crashed in Iran a few years ago?

Yeah. If you claim this is preemptive, that someone could very well be you ;)

ETA - LCF is Loose Change Forums...guess you can include 9/11 blogger, ATS and all the other 9/11 bs sites that I am too lazy to include.

I see. No, it isn't. :)

McHrozni

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 10:04 AM

I think you're right TAM, and I think McHrozni has a good point about that (assuming that is his point?) We've all heard the claim that there was no recognizable debris, no bodies, no plane-shaped indentation in the ground, blah, blah, blah; this picture and story debunks much of that without even trying. Will it convince most truthers; probably not, as we all are aware how they are apparently fiercely delusional, but it may convince a few fencesitters, if any exist any more, that it isn't logical to think anything other than a plane crashed in Shanksville.

Indeed, that is my point. The photos and videos of this crash are thus far surprisingly similar to those from Flight 93. It may sway a truther or two, it may get some people not to join them in the first place.
More importantly, it gives us one more reason to point and laugh at them. :)

McHrozni

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 10:04 AM

Yeah. If you claim this is preemptive, that someone could very well be you ;)I predicted this crash years ago?

I see. No, it isn't. :)

McHrozni
Isn't what?

McHrozni

15th July 2009, 10:08 AM

I predicted this crash years ago?

No, you said this debunking was preemptive. This is only logical if you consider this crash to have happened before claims about Flight 93 surfaced. I do contend there is a possibility that you missed the point of this thread altogether.
Two others have posted what it is it already, so I assume I'm not as unclear as you're being annoying. ;)

Isn't what?

"What is this a race to see who posts first you or LCF?"
-- you, an hour ago

It's been a while since I talked to a real goldfish ...

McHrozni

leftysergeant

15th July 2009, 10:11 AM

The soil type even looks close to the same. Looks sort of like glacial till or riverbed soils, sand, clay and rocks.

I would love to see an overhead shot of this to see if it as clearly marks the orientation of the aircraft as it hit, and at how steep an angle it hit.

mortimer

15th July 2009, 10:27 AM

Its fairly clear from the photo that the U.S. Air Force shot this plane down in an attempt to draw Iran into a war for oil. The Truth will come out eventually. You'll see.

Jonnyclueless

15th July 2009, 10:30 AM

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 10:33 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/passenger-plane-Iranian-Students-News-Agency-plane-crash/photo//090715/481/135ba11ffb1648b1bb9d07e7673abeb8//s:/ap/20090715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_plane

I guess the 9/11 perps have found new work in Iran. Perhaps better benefits and more more preferred dictatorship atmosphere?
Can't you tell? the NWO did this in Iran to convince the Iranian's that the 9/11 Shanksville deniers (like Dumb DiMaggio) and the whole crew of idiots in the TM are...well idiots.

GlennB

15th July 2009, 10:34 AM

Juniversal

15th July 2009, 11:14 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/passenger-plane-Iranian-Students-News-Agency-plane-crash/photo//090715/481/135ba11ffb1648b1bb9d07e7673abeb8//s:/ap/20090715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_plane

I guess the 9/11 perps have found new work in Iran. Perhaps better benefits and more more preferred dictatorship atmosphere?Hmm observe picture 41. Planted by the NWO?? :eusa_shifty:

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:24 AM

Can't you tell? the NWO did this in Iran to convince the Iranian's that the 9/11 Shanksville deniers (like Dumb DiMaggio) and the whole crew of idiots in the TM are...well idiots.
truth about the truth movement

The dolts at p4t will not comprehend this accident; poor Balsamo still has his failed 11.2g physics posted.

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 11:26 AM

I'll be interested to hear what the actual dimensions of that crater are, as well as the distance away from the crater that debris traveled (along with other relevant information, like weather, impact speed/angle, etc).

Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 passport was not "tattered". It was in near perfect shape, and it had a more difficult journey to make through the plane crash the fireball and the explosion and complete destruction of 2 110 storey buildings

Crazytimes

15th July 2009, 11:29 AM

Sabrina

15th July 2009, 11:31 AM

Further film and photos on TV show large sections of fuselage, so the twoofers now have an 'out'. If any has a grain of logic, though, they'll note the crater, ID cards and clothing and cut at least some crap from their idiotic assertions.
Maybe that's how it works, just chipping away at the edges of daft beliefs until doubt sets in?

Does anyone know how fast the plane was going when it crashed? That would likely (I assume) have had an effect on the type of wreckage the plane "disintegrated" into. As I recall, Flight 93 was going at it's upper speed limit (close to 500 mph, yes?); was this flight going at a speed comparable to that?

I may be wrong; I'm no engineer or physicist, but wouldn't the speed of the plane have had some effect on the wreckage produced? So if a twoofer DOES point out the few large pieces of wreckage, perhaps that point can be used to refute it?

dudalb

15th July 2009, 11:32 AM

When someone claimed an Iranian airliner was shot down by an American missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) back in 1988, it turned out to be correct.

OF course the circumstances are totally different, but don't let that stop you from making a irrevelent post with no apparent goal except to make the US look bad.

