Flight 93

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole aleady existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is rediculas.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.

[femr2]

One question that I don't have clear information about. Might be kicking around, but haven't stumbled across anything definitive...

One engine excavated. Okay.

The other one supposedly found a long way from the impact site.

Correct ?

If so, how far away was it ?

[Thunder]

If so, how far away was it ?

did you look it up?

[femr2]

did you look it up?

Of course, but there's conflicting information kicking around.

Is there a definitive value ?

[Dave Rogers]

One engine excavated. Okay.

The other one supposedly found a long way from the impact site.

Correct ?

If so, how far away was it ?

About 300 yards in the direction of travel at the point of impact.

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Not very far considering the speed of impact, and certainly in no way suggestive of a mid-air breakup.

Dave

[femr2]

About 300 yards in the direction of travel at the point of impact.

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Not very far considering the speed of impact, and certainly in no way suggestive of a mid-air breakup.

Dave

Hmm. As I say, not very definitive...

a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south

Part of one engine. Either.

I'm after something a bit more compelling.

[BigAl]

Hmm. As I say, not very definitive...



Part of one engine. Either.

I'm after something a bit more compelling.

What is your point given that 95% of the plane was recovered atthe crash site along with and body parts that DNA identified as all the passengers and crew?

[femr2]

What is your point given that 95% of the plane was recovered atthe crash site along with and body parts that DNA identified as all the passengers and crew?

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.

[DavidJames]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.um, no. You don't get to say "There were reports" and then ask others to show it's untrue.

YOU need to show the evidence. Please provide the evidence for your claims or go away.

[Jackanory]

Hmm. As I say, not very definitive...



Part of one engine. Either.

I'm after something a bit more compelling.

Compelling ....mmmmmmmmmmmm 19 terrorists hyjacked...................

Just a heads up folks.

Femr2 is a confused no planer/remote controlled missile truther. He would send JSTygers here to do his dirty work. He wont say it outright but will JAQ off given the chance. He has posted numerous videos of 911 on youtube. He rehashed the 'POD' theory. He was in cahutes with the PfT tree house crew who suggested that flight 175 missed the WTC and was still flying an hour later etc etc.

He wont permit responses to his videos on youtube unless you agree with his conclusions. Let the comedy and JAQing off begin.

[femr2]

um, no. You don't get to say "There were reports" and then ask others to show it's untrue.

YOU need to show the evidence. Please provide the evidence for your claims or go away.

And so it begins.

I'll happily go away and have a look back here once in a while to see if anyone refutes the very commonly bounced-around claim.

I guess there is no definitive *debunk*. Fine.

Open book then.

[twinstead]

And so it begins.

I'll happily go away and have a look back here once in a while to see if anyone refutes the very commonly bounced-around claim.

I guess there is no definitive *debunk*. Fine.

Open book then.

If by "IT" you mean people actually asking for evidence to support claims then yes, "IT" begins.

[DavidJames]

And so it begins.

I'll happily go away and have a look back here once in a while to see if anyone refutes the very commonly bounced-around claim.

I guess there is no definitive *debunk*. Fine.

Open book then.There are reports that you download child pornography.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

See how it works?

Now seriously, go away until you learn how to think.

[BigAl]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?



So what?

Given that the plane was identified by the recovery of 95% of the craft and body parts that identified all the passengers and crew, what could the location of an engine part possibly change in the basic conclusion; Flight 93 crashed into that cornfield in Shanksville.

[Jackanory]

If by "IT" you mean people actually asking for evidence to support claims then yes, "IT" begins.

Femr2 will confuse you.

He is adamantly none commital yet will post videos that clearly imply an inside job. He just wants answers but wont take the time to discuss them unless you give him the right ones........inside jobby ones.

Do we really need to discuss anything with someone who actually posts on youtube and still believes that the 'PODS' were actually large explosive devices placed by the gubmint. The silly begins again.

Toffee popcorn anyone.

[femr2]

See how it works?

Of course I do, and there must be rules here to stop you making such statements.

The way it works is...don't ask awkward questions. The merry mob of rabbid JREF'ers will turn up, throw ridiculous insults and patent lies at the individual, and brush away the very simple and particularly polite question.

Shame on you.

There's no point citing specific places where the claims are made. I don't belive any of them to be definitive or based on complete fact. That's the whole point of the question. I don't know the answer. Asking if there is a definitive answer seems very reasonable to me.

You seem not to agree. Fine. Way to earn respect eh.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Of course, but there's conflicting information kicking around.

Is there a definitive value ?

There's nothing conflicting about real world physics.

[BigAl]

There's no point citing specific places where the claims are made. I don't belive any of them to be definitive or based on complete fact. That's the whole point of the question. I don't know the answer. Asking if there is a definitive answer seems very reasonable to me.


The definitive answer is that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville as a result of a hijacking by by 4 or 5 (i don't recall) Islamist Arabs.

[Jackanory]

Of course I do, and there must be rules here to stop you making such statements.

The way it works is...don't ask awkward questions. The merry mob of rabbid JREF'ers will turn up, throw ridiculous insults and patent lies at the individual, and brush away the very simple and particularly polite question.

Shame on you.

There's no point citing specific places where the claims are made. I don't belive any of them to be definitive or based on complete fact. That's the whole point of the question. I don't know the answer. Asking if there is a definitive answer seems very reasonable to me.

You seem not to agree. Fine. Way to earn respect eh.

Respect has nothing to do with it! Honesty and openess would help though.

Fortunately here at JREF we actually get the opportunity to say what we believe. As long as it is on topic and doesnt break the rules.

The same can not be said for posting on your videos hey. Your own moderating techniques on youtube are quite the opposite. You abuse and delete anyone who dares question your dillusions. You control the arguement on youtube. Not here. Thats why you rarely post here yet you can produce your own videos and models to post to the gullible on youtube. Why is that? Hypocricy at its best. You also track URL's and ISPL at your web site dont you?

Care to enlighten us on your theories on 911 and your proof before we begin pointing you in the right direction or are you just here to JAQ off?

[DavidJames]

Of course I do, and there must be rules here to stop you making such statements.Of really, are you offended that I suggested you did something wrong? Can't you see that's exactly what you are doing? I'm guessing you can't, but I could be wrong.
The way it works is...don't ask awkward questions. The merry mob of rabbid JREF'ers will turn up, throw ridiculous insults and patent lies at the individual, and brush away the very simple and particularly polite question.Hey, I'm just asking questions CT boy. Can't take the heat go back to the playground.
Shame on you.Panties all bunched up? Shame on you for posting on skeptics forum without possessing a shred of critical thinking skills. If you aren't up to it, please go away.
There's no point citing specific places where the claims are made. I don't belive any of them to be definitive or based on complete fact. That's the whole point of the question. I don't know the answer. Asking if there is a definitive answer seems very reasonable to me.There is a lesson there for you. If you read something that make claims and doesn't provide evidence, you have some options. You could ignore it, you could demand they provide evidence or you could do your own research. The childs approach is to go ask the other parent. You choose the childs approach.You seem not to agree. Fine. Way to earn respect eh.Sorry, you don't deserve a shred of respect. You lost it when you proved you aren't capable of thinking.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Of course I do, and there must be rules here to stop you making such statements.

The way it works is...don't ask awkward questions. The merry mob of rabbid JREF'ers will turn up, throw ridiculous insults and patent lies at the individual, and brush away the very simple and particularly polite question.

Shame on you.

There's no point citing specific places where the claims are made. I don't belive any of them to be definitive or based on complete fact. That's the whole point of the question. I don't know the answer. Asking if there is a definitive answer seems very reasonable to me.

You seem not to agree. Fine. Way to earn respect eh.

I've got a question for you:

Where is your evidence to support what you claim?

You claim that an engine (which was found 300 yards away from impact) is "conflicting". However you might think, you have no clue as to why plane crashes aren't the same. Physics prove that Flight 93 wasn't "shot down"!

[A W Smith]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.

What report? Citation? Source? Text? Hyperlink?

[twinstead]

I suspect we're just supposed to take his word for it.

Well, two can play at that game. Hey, femr2. There are reports that there is a drunk purple unicorn in my garage. Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue? Well. Until such information presents itself, I'll go grab my unicorn another beer.

[aggle-rithm]

Of course I do, and there must be rules here to stop you making such statements.

The way it works is...don't ask awkward questions.

Mein Gott. Do you actually earn a living with that brain?

[aggle-rithm]

I suspect we're just supposed to take his word for it.

Well, two can play at that game. Hey, femr2. There are reports that there is a drunk purple unicorn in my garage. Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue? Well. Until such information presents itself, I'll go grab my unicorn another beer.

HEY! Don't ask awkward questions!

There should be a rule against that! ;)

[DavidJames]

femr2 is like a UK version of RedIbis. He thinks this forum is a social club were people can come and have a friendly chat about who murdered who and no one asks those awkward questions like, where is your evidence.

[Jackanory]

femr2 is like a UK version of RedIbis. He thinks this forum is a social club were people can come and have a friendly chat about who murdered who and no one asks those awkward questions like, where is your evidence.

The youtube generation. Gotta love em. femr2 doesnt answer questions. He simply threatens to ban you if you dont tow his line. I have just browsed his video pile over at youtube. Boy has he been busy. I didnt realise that we had basements here in the UK.

[ktesibios]

I suspect we're just supposed to take his word for it.

Well, two can play at that game. Hey, femr2. There are reports that there is a drunk purple unicorn in my garage. Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue? Well. Until such information presents itself, I'll go grab my unicorn another beer.

An excellent idea. A hungover unicorn is a nasty beast.

[twinstead]

An excellent idea. A hungover unicorn is a nasty beast.

Indeed

[Garb]

Is femr2 looking for an exact measurement or something?

People found the engine about 300 yards away. There is nothing strange about that. If you really want to know the exact location to the nearest inch or what position it was or how much of it was left, you are going to be looking for a long time.

[beachnut]

One question that I don't have clear information about. Might be kicking around, but haven't stumbled across anything definitive...

One engine excavated. Okay.

The other one supposedly found a long way from the impact site.

Correct ?

If so, how far away was it ?
No, a part of an engine, a fan section from the big first part of the engine, was found hundreds of feet away. But gee whiz according to crash physics at 600 mph impact parts could be 1000 feet away due to kinetic energy and impact dynamics. I have worked aircraft accidents and Flight 93 has no anomalies except for the conspiracy mined paranoid mungers who lack knowledge.

Only for a few fringe conspiracy theories who can't figure out much about 911 is a fan section being hundreds of feet away in the direction of the crash some great mystery and the grounds to forget logic and knowledge and jump on the stupid train of 911 truth delusions and fantasy hearsay tripe.

Like all your other work, you lack the knowledge to understand the simple part of 911 and can't define your own warped delusions.

How many aircraft accident investigators have you talked to with experience in jet aircraft impacts? How many agree with you that there is something to support doubt? Zero! Got anything to back up your doubt besides paranoid conspiracy theories?

[jaydeehess]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93_-_Indian_Lake

If you refer to debris found at Indian lake then according to this article it did not include an engine, just light debris.
Indian Lake is also not that far from the impact site. The drive between the two is apparently 6 miles but debris was not constrained to following the roadway. By straight line it is 1.5 miles between the two.

If the reports you refer to does not mean Indian Lake then its up to you to specify what report you are refering to.

If there is no report about where the other engine was found it by no means backs up any other story about the fate of the plane.

[switchpoint]

And so it begins.

I'll happily go away and have a look back here once in a while to see if anyone refutes the very commonly bounced-around claim.

I guess there is no definitive *debunk*. Fine.

Open book then.

There is nothing that contradicts the report that a section of the engine was found 10800 inches from the impact point, ergo it is true.

Happy now?

[ElMondoHummus]

We need to pay attention to what Beechnut is saying: They didn't find an intact engine, they found engine parts splayed out from the impact point. Some parts flew farther than others, and distributed themselves in a manner entirely consistent with impact on the ground. So no, they didn't find one engine in one spot and the other in a different spot and therefore no "single" measurement for where the port engine landed and a different one for where the starboard one ended up. The responders found parts distributed away from where the jet hit. The engines were not intact. The distribution pattern is completely expected. And there is no single measurement to where the engines ended up because they ended up spread out over an area.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

We need to pay attention to what Beechnut is saying: They didn't find an intact engine, they found engine parts splayed out from the impact point. Some parts flew farther than others, and distributed themselves in a manner entirely consistent with impact on the ground. So no, they didn't find one engine in one spot and the other in a different spot and therefore no "single" measurement for where the port engine landed and a different one for where the starboard one ended up. The responders found parts distributed away from where the jet hit. The engines were not intact. The distribution pattern is completely expected. And there is no single measurement to where the engines ended up because they ended up spread out over an area.

Ergo, all plane crashes aren't the same. Thank's Beechnut & EMH!

[jaydeehess]

OMG!! chaos reigns in chaotic situations. You expect us to believe that?;)

[Jackanory]

We need to pay attention to what Beechnut is saying: They didn't find an intact engine, they found engine parts splayed out from the impact point. Some parts flew farther than others, and distributed themselves in a manner entirely consistent with impact on the ground. So no, they didn't find one engine in one spot and the other in a different spot and therefore no "single" measurement for where the port engine landed and a different one for where the starboard one ended up. The responders found parts distributed away from where the jet hit. The engines were not intact. The distribution pattern is completely expected. And there is no single measurement to where the engines ended up because they ended up spread out over an area.

If you where inclined to do so you would probably still find some fragments up their today, despite what happens to aircraft parts and human remains when exposed to the elements.