Jonnyclueless

15th July 2009, 11:34 AM

I didn't realize there was already a thread as both the titles are not obvious (since they're satire). Perhaps the mods can merge them. The irony though was that the second I read the headline about a plane plunging into the ground, I knew exactly what the debris pattern would look like. I didn't have to wonder. And when I saw the pictures, they were an exact match to what I envisioned.

Yet to the brain trusts at PFT, etc they can't conceive as to how the pattern is possible.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:35 AM

I'll be interested to hear what the actual dimensions of that crater are, as well as the distance away from the crater that debris traveled (along with other relevant information, like weather, impact speed/angle, etc).
With all your evidence and knowledge on 911? I can't wait for your failed opinions on this accident so you can try to support your delusions. What school did you go to for aircraft accident investigation?

Jonnyclueless

15th July 2009, 11:37 AM

Sabrina

15th July 2009, 11:38 AM

Repeat thread (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148248) is repeated twice (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148231)

Juniversal

15th July 2009, 11:39 AM

I've already seen a few Truthers make the assertion that there was NO debris in the crater in Shanksvile while there is actually visible debris here. Truthers will not be swayed.

TexasJack

15th July 2009, 11:39 AM

Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 passport was not "tattered". It was in near perfect shape, and it had a more difficult journey to make through the plane crash the fireball and the explosion and complete destruction of 2 110 storey buildings

Please explain how these worms survived the Columbia Shuttle crash? Inside job?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6016657-7.html

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:45 AM

Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 passport was not "tattered". It was in near perfect shape, and it had a more difficult journey to make through the plane crash the fireball and the explosion and complete destruction of 2 110 storey buildings

If you had gained knowledge instead of spewing delusions on 911 you would understand things survive extreme impacts and disasters. You have posted a delusional statement based on your complete ignorance of crash sciences. Next time research crash information and seek help on the topic before making up lies and spreading your failed delusions.

Yes it seems like an extremely light weight object like a passport would not survive a massive 600/470/590 mph impact but it happens and you seem to deny reality to match your failed delusions. Got some more delusions based on your failed opinions?

boloboffin

15th July 2009, 11:48 AM

Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 passport was not "tattered". It was in near perfect shape, and it had a more difficult journey to make through the plane crash the fireball and the explosion and complete destruction of 2 110 storey buildings

The passport was recovered before either of the buildings fell. Small items like this survive airplane crashes all the time, as the OP is trying to point to you.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:49 AM

I've already seen a few Truthers make the assertion that there was NO debris in the crater in Shanksvile while there is actually visible debris here. Truthers will not be swayed.

They can't see; they may need glasses and training in what aircraft pieces look like.
Flight 93 pieces ejected for hundreds of feet all over in the direction of travel. Just like the Iranian plane but a little different.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
Tons of aircraft parts, Tons.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11e.jpg
Oops, parts of Flight 93 in the crater. Lots of parts and the buried engine is down there as are people and other parts buried 20 to 40 feet.

Brainster

15th July 2009, 11:55 AM

I question the timing! This happens just as trials are about to begin for all 535 members of congress for misprision of treason. It's a distraction!

:woo:

Juniversal

15th July 2009, 11:55 AM

Truthers be damned.

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 12:08 PM

Hunt the Tupolev

Aw, hell, I thought at first this was some sort of double-entendre thread. You know, like "hide the salami"?

:D

twinstead

15th July 2009, 12:09 PM

Aw, hell, I thought at first this was some sort of double-entendre thread. You know, like "hide the salami"?

Ouch

alexi_drago

15th July 2009, 12:22 PM

Pardalis

15th July 2009, 12:23 PM

It didn't happen in the United States, so therefore it's not suspicious and can't be a conspiracy.

Truther double-standard.

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 12:34 PM

Just had a look at 911movement.org and there's a couple of comments about the size of the crater and visible debris not being the same. They get the chance to show some reasoning and just throw it away. It still amazes me how they expect to uncover the truth by completely ignoring what's right in front of them.

Did you expect any different? I would not. It is not about them any more. If I uttered one word to convince a truther of anything in the last 3 years, I can't find it. No you will never convince them of anything other than their paranoid delusion that the USG carried out the attacks.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 12:37 PM

I question the timing! This happens just as trials are about to begin for all 535 members of congress for misprision of treason. It's a distraction!

:woo:

No, no. Clearly this is an attempt by Cheney and the Neocons to divert the attention away from his secret CIA program...clearly.

TAM:)

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 12:41 PM

If you had gained knowledge instead of spewing delusions on 911 you would understand things survive extreme impacts and disasters. You have posted a delusional statement based on your complete ignorance of crash sciences. Next time research crash information and seek help on the topic before making up lies and spreading your failed delusions.

Yes it seems like an extremely light weight object like a passport would not survive a massive 600/470/590 mph impact but it happens and you seem to deny reality to match your failed delusions. Got some more delusions based on your failed opinions?
I seem to recall a diary that survived the shuttle explosion or does the Terrible Mutants claim that was an inside job also?