Would you believe that femr2 has previously been labelled as 'the most intelligent man on youtube'. Its true. I cant remember exactley where on youtube i read it but he appears to have a cult following. The youtube generation rocks ;)

[scissorhands]

Would you believe that femr2 has previously been labelled as 'the most intelligent man on youtube'.

Considering his "fanbase" consists of teenagers who can barely spell, let alone understand physics, this is no surprise.
The fraud femr2 cant cope with grown ups and their questions though.
Noticeably, he has scooted from here, again.

[tsig]

OMG!! chaos reigns in chaotic situations. You expect us to believe that?;)

Water is wet unless it is ice and it can be a vapor. 911!!!

[A W Smith]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.

What report? Citation? Source? Text? Hyperlink?
Considering his "fanbase" consists of teenagers who can barely spell, let alone understand physics, this is no surprise.
The fraud femr2 cant cope with grown ups and their questions though.
Noticeably, he has scooted from here, again.

He cannot support his assertions, Which is why like a child he has fled. It is no wonder he blocks debunking comments of his YouTube videos.

[gumboot]

I think the confusion is pretty easy to clear up.

Early reports revealed that a large piece of engine debris, weighing some 900lbs or similar, was found in a small lake/pond south-east of the crash site.

Conspiracy Theorists looked at Google Earth and concluded that the whole engine must have landed in Indian Lake - the nearest obvious body of water - some two miles from the crash site.

However some quick double-checking would have picked up some errors; firstly, although people described the wreckage as very large and too heavy to move, 900lb is only a fraction of the weight of a jet engine, so clearly cannot have been the entire thing. I think the complete engine weighs on the order of ten tonnes.

Secondly, while Indian Lake is the more obvious body of water, it's far too big to fit the descriptions. However there's a much, much smaller pond closer to the crash site along the same line. If you were just looking on Google Earth it's pretty easy to miss it. This pond is only a few hundred yards from the crash site - a distance that the engine piece would have covered in a few seconds.

So there you have it. A small chunk of one engine was found a few seconds travel from the crash. Nothing notable about that at all.

[A W Smith]

body of water 300 yards from flight 93 impact site

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/93flight300yards.jpg

[TruthersLie]

Hmm. As I say, not very definitive...



Part of one engine. Either.

I'm after something a bit more compelling.

Do you even understand what happens when something moving at a high rate of speed disentigrates? You know, like when an engine with parts with thousands of RPMS strikes the ground. What do you think would happen there?

So again (like most twoofs) you are just JAQing off and asking for information based on personal incredulity. Got it.

[twinstead]

Sometimes I think truthers think the plane should have just stuck halfway into the ground like a pen through styrofoam

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sometimes I think truthers think the plane should have just stuck halfway into the ground like a pen through styrofoam

Or they think that somehow Wile E. Coyote was the mastermind for a cartoon cutout in the Pentagon or just like you said, about a pen stuck in styrofoam.

Truthers have an imagination, they live their imaginations daily.

[McHrozni]

Sometimes I think truthers think the plane should have just stuck halfway into the ground like a pen through styrofoam

Well, um, that's what Dylan Avery said at least once. That even if the plane burrowed 60ft into the ground, you'd still have 90ft sticking out.

(may not be an exact quote, it's been a while since I've seen it)

I haven't been able to find the exact video, unfortunately.

McHrozni

[Carll68]

One question that I don't have clear information about. Might be kicking around, but haven't stumbled across anything definitive...

One engine excavated. Okay.

The other one supposedly found a long way from the impact site.

Correct ?

If so, how far away was it ?

Femr2....ever figure out how to answer the mind numbingly simple physics questions I asked you months and months ago over at that haven for morons known as YouTube? Remember? No? I will refresh your numb memory.

I asked you if you were well versed in physics; since you spew idiotic nonsense relentlessly while questioning the degreed and educated experts conclusions who workd on the NIST report, among others.

You stated you were 'very well versed'

So I proceeded to ask you a simple physics question from a High School level website.

You answered.

Problem was..YOU ANSWERED COMPLETELY WRONG.

All the while you did not even know why you were wrong...and the squirming and topic jumping on your behalf began in earnest. Next thing I knew, you were gone...off making more stupid simulations where all the Kinetic energy from the collapse get put into an energy sink to crush concrete. BRILLIANT.

So, will you finally explain why you lack the ability to answer or understand an 11th grade physics question correctly, but somehow think you have amassed the knowledge to with your university of youtube degree to comprehend and dissect the NIST report...RIZLA..err, umm..I mean FEMR2.

Don't you have ice particles to pretend are UFO's or something?

[femr2]

Early reports revealed that a large piece of engine debris, weighing some 900lbs or similar, was found in a small lake/pond south-east of the crash site.
By far the most sensible response so far.

The school playground posts from others are also interesting, but obviously for very different reasons.

So, a ~900lb chunk of engine a distance away.

I assume there is an official report somewhere which would confirm the location that piece was found ? I have not been able to find it if it exists. Anyone know if that can be confirmed ?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

By far the most sensible response so far.

The school playground posts from others are also interesting, but obviously for very different reasons.

So, a ~900lb chunk of engine a distance away.

I assume there is an official report somewhere which would confirm the location that piece was found ? I have not been able to find it if it exists. Anyone know if that can be confirmed ?

Dude/dudette,

The only thing that matters is that witnesses saw & heard Flight 93 crash. Plus you weren't there the week after, like I was, to see the FBI & the coroner combing through the woods & the hole where Flt. 93 crashed.

So why do you need an official report when the report was made by the 9/11 Commission years ago?

Yes, it's confirmed that it exist. The only problem you have now is to prove that everything is wrong that what the 9/11 Commission (including me) said with evidence to back you up.

[dc1971]

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.
.

What reports?

[dc1971]

I think the confusion is pretty easy to clear up.

Early reports revealed that a large piece of engine debris, weighing some 900lbs or similar, was found in a small lake/pond south-east of the crash site.

Conspiracy Theorists looked at Google Earth and concluded that the whole engine must have landed in Indian Lake - the nearest obvious body of water - some two miles from the crash site.

However some quick double-checking would have picked up some errors; firstly, although people described the wreckage as very large and too heavy to move, 900lb is only a fraction of the weight of a jet engine, so clearly cannot have been the entire thing. I think the complete engine weighs on the order of ten tonnes.

Secondly, while Indian Lake is the more obvious body of water, it's far too big to fit the descriptions. However there's a much, much smaller pond closer to the crash site along the same line. If you were just looking on Google Earth it's pretty easy to miss it. This pond is only a few hundred yards from the crash site - a distance that the engine piece would have covered in a few seconds.

So there you have it. A small chunk of one engine was found a few seconds travel from the crash. Nothing notable about that at all.

That makes perfect sense, and the map that Smith shows is very definitive. I don't know why femr2 doesn't get it!

[twinstead]

I assume there is an official report somewhere which would confirm the location that piece was found ? I have not been able to find it if it exists. Anyone know if that can be confirmed ?

Quit being coy; exactly what should the distribution of debris been from the plane if it had crashed in the manner described in the common narrative of the event, and how does it differ from what the actual distribution of debris was?

[femr2]

So why do you need an official report when the report was made by the 9/11 Commission years ago?
The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere. The pretty hefty section would then end up in a warehouse and studied, which would also generate documentation.

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.

[BigAl]

The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere. The pretty hefty section would then end up in a warehouse and studied, which would also generate documentation.

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.

What possible answer could change the fact that Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed into that field by 4 or 5 Islamist Arabs?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere. The pretty hefty section would then end up in a warehouse and studied, which would also generate documentation.

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.


Why does it matter to you when they found 95% of Flight 93? You're not suggesting that they found "plane parts" at Indian Lake are you? I've heard it was paper that was drifting in the air that traveled 1.5 miles to the lake & not plane parts.

Why do you want to focus on something so small that it was already recovered & documented by the FBI, NTSB & Boeing?

You have no evidence of any sort to back up any claim you make. All you want to do is accuse the USAF of something they didn't do. Besides the way genius, the John P. Murtha Airport doesn't have jet fighters, they have Apache Helicopters. So stop trying to press your little fairy story that Flight 93 was "shot down" by imaginary jet fighters. And if you want to go further with the jet fighters they were heading East into the N. Atlantic Ocean & were many miles away to have any affect on Flight 93.

[A W Smith]

The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere. The pretty hefty section would then end up in a warehouse and studied, which would also generate documentation.

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.

Why? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this component CAUSED the crash? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the crash was even an accident? What does it matter the pattern of debris dispersal from a deliberate flight into the ground act of terrorism?

[femr2]

You're not suggesting that they found "plane parts" at Indian Lake are you? I've heard it was paper that was drifting in the air that traveled 1.5 miles to the lake & not plane parts.
I'm not suggesting anything. I made it clear from the initial question that there is conflicting information about the location of the engine. I'm trying to clarify that location.

Isn't that why you post information here, to clarify erronious claims made by others ? Would have thought it would be simply a matter of going, yeah, sure, here's a link to the clear and correct information.

I've tried to find it, but all I get are wildly differing claims by different sets of unofficial bodies.

Why do you want to focus on something so small that it was already recovered & documented by the FBI, NTSB & Boeing?
Where ? I assume that information would be exactly the ticket. What debris found, where. A ~900lb chunk pulled out of a body of water would definitely be worthy of making a note of. I can understand exact location of tiny fragments not being pin-pointed, though a general area (probably gridded) would seem appropriate.

You have no evidence of any sort to back up any claim you make. All you want to do is accuse the USAF of something they didn't do. Besides the way genius, the John P. Murtha Airport doesn't have jet fighters, they have Apache Helicopters. So stop trying to press your little fairy story that Flight 93 was "shot down" by imaginary jet fighters. And if you want to go further with the jet fighters they were heading East into the N. Atlantic Ocean & were many miles away to have any affect on Flight 93.
Eh ? Methinks thou dost presume way too much.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers in bold:

I'm not suggesting anything. I made it clear from the initial question that there is conflicting information about the location of the engine. I'm trying to clarify that location.

The location is 300 yards & is consistant with the flight path. There's nothing "conflicting" about it & admit that you're wrong on many counts.

Isn't that why you post information here, to clarify erronious claims made by others ? Would have thought it would be simply a matter of going, yeah, sure, here's a link to the clear and correct information.

You don't live 20 miles North of Shanksville in Johnstown, PA, do you? No you don't, so what you claim is total fabrication from the Truth Movement.

I've tried to find it, but all I get are wildly differing claims by different sets of unofficial bodies.

"Wild claims" like yours that have nothing, not even a single piece of evidence to confirm your claims?

Where ? I assume that information would be exactly the ticket. What debris found, where. A ~900lb chunk pulled out of a body of water would definitely be worthy of making a note of. I can understand exact location of tiny fragments not being pin-pointed, though a general area (probably gridded) would seem appropriate.

There is no "900 lb. chunk" that was ever recovered in a "body of water". Which ever Truther gave you that retarded information clearly hasn't visited Shanksville, PA.


Eh ? Methinks thou dost presume way too much.

I presume that you have nothing further to offer other than lies & disinformantion from uneducated gullible people who took you for granted.

[BigAl]

I'm not suggesting anything. I made it clear from the initial question that there is conflicting information about the location of the engine. I'm trying to clarify that location.

Isn't that why you post information here, to clarify erronious claims made by others ? Would have thought it would be simply a matter of going, yeah, sure, here's a link to the clear and correct information.

I've tried to find it, but all I get are wildly differing claims by different sets of unofficial bodies.



I would think that a 900 pound part starting at about 500MPH could bounce and roll for miles.

So what? What would any answer change in the basic story; Flight 93 was flown into the ground by Islamist hijackers at nearly 500MPH.

[femr2]

There is no "900 lb. chunk" that was ever recovered in a "body of water". Whoever gave you that retarded information clearly hasn't visited Shanksville, PA.
Well, that would include gumboot above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5612760#post5612760), which is a bit rude/naive of you perhaps ?

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.

The most sensible option would seem to be as in the linked post above, but obviously confirmation would be necessary.

By all means carry on with affronted tones. I'll look forward to someone actually posting the confirmed and correct information, most preferrably from an appropriate official source.

[BigAl]

Well, that would include gumboot above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5612760#post5612760), which is a bit rude/naive of you perhaps ?

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.



Appaenly not. So what?

What answer would be your "worst case" in terms of what conclusions you would make?

[dtugg]

So where are those reports which show it ended up far away from the crash scene, twoofer?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well, that would include gumboot above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5612760#post5612760), which is a bit rude/naive of you perhaps ?

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.

The most sensible option would seem to be as in the linked post above, but obviously confirmation would be necessary.

By all means carry on with affronted tones. I'll look forward to someone actually posting the confirmed and correct information, most preferrably from an appropriate official source.

No, it's rude of you to dishonor the memory of those that died onboard Flt. 93.

It's because you're looking for disinformation from 1 of your pals/friends who are Truthers & you love to ignore the information that's been given to you.

Why need a link when I'm the closet person on this forum (besides someone I know who also lives near Shanksville) that's been to Shanksville countless times & knows that what you claim is total horse****?

Keep on dreaming that 1 day you'll get a Truther on this forum who has the evidence to prove what you claim is "right". Good luck searching for a ghost!

To Gumboot, don't worry about the 900 lb. engine. As far as anyone's concerned that engine hit pretty hard into hard soil. So what Femr2's suggesting is that the 900 lb. engine remained intact & "fell" into Indian Lake is an outright lie.