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 12:45 PM

I seem to recall a diary that survived the shuttle explosion or does the Terrible Mutants claim that was an inside job also?

now now, don't want to get your self in trouble again...lol

TAM:)

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 12:48 PM

now now, don't want to get your self in trouble again...lol

TAM:)
For bad grammer, your right though. Does should be do :)

Bobert

15th July 2009, 01:03 PM

HMMMMMM.....I wonder where the JEWS were when all this took place? hmmmmmm?
They PROBABLY all GOT A CALL to stay home today!
Check with your company and find out how many jews, "sicked out" for the day!!!!
AND what about LARRY!!!

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 01:10 PM

Have a look at the picture in the first post and compare it with the Shanksville crater and notice the big difference in size. Another big difference that there is much more debris to be seen in the Iranian case:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-44392.html#backToArticle=636269

These observations are in line with the theory that only a part of F93 came down at the Shanksville crash site.

F93 was shot down.

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 01:12 PM

apparently it was a plane full of protesters chartered by the iranian government
INSIDE JOB!!!

just kiddin :D

Pardalis

15th July 2009, 01:14 PM

Just like that?

alexi_drago

15th July 2009, 01:16 PM

Pardalis

15th July 2009, 01:19 PM

For a "9/11 investigator", he seems pretty cavalier about it. After just a quick visual survey of photographs, he sticks to his conclusion.

Pathetic, really.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:20 PM

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 01:24 PM

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 01:39 PM

How big is the crater in Iran?

From the picture in post 1 I would say 10 meter deep and over a large length.

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 01:39 PM

Wow, 9/11 Investigator,

This might quite possibly be the bumbest statement I have seen from you.

Because there were not many debris at the 93 site, that means it was shot down?? The debris field would have been MILES UPON MILES MORE than what it was. Not to mention that someone, I dunno, would have seen a plane shoot a missle out, and hit a commercial airliner. Why is it nobody reported seeing this??

Dumb arguments abound.

just look at the debris field from flight 800 off of long island
that broke up in midair

the boxes are the debris fields
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Twa_800_flight_path.png

deep

15th July 2009, 01:42 PM

How big is the crater in Iran?

I haven't seen the dimensions reported anywhere yet.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 01:44 PM

Because there were not many debris at the 93 site, that means it was shot down??

You got it.

The debris field would have been MILES UPON MILES MORE than what it was.

Been there, done that.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65156&page=3

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

Not to mention that someone, I dunno, would have seen a plane shoot a missle out, and hit a commercial airliner. Why is it nobody reported seeing this??

Not if nobody is looking. It was sparsely populated area. And the plane was shot down at an altitude of 30,000 feet. Too high to discern a plane let alone a missile.

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 01:51 PM

I haven't seen the dimensions reported anywhere yet.

And that is why I asked the question, since non of us have the dimensions, we can not conclude that the crater is unlike the one in Shanksville, at this point. And when we have the size of the crater, we have to take into account, the plane size, speed and angel of impact before we can make statements like 9/11 I did.

But after looking at the pictures, there seems to be many similarities supporting that at both places, a plane hit the ground in one piece.

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 01:51 PM

You got it.

Been there, done that.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65156&page=3

http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

Not if nobody is looking. It was sparsely populated area. And the plane was shot down at an altitude of 30,000 feet. Too high to discern a plane let alone a missile.

all major components were found within the area of the crater
flight 800 had many major structural parts spread over a 13 mile area

and indian lake is about a mile from the site
its 6 miles if you checked mapquest directions from shanksville to indian lake cause the roads take you around the lake
not through it

der

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 01:55 PM

Not if nobody is looking. It was sparsely populated area. And the plane was shot down at an altitude of 30,000 feet. Too high to discern a plane let alone a missile.

But those who did look saw an intact plane at low altitude shortly before it hit the ground.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 01:56 PM

And that is why I asked the question, since non of us have the dimensions, we can not conclude that the crater is unlike the one in Shanksville, at this point. And when we have the size of the crater, we have to take into account, the plane size, speed and angel of impact before we can make statements like 9/11 I did.

But after looking at the pictures, there seems to be many similarities supporting that at both places, a plane hit the ground in one piece.

You can estimate by comparing the height of the people with the depth of the crater.

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 01:58 PM

But those who did look saw an intact plane at low altitude shortly before it hit the ground.

yeah no one seen 93 on fire seconds before it hit the ground and a bunch of people witnessed it there

as for the iran plane
its tail was on fire
(apu fire?)
circling looking for a spot to land
then it went down and crashed nose first

so it was probably going at least half the speed, if not slower, of 93
and had similar results
plus the pilot probably was trying to save it not crash it on purpose

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 01:59 PM

You can estimate by comparing the height of the people with the depth of the crater.

I can not make that judgement given the photos at hand.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 02:13 PM

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 03:04 PM

A lie or just your complete ignorance of crash science? You make the most moronic statements.

Congratulations! Finally a post without reference to 'dirt dumb'. I knew you could do it!