[DavidJames]

It's becoming clear that no-one actually has the information I've been looking for.Okay, goodbye. Due come back and let us know when you actually have some facts and mature beyond your current ability to only ask questions.

[Carll68]

By far the most sensible response so far.

The school playground posts from others are also interesting, but obviously for very different reasons.

So, a ~900lb chunk of engine a distance away.

I assume there is an official report somewhere which would confirm the location that piece was found ? I have not been able to find it if it exists. Anyone know if that can be confirmed ?

Rizla/Femr the fraud.....I like how you simply avoid the fact that you have zero understanding of even elementary level physics and move on in your usual self contradicting idiotic manner.

so, tell me hero...what do you think impacted in Shanksville if not for Flight 93, and what evidence do you have to support your hairbrained uneducated hypothesis?


Shhhhhhh----listen to the silence

[twinstead]

Somebody wake me when femr2 stops posting on internet forums and actually convinces somebody who can DO something about it that 911 was an inside job.

[gumboot]

To Gumboot, don't worry about the 900 lb. engine. As far as anyone's concerned that engine hit pretty hard into hard soil. So what Femr2's suggesting is that the 900 lb. engine remained intact & "fell" into Indian Lake is an outright lie.

*Sigh*

That's not what I said. A 900lb part of one of the engines - in this case a fan section - was recovered from a catchment basin (at the centre of which is a small body of water - a pond) about 300yds SE of the impact site. This isn't something Conspiracy Theorists made up. It was reported in numerous media outlets and confirmed by Jeff Reinbold of the National Park Service - the man responsible for the Flight 93 Memorial.

What conspiracy theorists did was

A) Accept the erroneous media reports that it was an entire engine, without noticing the small discrepancy that a Pratt and Whitney PW2043 engine weighs over 3 tonne, thus making it clear the recovered object was not an entire engine but more like 10% of one.

B) Conclude that the engine was recovered from Indian Lake because reports stated that debris was recovered from the lake and a superfluous scan of Google Earth might not identify the smaller ponds located substantially closer to the crash site.

[gumboot]

The pretty hefty section would then end up in a warehouse and studied


Why, exactly, would they do this?

[R.Mackey]

For what it's worth, a Pratt and Whitney PW2000 series engine weighs approximately 3300 kg intact, more if you include the inlet and shroud. A 900 pound fragment is probably no more than a piece of the core, perhaps only the high temperature section.

Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.

[Jackanory]

Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.

Never anything to see here.

Femr2/RIZLA brought nothing and left. Same ****, different day.

[femr2]

For what it's worth, a Pratt and Whitney PW2000 series engine weighs approximately 3300 kg intact, more if you include the inlet and shroud. A 900 pound fragment is probably no more than a piece of the core, perhaps only the high temperature section.

Nothing to see here, folks, just more Truthers asking stupid questions for no reason other than to create the illusion of disagreement.

A piece of the core is the scant information I was able to find, but when you find out anything accurate and verified, rather than guesswork and probables, then I'm all ears.

Nothing to see is absolutely true, because nobody seems to actually have any verifiable answers.

A 900lb engine core piece in the *pond* suggested by gumboot (now a fan section) isn't a problem.

Guesswork and probables are though.

[Jackanory]

A piece of the core is the scant information I was able to find, but when you find out anything accurate and verified, rather than guesswork and probables, then I'm all ears.

Nothing to see is absolutely true, because nobody seems to actually have any verifiable answers.

A 900lb engine core piece in the *pond* suggested by gumboot (now a fan section) isn't a problem.

Guesswork and probables are though.


Thats rich from the master of guesswork and probables who does nothing but speculate and JAQ off. Predictable. Silly pod theorist.

[MaGZ]

What possible answer could change the fact that Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed into that field by 4 or 5 Islamist Arabs?

But why did the plane suddenly crash into the field? What kept the hijackers from completing their mission?

[McHrozni]

But why did the plane suddenly crash into the field? What kept the hijackers from completing their mission?

The passengers of that same flight.

Didn't you know?

McHrozni

[Jackanory]

But why did the plane suddenly crash into the field? What kept the hijackers from completing their mission?

Petrified, scared but extremely brave passengers did all they could. Unlike yourself.

The hyjackers part completed their mission. A mission is broken down. It has a beginning, middle and an end. It requires immediate actions on certain events. Not all missions go as planned. They killed all onboard and grabbed the attention they wanted. They failed about 10% of this mission but still achieved the goal to kill. Apologise for them all you want.

[MaGZ]

The passengers of that same flight.

Didn't you know?

McHrozni

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.

[dc1971]

The 9/11 Commission Report does not state the location that engine section was found in. It seems obvious to me that it would have been taken out of whatever body of water it ended up in, that location would have been recorded, and it would end up in a report somewhere...

I'm asking if anyone knows where that documentation is.

So what part of the 9/11 Commission Report should show documentation of this engine section?

femr2, have you tried contacting anyone from that area of PA? Specifically, fire, rescue, or law enforcement?

[dtugg]

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.

Nobody ever said the passengers brought down the plane.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

*Sigh*

That's not what I said. A 900lb part of one of the engines - in this case a fan section - was recovered from a catchment basin (at the centre of which is a small body of water - a pond) about 300yds SE of the impact site. This isn't something Conspiracy Theorists made up. It was reported in numerous media outlets and confirmed by Jeff Reinbold of the National Park Service - the man responsible for the Flight 93 Memorial.

What conspiracy theorists did was

A) Accept the erroneous media reports that it was an entire engine, without noticing the small discrepancy that a Pratt and Whitney PW2043 engine weighs over 3 tonne, thus making it clear the recovered object was not an entire engine but more like 10% of one.

B) Conclude that the engine was recovered from Indian Lake because reports stated that debris was recovered from the lake and a superfluous scan of Google Earth might not identify the smaller ponds located substantially closer to the crash site.


Well that makes a hell of alot of sense!

[beachnut]

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
The passengers attacked the terrorists, the chicken terrorists only knew how to crash planes and cut throats; kind of like neoNAZIs short on skills and short on brains. The terrorists failed when their game was known, they failed! 75 percent is not close to 100; too bad neoNAZIs can't do math, like the rest of 911 truth who spew lies and idiot ideas which you love. Do you have any usable knowledge on 911 besides idiotic delusions?

[George152]

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.

Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?

[beachnut]

Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
Hard for neoNAZIs to comprehend Flight 93 Passengers figuring out 911 in minutes, when they can't figure out 911 after 8 years. The best they can do is make up moronic delusions out of ignorance and hearsay.
... they can't comprehend people standing up and taking action since they only understands sitting and spreading lies.

[McHrozni]

The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.

Define "know what happened". Passengers rebelled and tried to take over the plane, resulting in the plane crash. It is believed, though not conclusively proven, that the hijackers deliberately steered the plane in a crash, to prevent them from being overpowered and captured. That's what the evidence we have suggests, and there is little to disprove it. Why do you doubt it? What is your theory?