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 03:06 PM

yeah no one seen 93 on fire seconds before it hit the ground and a bunch of people witnessed it there

as for the iran plane
its tail was on fire
(apu fire?)
circling looking for a spot to land
then it went down and crashed nose first

so it was probably going at least half the speed, if not slower, of 93
and had similar results
plus the pilot probably was trying to save it not crash it on purpose

Was it ???!!! Are you telling me this huge crater was caused by a crashing plane with a relatively slow speed as compared to F93? This is a clear indication that the mass of the Tupolev was much larger than that piece of F93 debris that crashed into this Shanksville site.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 03:10 PM

I can not make that judgement given the photos at hand.

That's because you don't want to make a judgment because you clearly understand the implications from a comparison with the F93 crash site, namely that no complete plane crashed there, only a part of it.

leftysergeant

15th July 2009, 03:11 PM

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

Now that is dirt dumb. He could not get close enough to an airliner to make that determination.

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 03:20 PM

Now that is dirt dumb. He could not get close enough to an airliner to make that determination.

Sarge: 9/11-I is pushing yet another long-discredited story. Gibney - who, BTW, was a Lt. Col., not a Major on 9/11 - had indeed not gotten anywhere near FL-93. He had flown to Bozeman, Montanna to pick up a NY government official to help with the rescue effort, then flown him back to Albany, NY. This myth is so old and stale that even Popular Mechanics mentioned it (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8#f16pilot).

I don't think 9/11-I is even trying anymore. He's just barfing up old myths to see what sticks.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 03:29 PM

Now that is dirt dumb. He could not get close enough to an airliner to make that determination.

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 03:33 PM

Sarge: 9/11-I is pushing yet another long-discredited story. Gibney - who, BTW, was a Lt. Col., not a Major on 9/11 - had indeed not gotten anywhere near FL-93. He had flown to Bozeman, Montanna to pick up a NY government official to help with the rescue effort, then flown him back to Albany, NY. This myth is so old and stale that even Popular Mechanics mentioned it (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8#f16pilot).

I don't think 9/11-I is even trying anymore. He's just barfing up old myths to see what sticks.

Yeah, sure he did if Popular Mechanics says so.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65156&page=5

UNLoVedRebel

15th July 2009, 03:35 PM

Was it ???!!! Are you telling me this huge crater was caused by a crashing plane with a relatively slow speed as compared to F93? This is a clear indication that the mass of the Tupolev was much larger than that piece of F93 debris that crashed into this Shanksville site.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

If you're so sure of your claims why don't you put your full name to them. I know your last name is Steinberg but what's your first name?

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 03:38 PM

That's because you don't want to make a judgment because you clearly understand the implications from a comparison with the F93 crash site, namely that no complete plane crashed there, only a part of it.

No it means that I would wait until we have the official measurements, before making any judgment. And another thing to take into account judging the size of the crater, could perhaps also be the type of soil in the different crash sites.

If to identical planes hit the ground with the same speed and angel, would the type of soil make a difference in the size of the crater? What do you think 9/11 I?

Josarhus

15th July 2009, 03:41 PM

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.

How close do those stunt pilots actually get to each other?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 03:49 PM

.... Worthless dribble removed......

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

Wow, HOLY SNIKEYS!! Did you just accuse a honorable man of Murder?? Did you just accuse a Major of lying??

I bet you're not going to get far in life with that kind of logic.

lapman

15th July 2009, 03:49 PM

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.
I would say that statement was dirt dumb, but that would be insulting dirt. No pilot can just fly up to any old aircraft and hold a position a couple of meters away from any other aircraft. Those stunt pilots go through many hours of training together to perform such a feat and have the utmost trust in each other. And no pilot, fighter or otherwise would fly within the wingspan of a large aircraft. Any turbulence would be deadly. So this is yet another blatant lie by you.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 03:50 PM

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.

A 767 has a tremendous wake around it. f-14s, not so much.

Plus, you couldn't get within 50 feet or so of a 767 at crusing speed without stalling because of lack of lift. Its called simple physics.

alexi_drago

15th July 2009, 03:51 PM

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.

How many stunt flyers fly in formation with another aircraft they suspect is under hostile control?

FineWine

15th July 2009, 03:54 PM

FineWine

15th July 2009, 03:57 PM

Was it ???!!! Are you telling me this huge crater was caused by a crashing plane with a relatively slow speed as compared to F93? This is a clear indication that the mass of the Tupolev was much larger than that piece of F93 debris that crashed into this Shanksville site.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).

You're lying again.

I notice that you were routed on the Holocaust-denial thread. Your unreasoning hatred seems to be no match for facts and evidence.

Bobert

15th July 2009, 03:59 PM

Wow, 9/11 Investigator,

This might quite possibly be the bumbest statement I have seen from you.

Because there were not many debris at the 93 site, that means it was shot down?? The debris field would have been MILES UPON MILES MORE than what it was. Not to mention that someone, I dunno, would have seen a plane shoot a missle out, and hit a commercial airliner. Why is it nobody reported seeing this??

Dumb arguments abound.
WOW what a site that would have been!
Certainly the noise of the low flying plane along with noise of the jets not to mention the missiles firing followed by a huge explosion.

Bobert

15th July 2009, 04:02 PM

just look at the debris field from flight 800 off of long island
that broke up in midair

the boxes are the debris fields
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Twa_800_flight_path.png
that was obviously staged because they wanted you to think there would be a large debris field that way they could shoot down flight 93 and there wouldnt be a debris field so that you wouldn't suspect a shoot down because AFTER ALL if it would have been shoot down it would have left a debris field!
They have been planning 9-11 for 1793 years.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 04:05 PM

If you're so sure of your claims why don't you put your full name to them. I know your last name is Steinberg but what's your first name?

Schmull. Schmull Steinberg. Pleased to meet you.

Bobert

15th July 2009, 04:06 PM

Flight 93 was shot down by Lt. Col. Rick Gibney after he had observed by flying close to it that is was a ghost plane filled with dead people (and flying on the autopilot and possibly on its way to New York/WTC7).
WOW that is a bold statement
A wild accusation.
Got proof?
If Lt. Col. Rick Gibney did you great bodily harm I would gladly drink a beer with him afterward.

UNLoVedRebel

15th July 2009, 04:08 PM

Schmull. Schmull Steinberg. Pleased to meet you.

Hi Schmull. Your brother Thad Steinberg did my taxes. He's mentioned you before. I thought your name looked familiar.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 04:11 PM

You're lying again.

The idea of a forum is to point out why you think I am 'lying'.

I notice that you were routed on the Holocaust-denial thread. Your unreasoning hatred seems to be no match for facts and evidence.

You have not noticed that at all. Tonight I have been going through hundreds of posts I wrote earlier on different forums about the topic. Gathering ammo so to speak. The point is that in contrast with you I do not spend my days pressing the F5 button.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 04:12 PM

I would gladly drink a beer with him afterward.

I doubt he is interested.

See my blog for the story about the pilot who shot down flight 93:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/pilot-who-shot-down-flight-93.html

jhunter1163

15th July 2009, 04:13 PM

The Iranian plane crashed just after takeoff, didn't it? It couldn't have been going cruising speed, or even close really. 250 knots max, maybe not even that.

Also, 9/11-investigator, how do you explain the fact that Flight 93's FDR shows the plane operating normally right up till impact? No loss of power, no loss of hydraulics, no decompression, no nothing.

Just one more thing... how come, if Flight 103 (which was blown up at altitude) had a debris field in the THOUSANDS of square miles, Flight 93's debris was all found within 300 yards of the crater except for a few scraps of paper?

Bobert

15th July 2009, 04:14 PM

Schmull. Schmull Steinberg. Pleased to meet you.
Ok great. Welcome to ignore troll.
Sieg Heil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_Heil)!

UNLoVedRebel

15th July 2009, 04:22 PM

I doubt he is interested.

See my blog for the story about the pilot who shot down flight 93:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/pilot-who-shot-down-flight-93.html

See this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4704247&postcount=144) post by reheat you ignored. I remember that you got scared and pissed. I haven't seen a Jew that pissed since Nancy Pelosi stole the Speaker of the House position from Rom Emmanuel.

ETA: wow looking back on that thread you were more scared than I thought. You responded to everyone but reheat. It's as if reheat was an SS and you were Anne Frank.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 04:31 PM

The idea of a forum is to point out why you think I am 'lying'.

You are lying because you are making a statement that is a) untrue and b) known to you to be untrue. The facts about Gibney are well-known. You have chosen to disregard them and repeat baseless falsehoods.

You have not noticed that at all. Tonight I have been going through hundreds of posts I wrote earlier on different forums about the topic. Gathering ammo so to speak. The point is that in contrast with you I do not spend my days pressing the F5 button.

Yes, everyone on that thread noticed that you ran away. Find one of your "hundreds" of posts that explains why neither Eichmann nor ANY of the major Nazi war criminals thought to deny the reality underlying the charges against them. I'm afraid that we won't buy the one about men who are facing execution being "coerced." At least one person on your side should have thought of saying, "Hey, wait a minute--we didn't kill any Jews!"

Reheat

15th July 2009, 04:35 PM

Those stunt pilots go through many hours of training together to perform such a feat and have the utmost trust in each other. And no pilot, fighter or otherwise would fly within the wingspan of a large aircraft. Any turbulence would be deadly. So this is yet another blatant lie by you.

If you're speaking of the Thunderbirds or Blue Angles, they do a lot of training to make sure their show is perfect, but their spacing in formation is standard for all AF and Navy aircraft.

An F-16 could not fly within the wingspan of a 767 to see in the windows unless he was above the trailing edge vortices from the wings. Even in that position he would not be able to see in the windows. The person who suggested that is delusional.

Plus, you couldn't get within 50 feet or so of a 767 at crusing speed without stalling because of lack of lift. Its called simple physics.

Not true. Fighters flying on the wing of KC-135 and DC-10 tankers all of the time with about 3' wingtip spacing. Also for refueling the receiver is about 5-10' below the tail of the tanker. It is necessary to avoid the vortices, but that is easily done. In some cases the tail of the receiver will encounter the edge of the vortices of a tanker and it's rough, but not unmanageable. All that's necessary is to avoid the main stream of the vortices and that's easy to do because it's location is known.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 04:37 PM

I doubt he is interested.

See my blog for the story about the pilot who shot down flight 93:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/pilot-who-shot-down-flight-93.html

You are a shameless liar.