McHrozni

[MaGZ]

Nobody ever said the passengers brought down the plane.

So to you the crash of Flight 93 is a mystery?

[MaGZ]

The passengers attacked the terrorists, the chicken terrorists only knew how to crash planes and cut throats; kind of like neoNAZIs short on skills and short on brains. The terrorists failed when their game was known, they failed! 75 percent is not close to 100; too bad neoNAZIs can't do math, like the rest of 911 truth who spew lies and idiot ideas which you love. Do you have any usable knowledge on 911 besides idiotic delusions?

How is it the passengers crashed the plane if they never got into the cockpit?

[MaGZ]

Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?

The passengers on the plane were victims not heroes. They were victims of the hijackers and the American pilot who shot down the plane.

[dtugg]

The passengers on the plane were victims not heroes.

Wrong, they were both. They were heroes for preventing the plane from reaching its intending destination, probably the US capital building.

They were victims of the hijackers

True.

and the American pilot who shot down the plane.

This is a lie.

[dtugg]

So to you the crash of Flight 93 is a mystery?

No, where did you get that?

[dtugg]

How is it the passengers crashed the plane if they never got into the cockpit?

The passengers didn't crash the plane.

[UNLoVedRebel]

How is it the passengers crashed the plane if they never got into the cockpit?

The passengers didn't crash the plane, the hijackers did because they thought they thought their deity would reward them and let them have sex with 72 virgins. To be honest, I never thought the whole 72 virgin thing was a good deal. Sure, 8-10 virgins in, I'd be having a fun. But later in the evening, I'm gonna want a pro. Sooner or later I'm gonna need a woman who knows how to pull the pin on the grenade when we're in the kill zone.

[MaGZ]

Define "know what happened". Passengers rebelled and tried to take over the plane, resulting in the plane crash. It is believed, though not conclusively proven, that the hijackers deliberately steered the plane in a crash, to prevent them from being overpowered and captured. That's what the evidence we have suggests, and there is little to disprove it. Why do you doubt it? What is your theory?

McHrozni

The plane was shot down.

Sure some passengers rebelled once they knew they were on a death flight, but they could do nothing to divert the course of the mission of the flight if they never had access to the cockpit.

It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.

[MaGZ]

Wrong, they were both. They were heroes for preventing the plane from reaching its intending destination, probably the US capital building.



True.



This is a lie.

The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.

[dtugg]

The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.

Except this didn't happen so you, therefore, are a liar.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.

Hey, what's up there dissonance. Let me introduce you to my good friend cognition. I've got a feeling you two will make great pals.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.

This is a classic example of the anomaly hunting fallacy, as far as I can see. We know that Flight 93 was boarded by four individuals with known connections to al-Qaeda, that it was hijacked by people with Middle Eastern appearances and accents, that it diverted from its course, that the passengers attacked the hijackers and attempted to break into the cockpit, that it crashed near Shanksville, and that about 95% of the remains of the airliner together with sufficient human remains to identify all the crew and passengers were recovered from the crash site. That, for anybody sane, is enough to state that we understand broadly what happened. However, the conspiracy theorist needs to manufacture doubt, even where none exists, in order to give the false impression that some other interpretation of events is plausible. Therefore, he asks for an additional level of detail to that which is already known. In this case, we have accounts that suggest that an entire engine was found in a pond 300 yards from the main crash site, and others that suggest that it was not an entire engine but rather a significant part of that engine. The conspiracy theorist will spin this into a suggestion that, because we have not identified beyond possible doubt this one small, and in fact irrelevant, detail (neither a more-or-less entire engine nor a large part of an engine being found 300 yards from the main crash site would be in any way unexpected from the dynamics of the crash), this one area of doubt renders the entire sequence of events unproven. Hence, the crash "remains an open book" until no conspiracy theorist can conceive of any anomaly, however trivial, that is not clearly resolved in an official report with links to incontravertible evidence (which, since any evidence can in principle be faked, is a non-existent concept for the conspiracy theorist in any case).

Now, femr2, it would be polite at least to state the purpose of your question. If it turns out that the reports of an entire engine being found about 300 yards from the crash site are inaccurate and in fact it was only a part of an engine, what are the implications of this discovery? If it turns out, conversely, that it was not a part but an entire engine, what are the implications? And finally, if neither is substantiated, and there is in fact no verifiable evidence of any sizeable part of the plane having been found outside the main crash site, what then?

(Since there are no reports of significantly sized parts of the plane being found anywhere else, it would be rational to assume that's not a consideration here. Please, please don't tell me that your contention is something along the lines that if one report says that part of an engine was found 300 yards away and another report says that a whole engine was found 300 yards away, the contradiction means that we must consider the possibility that both engines were found six miles away.)

Dave

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by George152
Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient. Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?


The passengers on the plane were victims not heroes. They were victims of the hijackers and the American pilot who shot down the plane.


Dodge much?

The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?

[aggle-rithm]

It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.

IIRC, the hijackers' instructions included a directive to crash the plane at the first opportunity if they were in danger of losing control of the situation.

[aggle-rithm]

The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.

What was his name?

[McHrozni]

The plane was shot down.

Prove it.

Sure some passengers rebelled once they knew they were on a death flight, but they could do nothing to divert the course of the mission of the flight if they never had access to the cockpit.

By that logic you never wrote this post, because you didn't have the access to my keyboard. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense - you should too.

It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.

Appeal to ignorance. He believed he couldn't finish the mission anyway and perfered a suicidal crash to being captured. Such behavior has plentiful precendens, as opposed to, say, US Air Force deliberately shooting down airliners.

McHrozni

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Magz,

Flight 93 wasn't "shot down" by a jet fighter. Sorry but you're wrong! The John P. Murtha Airport located in my hometown of Johnstown, PA only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. The jet fighters you're talking about were going out towards the N. Atlantic Ocean & were so far away to have an effect on Flt. 93 that it would be impossible for them to shoot it down.

I live 20 miles North of Shanksville & I know someone on this forum who lives near the town that know that what you're saying is crock.

So what are you gonna do? Are ya gonna change the subject or are you gonna persist with this fantasy that Flt. 93 was "shot down", when it wasn't?

[BigAl]

The plane was shot down.



Wrong. The flight data and voice recorders would record any impact or damage. No damage was recorded but the recorders show that the pilot controlled the plane and directed it into the ground.

This is just one line of evidence and argument that shows your claim is wrong. There are others.

[George152]

The plane was shot down.

.

Wrong !

[twinstead]

Hey. If MaGZ says the plane was shot down, the plane was shot down. What part of that don't you people understand?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey. If MaGZ says the plane was shot down, the plane was shot down. What part of that don't you people understand?

I blame Elmer Fudd for it! :D

[JoeyDonuts]

Great Googly Moogly. Not this again.

MaGZ/femr:

You seem rather convinced that this flight was intercepted and shot down.