(From the Popular Mechanics site):

F-16 Pilot
Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes — it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 04:42 PM

If you're speaking of the Thunderbirds or Blue Angles, they do a lot of training to make sure their show is perfect, but their spacing in formation is standard for all AF and Navy aircraft.

An F-16 could not fly within the wingspan of a 767 to see in the windows unless he was above the trailing edge vortices from the wings. Even in that position he would not be able to see in the windows. The person who suggested that is delusional.

Not true. Fighters flying on the wing of KC-135 and DC-10 tankers all of the time with about 3' wingtip spacing. Also for refueling the receiver is about 5-10' below the tail of the tanker. It is necessary to avoid the vortices, but that is easily done. In some cases the tail of the receiver will encounter the edge of the vortices of a tanker and it's rough, but not unmanageable. All that's necessary is to avoid the main stream of the vortices and that's easy to do because it's location is known.

Wow, really?? I thought they were more like 30-40 feet away!! Holy sweet fluffy Jesus!!

As I am an honorable man, I will not admit something the "Truthers" never will.

I WAS WRONG!! I retract my statement. I was misstaken, and have learned from this.

Thanks reheat! ;)

ETA: Reheat,

Would it be possible for a smaller fighter to fly in front of the wing?? Like, in the area in front of the engine between the aircraft and the wing?? Is that possible??

Jonnyclueless

15th July 2009, 04:50 PM

9/11 investigator.

You expect us to believe that a smaller plane would leave a smaller impact? *GASP!*

The problem with you making up your own news is that the rest of the world does not adhere to your imagination. You might as well claim it was Ronald McDonald. When you make crap up, it just makes you look like an ass. but please, continue to spew incorrect fact after incorrect fact with arrogance that only a fundie can have.

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 04:54 PM

Feinstein, foam on his lips, says:

You are a shameless liar.

(From the Popular Mechanics site):

F-16 Pilot
Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes — it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

So what you are doing is putting more weight upon the testimony of someone still in active service (Somdahl) than on somebody who is retired and had recently recovered from a stroke so he has not much to lose but his honor. And on top of that: the pilot in question refuses to give a straight answer!!! ('declined comments'). And you call me a liar! This Somdahl is simply afraid to lose his job like so many others have endured as a consequence of coming out in favor of 9/11-truth.

T.A.M.

15th July 2009, 04:54 PM

For bad grammer, your right though. Does should be do :)

No, just remembering the trouble the last time you started "labeling" truthers...remember, the label had the word "human" in it.

you know, that which shall not be uttered.

TAM:)

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 05:00 PM

911 I,

Can you point to one military member who has been hauled before a JAG or a general court martial then given a Dis-honorable discharge because he spoke out against the USG stance on 9/11??

Linkeys are even better. NOT LC or Alex Jones idiots. Verifiable evidence.

You can't, because it didn't happen.

UNLoVedRebel

15th July 2009, 05:06 PM

:words:

How fast can you run in those wooden shoes?

Hay, 911-investigator,

I've got radar plots and ATC communications tapes that show where all of the Happy Hooligans were around the time of UA 93's crash. If you'll give me a cut of your Court Case and your Pulitzer Price I'll share them with you! :D

9/11-investigator

15th July 2009, 05:09 PM

Wow, HOLY SNIKEYS!! Did you just accuse a honorable man of Murder?? Did you just accuse a Major of lying??

I bet you're not going to get far in life with that kind of logic.

No, just following orders and doing his duty.

Oh, and charity, it is fundamentally impossible to kill somebody twice. Think about that. These people in the planes were already dead.

And it is either a major or a colonel who is lying. I say that the colonel is speaking the truth.

UNLoVedRebel

15th July 2009, 05:15 PM

Reheat

15th July 2009, 05:16 PM

Would it be possible for a smaller fighter to fly in front of the wing?? Like, in the area in front of the engine between the aircraft and the wing?? Is that possible??

Well, as long a the pilot could see the engine and wing, yes. There is no vortices in the area you describe, but there is off of the trailing edge which could get the tail of the fighter in that position. The trailing edge vortices nipping the tail of the fighter causes a rolling motion and it's quite rough, but unless the main stream is hit it's not a big problem. If the main stream catches the tail it is a * big * problem. No one would fly in that area because it would require looking up and back to keep the wing in sight. That's a very awkward neck position to maintain for more than a few seconds. I'm addressing the physical possibility, not the judgment of one who would fly there. It would never be done by a sane pilot.

Have you ever been to an airshow and seen either the Thunderbirds or Blue Angles, did you notice the tail (vertical stabilizer) of the aircraft flying the slot position in the diamond formations? The top part is black from the exhaust of the leader. That is the hardest position to fly in those formations because the tail is sometimes in the exhaust and is only slightly below the vortices coming from the wings and body of the leader.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 05:21 PM

Feinstein, foam on his lips, says:

So what you are doing is putting more weight upon the testimony of someone still in active service (Somdahl) than on somebody who is retired and had recently recovered from a stroke so he has not much to lose but his honor. And on top of that: the pilot in question refuses to give a straight answer!!! ('declined comments'). And you call me a liar! This Somdahl is simply afraid to lose his job like so many others have endured as a consequence of coming out in favor of 9/11-truth.

Who is Feinstein?

Nobody has lost his job for supporting your stupid lies.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 05:27 PM

Feinstein, foam on his lips, says:

So what you are doing is putting more weight upon the testimony of someone still in active service (Somdahl) than on somebody who is retired and had recently recovered from a stroke so he has not much to lose but his honor. And on top of that: the pilot in question refuses to give a straight answer!!! ('declined comments'). And you call me a liar! This Somdahl is simply afraid to lose his job like so many others have endured as a consequence of coming out in favor of 9/11-truth.

You've been reduced to peddling this crapola? This is the guy you're citing?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65156

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 05:32 PM

No, just following orders and doing his duty.

Oh, and charity, it is fundamentally impossible to kill somebody twice. Think about that. These people in the planes were already dead.

And it is either a major or a colonel who is lying. I say that the colonel is speaking the truth.

I'd say that things like simple logic ellude you. I bet you still burn your hand on the stove when you mom has explained MANY MANY times that its hot.

Anyway, can you provide a link where it shows that the passengers were dead?? Last I heard they tried to get into the cockpit to stop those insane jerkhole from killing them and others. Heck, I even heard testimony from family members that state the same thing. Oh, yeaah, shills.......Gotcha.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 05:35 PM

Well, as long a the pilot could see the engine and wing, yes. There is no vortices in the area you describe, but there is off of the trailing edge which could get the tail of the fighter in that position. The trailing edge vortices nipping the tail of the fighter causes a rolling motion and it's quite rough, but unless the main stream is hit it's not a big problem. If the main stream catches the tail it is a * big * problem. No one would fly in that area because it would require looking up and back to keep the wing in sight. That's a very awkward neck position to maintain for more than a few seconds. I'm addressing the physical possibility, not the judgment of one who would fly there. It would never be done by a sane pilot.

Have you ever been to an airshow and seen either the Thunderbirds or Blue Angles, did you notice the tail (vertical stabilizer) of the aircraft flying the slot position in the diamond formations? The top part is black from the exhaust of the leader. That is the hardest position to fly in those formations because the tail is sometimes in the exhaust and is only slightly below the vortices coming from the wings and body of the leader.

Ok, so yes, it PHYSICALLY possible, but nowhere near a good idea. Gotcha.

Really, there isn't a huge vaccuum of air in front of the engine?? I thought there would be. Or at the very least, very turbulant.

No, I cannot say that I have ever been to an airshow. Wated to, given the fact that I now live no 10 minutes from an AFB, but never had the opportunity to. I will next time they are here.

Thank you sir for the insight.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 05:54 PM

I doubt he is interested.

See my blog for the story about the pilot who shot down flight 93:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/pilot-who-shot-down-flight-93.html
Are you lies due to ignorance? That is dirt dumb. Sorry dirt. Your post leave no doubt you are not a trained aircraft accident investigator and pushing a failed delusional lie.

Because, according to the colonel, what Rick Gibney really witnessed was a ghost aeroplane with crew and passengers either unconscious or dead due to the effect of incapacitating gas, and no Arabs in sight. Did you come up with this delusion on your own?

What plane was Gibney in?
Why was it not on RADAR?
How did he shoot it down?
Why was 93 in one big piece when it impacted?
We now have missiles that shoot down planes in one big piece!?

Why are there tapes of the terrorist talking on the radio?
Why are the dead people on the plane caught talking on the CVR?
How did the terrorist DNA get in the ditch where 93 crashed?
Why are you so dumb on accident investigations of aircraft?
7 years and 10 months and you are diverging from the truth into pure stupid. You are orders of magnitude beyond dirt dumb on this one.

tsig

15th July 2009, 06:19 PM

What about these stunt flyers, flying in formation with only meters between them? Sure they can.

It's called formation flying and the pilot flying formation with you is usually alive.

tsig

15th July 2009, 06:24 PM

I have been going through hundreds of posts I wrote earlier on different forums about the topic. Gathering ammo so to speak.

You might want to check the expiration date on that ammo. Some old ammo can become dangerous and blow up in the face of the user.

Cl1mh4224rd

15th July 2009, 06:26 PM

You might want to check the expiration date on that ammo. Some old ammo can become dangerous and blow up in the face of the user.

Also, if it's been used without effect already, it's probably a dud.

tsig

15th July 2009, 06:35 PM

Also, if it's been used without effect already, it's probably a dud.

Using the search function seems to put an undue burden on truth seekers.

Travis

15th July 2009, 09:53 PM

So what you are doing is putting more weight upon the testimony of someone still in active service (Somdahl) than on somebody who is retired and had recently recovered from a stroke so he has not much to lose but his honor. And on top of that: the pilot in question refuses to give a straight answer!!! ('declined comments'). And you call me a liar! This Somdahl is simply afraid to lose his job like so many others have endured as a consequence of coming out in favor of 9/11-truth.

What's really sad is that you probably really think that active service discredits one while being discharged gives the other immense authority.

I mean that is sad.