What kind of weapon?
From how far out?
Launched from platform?
From what squadron?
On whose authority?
Where are the recordings of the radio traffic authorizing the aircraft to open fire?
What would they sound like? How would you know?
What about the crash scene is consistent with an air-to-air intercept?
What does the typical debris field post-shootdown of an aircraft this size look like?
Would you recognize it?

And furthermore:

What makes you think you're entitled to internal NTSB/FAA/FBI documents germane to the dispersion and composition of debris scattered about the crash site?

I can JAQ too.

[gumboot]

For a brief moment, let's just toy with the fantasy of UA93 being shot down.

If a shootdown did occur, we can essentially narrow down the weapon to one of four options.

1. AIM-9 Sidewinder Short-range Heat-seeking Air to Air Missile
2. AIM-120 AMRAAM Medium-range Active-homing Air to Air Missile
3. AIM-7 Sparrow Short-range Active-homing Air to Air Missile
4. M-61 Vulcan 20mm canon

By assessing the most likely outcome of utilising each of these weapons we can conclude whether the crash pattern of UA93 is consistent.

1. AIM-9 Sidewinder
The Sidewinder is a short-range missile in widespread use by the US military, which tracks a target by identifying heat sources such as an engine exhaust. As such, an AIM-9 hit, regardless of the direction it came from, would occur near one of the aircraft's engines. The weapon has an annular-blast fragmentation warhead which is designed to cut through the skin of an aircraft, and would almost certainly result in separation of the engine from the wing. Additionally the detonation could cause rupture of the wing fuel tanks leading to destruction of the wing that was hit (otherwise a second missile would be required to destroy the other engine). A distinct characteristic of a heat-seeking impact would be impact-point debris such as engine and wing parts at a substantial distance from the rest of the wreckage. These would be "upsteam" on the flight path, and would be substantial debris fields in their own right, a long way from the main impact. Further, the loss of an engine would be clearly recorded on the FDR which would notice loss of fuel pressure and readings from one engine. Loss of a wing would result in a severe stall, and the aircraft would fall to the ground in a rapid spin which would be clearly recorded on the FDR.

2. AIM-120
3. AIM-7
Because the characteristics of these two weapons are similar, I have grouped them together. They are both active-homing missiles - the significant differences is that the AIM-7 has shorter range and a larger warhead. Both have a high-explosive warhead, which uses detonation shock to destroy the target. The active-homing missile actively tracks the radar signature of the target aircraft, and as such would be more likely to impact on the body of the aircraft. This would lead to an immediate explosive decompression of the aircraft which would have been recorded on the FDR. Aircraft hull debris at the point of impact would be found a long way upstream of the main crash site. Interior objects in the aircraft would immediately start shedding through the hull breach, leaving a long spread-out trail of small debris from the point of initial impact to the final crash site. This debris field could be expected to be enormous - potentially a hundred square kilometers or more. Depending on the specifics of impact, the aircraft would either continue to fly (requiring additional missile launches and repeats of the above) or would result in disintegration of the hull leading to a mid-air break up, characterised by a widely scattered debris field over an even larger area, particularly identified by the wide scattering of major structural components (i.e. tail, nose and wing section substantial distances apart). Of particular note, a mid-air break up would result in the FDR and CVR terminating in mid-air, not at ground level. A wing impact would result in circumstances much like the AIM-9 impact already mentioned. A specific particular point of impact could be the nose of the aircraft. On the NORAD tapes, staff are heard discussing options for bringing down an airliner (due to its size, not as easy as bringing down a small fighter) and it was suggested that firing into the nose was a good option (presumably to disable the flight deck and flight controls). In this particular instance some very distinct events could occur. Separation/destruction of the nose section would occur, leading to initial impact debris upsteam of the main crash site. This would open the entire fuselage to winds, resulting in rapid break down of the fuselage. Further, as per the case of TWA-800 which lost its nose section, the aircraft would go into a severe and rapid climb until the aircraft stalled and fell to air. Main impact could be expected to be a long way from initial impact point. FDR would terminate prior to ground impact.

4. M-61
The M-61 is a six-barrel rotary 20mm cannon which is used on almost all US military combat aircraft. The method for destroying an airliner with a 20mm cannon can be predicted based on conversations had by pilots of the 121st FS on 9/11 itself. They had only 20mm guns as weaponry - no missiles - and decided the best course of action was to attempt to remove the wing of the aircraft by aiming to shoot along the wing root.
Such an impact would have very distinct characteristics similar to the wing-removal scenario of the AIM-9, with the distinction that the engine would remain intact almost certainly until impact with the ground. Further, the ammunition used by the M-61 is either high explosive or incendiary, and would almost certainly result in detonation of the central fuel tank, which would cause instant explosive decompression of the aircraft, severe hull damage, and potentially cause it to snap in half.

In all cases, a mid-air shoot-down of UA93 would result in the distinct characteristic of leaving at least one piece of substantial structural debris (tail section, wing/s, engine/s or nose section) at a location a long way "upstream" from the final ground impact site. In all cases there would be clear indications on the FDR that an impact had occurred. (Cabin Pressure, Engine Readings, etc). In almost all cases the FDR and CVR would cease recording prior to ground impact.

On 9/11, with regards to UA93, while we can never be absolutely sure what occured inside that aircraft, we can be sure of the following:

1) No debris from UA93 was found upstream of the main impact site. All of the debris was found downstream of the impact site, with all major structural debris contained within the immediately vicinity of impact.

2) The FDR from UA93 recorded no anomalies with any aircraft system in the moments leading up to the crash. Cabin Pressure, Engine Throttle, Engine Vibration, and so forth were all normal.

3) The FDR and CVR for UA93 ended at impact with the ground.

From these three points alone, we can unequivocally conclude that UA93 was not shot down.

[JoeyDonuts]

Another point:

None of these weapons, when used against a target the size and mass of an airliner, would cause a spectacular 80's action movie explosion where it instantly vaporizes into a pretty oversized ball of flame and sparks.

Even with simultaneous AAM strikes on the surface of the aircraft, breakup and descent would not occur immediately - that is to say that if this theory is to be believed, somewhere out there is a CVR tape recording the voices of two pilots whose aircraft was just shot.

I suppose that's also sitting in the Underground Cheney Vault Full Of Stuff That Proves The Truth Movement Was Right All AlongTM.

[gumboot]

Even with simultaneous AAM strikes on the surface of the aircraft, breakup and descent would not occur immediately - that is to say that if this theory is to be believed, somewhere out there is a CVR tape recording the voices of two pilots whose aircraft was just shot.

Not necessarily. If we take the example of Pan Am Flight 103, the CVR ended 180 milliseconds after the explosion. TWA Flight 800's CVR and FDR stopped at the moment of the explosion, ending with a few tenths of a second of static. The FDR for KAL Flight 007 indicates the pilots were not even aware they had been hit by a missile. In any event, the pilots had been killed at this point, and it's anyone's guess how hijackers would respond to any sort of loss of control in their aircraft.