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 10:22 PM

There is zero substance to the shootdown allegation. If 9/11-I is running true to form (i.e. pitching standard conspiracy fantasy), then the entire claim of Gibney shooting down FL93 was based on the unsupported fantasy reeled off by Col. Donn de Grand Pre. And that was forcefully answered in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65156).

Bottom line: 9/11-I has no proof of his allegations, and he fails in the light of testimony from Ed Jacoby Jr.

On top of that, what's this bullpucky about formation flying being somehow related to 9/11? There's a difference between having to get close and being in freaking Fargo, North Dakota, which is where Lt. Col. Gibney started the morning of September 11th.

And recall other threads, where it's established that FL93's FDR and CVR carry zero indications of being hit by a missile. No, there's no juice here. 9/11-I's doing exactly what I suspected earlier: Throwing up old, refuted myths to see what sticks. You all should stick this guy on ignore, people. Revisiting the past can be much more easily accomplished by using the Search function; it's not like the information refuting FL93 myths has changed any.

~enigma~

15th July 2009, 11:33 PM

No, just remembering the trouble the last time you started "labeling" truthers...remember, the label had the word "human" in it.

you know, that which shall not be uttered.

TAM:)
Darat said labels are allowed as long as they are not about specific members.

T.A.M.

16th July 2009, 05:10 AM

Darat said labels are allowed as long as they are not about specific members.

okie dokie. I just thought one particular label, even though not directed at someone, was considered unusable wrt truthers.

my bad.

TAM:)

~enigma~

16th July 2009, 07:18 AM

okie dokie. I just thought one particular label, even though not directed at someone, was considered unusable wrt truthers.

my bad.

TAM:)
Correct. When used "in that way" it is banned yet it was used in a post against debunkers recently and allowed.

Kestrel

16th July 2009, 07:54 AM

OF course the circumstances are totally different, but don't let that stop you from making a irrevelent post with no apparent goal except to make the US look bad.

Just adding a bit of history to the comment from Travis that someone will claim that the US shot down the Iranian airliner. Some JREF posters are probably too young to remember that event.

Real history shouldn't offend a skeptic.

triforcharity

16th July 2009, 08:04 AM

T.A.M.

16th July 2009, 09:00 AM

Enigma, I am incredibly curious now. Can you PM the words used?? Thanks.

Anyway, I am not offended that we shot down a passenger jet. **** happens, we paid the "fine" so to speak, and the US and Iran dropped the arguing. Obviously we ****** up somewhere, now, we analize it and make changes to prevent it from happening again.

If there was evidence to support such a claim (that UA93 ws shot down), I would have no problem with that decision. The problem would be the cover up of it since it occurred.

That said, I have seen NO PROOF (none, nada) of such a shoot down.

TAM:)

Jonnyclueless

16th July 2009, 09:23 AM

Feinstein, foam on his lips, says:

So what you are doing is putting more weight upon the testimony of someone still in active service (Somdahl) than on somebody who is retired and had recently recovered from a stroke so he has not much to lose but his honor. And on top of that: the pilot in question refuses to give a straight answer!!! ('declined comments'). And you call me a liar! This Somdahl is simply afraid to lose his job like so many others have endured as a consequence of coming out in favor of 9/11-truth.

While you ignore ALL other evidence and dismiss valid testimony along with that evidence in favor of some crackpot on a crackpot radio show.

And people don't listen to you why?

Dave Rogers

17th July 2009, 02:59 AM

Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 passport was not "tattered". It was in near perfect shape, and it had a more difficult journey to make through the plane crash the fireball and the explosion and complete destruction of 2 110 storey buildings

Except for the "complete destruction of two 110 storey buildings" bit, because the passport was picked up from the street and handed to a detective who removed it from the scene before the collapse of WTC2. Therefore, it had only survived the fireball and explosion associated with the original plane crash. Therefore, the observation that other items of similar size and composition are known to have survived plane crashes is relevant for comparison.

Dave

TruthersLie

17th July 2009, 09:13 AM

OH guys...

I can't believe no one has said it yet.

Da JOOOOOOOZ did it. I mean come on. Flight 93, 5 dancing israelis... now they are attacking iran. (there must have been like nuclear scientists on it, or iranian structural engineers who were JUST ABOUT TO DEBUNK NIST)

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2009, 10:01 AM

Except for the "complete destruction of two 110 storey buildings" bit, because the passport was picked up from the street and handed to a detective who removed it from the scene before the collapse of WTC2. Therefore, it had only survived the fireball and explosion associated with the original plane crash. Therefore, the observation that other items of similar size and composition are known to have survived plane crashes is relevant for comparison.

Dave

Those kinds of things make me wonder if truthers have ever seen the sort of weird things that happen in tornadoes and other severe weather events. If Steve is shocked by a passport surviving an aircraft impact and explosion he'd be more surprised at what survives in other phenomena

...1894...

A heavy chicken house, sixteen by sixteen feet in area, was picked up by a tornado and wedged between two trees. The hens were found the next day sitting on their eggs in the chicken house, with no windows broken, as though nothing had happened. (The Weather Channel) source (http://www.iiimef.usmc.mil/wx/September%20Weather%20Facts.htm)