[JoeyDonuts]

Not necessarily. If we take the example of Pan Am Flight 103, the CVR ended 180 milliseconds after the explosion. TWA Flight 800's CVR and FDR stopped at the moment of the explosion, ending with a few tenths of a second of static. The FDR for KAL Flight 007 indicates the pilots were not even aware they had been hit by a missile. In any event, the pilots had been killed at this point, and it's anyone's guess how hijackers would respond to any sort of loss of control in their aircraft.

Think about the kinetics of any such engagement. (Once again, wading in the Kool-aid here) How far out would it take place? If such a crazy scheme was green-lit, wouldn't this have been a close-in kill to ensure visual ID of the aircraft they were about to frag over American soil?

Yikes. We're getting off into la-la-land here. This stuff is probably a lot more fun when you don't understand how these engagements play out.

At any rate, this is all negated by the fact that we know, as per recordings and testimony of staff at NEADS, that the senior watch officer developed an intercept and nose-on attack profile, as per his job as SWO (or whatever they call it up there.) This, and any plan that required weapons free over US soil, was rejected by NMCC almost as soon as it was submitted.

And the FDR/CVR.

And the cell phone conversations.

And the debris field.

And the DNA evidence.

And.....

[femr2]

femr:

You seem rather convinced that this flight was intercepted and shot down.
Nope. I just want to clarify the location of the engine, as I indicated in my very first post. All the subsequent assumptions of others are not my problem.

[Dave Rogers]

I just want to clarify the location of the engine, as I indicated in my very first post. All the subsequent assumptions of others are not my problem.

In which case, given that this is a forum to discuss conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and not an air accident investigation forum, it seems reasonable to ask, 'What's your point?' Either your question is relevant to some alternative interpretation of the events of 9/11, or it's off-topic for the forum. Anyway, to ask people's help with a question, then to refuse to explain why you want their help, seems a little impolite at best.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

Nope. I just want to clarify the location of the engine, as I indicated in my very first post. All the subsequent assumptions of others are not my problem.

If you don't want people to assume, then stop being so secretive. Tell us what's on your mind. Maybe we can help.

[TruthersLie]

Personally I think it comes back to the "you can't trust the government reports" twoof.

If you can't show exactly what was recovered and where it was recovered, then da guvmint must be lyin.

Next we will be asked to show exactly where the 95% of UA 93 is at, and how they pieced it back together.

[MaGZ]

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." - Donald Rumsfeld

I'm sure Rumsfeld ment to say "crashed the plane over Pennsylvania"

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm sure when you speak extemporaneously, you impeccably nail every single adage and never mince words.

If there were the slightest shred of evidence to go along with Rumsfeld's faux-pas, I'd say you might be on to something.

By the way, that quote's been used so much in the past it's really beginning to go stale.

[MaGZ]

GEN. RALPH EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation you've outlined, which we think is the situation that exists today because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.

I appears General Eberhart made the same mistake as Donald Rumsfeld.
I wonder if they know something we don't?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/day_06-17.html

[aggle-rithm]

GEN. RALPH EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation you've outlined, which we think is the situation that exists today because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.

I appears General Eberhart made the same mistake as Donald Rumsfeld.
I wonder if they know something we don't?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/day_06-17.html

*sigh* Why don't you ask them?

By the way, do you have the name of the heroic pilot for us, yet?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." - Donald Rumsfeld

I'm sure Rumsfeld ment to say "crashed the plane over Pennsylvania"

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

I see 2 problems with that:

1: The Jet fighters were going East into the N. Atlantic Ocean & were many miles away.

2: The John P. Murtha Airport, located 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA only has Apache (Attack) Helicopters & no Jet fighters.

As for me hearing another jet after Flight 93 flew over, I never heard another jet flying behind Flt. 93.

Further evidence to prove my point:

http://www.flyjohnstownairport.com/about/military-fact-sheet.htm

The 1-104 Attack Reconnaissance Battalion (ARB) employs 27 Active Duty Guard Soldiers, 337 traditional Guard Soldiers and has 16 Apache helicopters stationed in Johnstown. The Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) employs 111 full time Federal Technicians to support military aviation operations.

[firecoins]

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole aleady existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is rediculas.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.
flight 93 didn't exist

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

flight 93 didn't exist

Yeah, it's like Flight 19 all over again I tell ya. Looks like the Bermuda Triangle moved its way to Pennsylvania!

[JoeyDonuts]

flight 93 didn't exist

It's fun to pretend.

[femr2]

In which case, given that this is a forum to discuss conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and not an air accident investigation forum, it seems reasonable to ask, 'What's your point?' Either your question is relevant to some alternative interpretation of the events of 9/11, or it's off-topic for the forum. Anyway, to ask people's help with a question, then to refuse to explain why you want their help, seems a little impolite at best.

Dave

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.

My question was simply to find out if there was any definitive information.

It's clear there is none.

The reason for asking the question is to gain clarity.

There are suggestions of distance ranging from 300ft, to 2000ft, to several kilometers, to...

I think the most sensible *guess* would be that the piece was a 900lb section of the core as previously discussed, but the information presented is very far from definitive, and so does not settle doubt.

If the actual (though perhaps improbable) correct answer is that a large section of the engine was found much further from the impact site than suggested, then I would have to consider the manner in which it came to get there. There will be a limit on how far it could *bounce* for instance.

If the question can be answered with reference to some kind of official report, then all of the speculation from others about that can be *resolved*, and my own view of the conflicting informal details about it can be clarified.

[carlitos]

Here you go femr. Here is a place where you can post your theory about what happened to Flight 93 or any other aspect of 9/11/01 and it will be on topic.

Thread Topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4945474#post4945474)

Direct link to last page. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149321&page=8)

[aggle-rithm]

If the actual (though perhaps improbable) correct answer is that a large section of the engine was found much further from the impact site than suggested, then I would have to consider the manner in which it came to get there. There will be a limit on how far it could *bounce* for instance.


If your friends all told you about a high school football game you missed, and the reports on the length of the winning field goal varied from 30 yards to 99 yards, the reasonable thing to do would be to assume that its length was consistent with what we know about high school football.

This is the same sort of situation.

[BigAl]

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.


So what, anyway? What difference would any answer make?

I think you mean recorded somewhere we can find on the Internet while in our PJs. That doesn't mean it's not documented somewhere.

[carlitos]

femr is so bothered about this "anomaly" that is:
- bandied around, even here
- being suggested by folk

That he "asked the question" but won't state its relevance to any kind of big picture. There are "conflicting informal details" with every conspiracy theory.

femr, if you want to know something, go figure it out.

By the way, the engines in this crash (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2004/041026.htm) also were found quite a ways away from the main debris field. So it's happened before.

[AJM8125]

There's a thread around here about Wally Miller that was started by a banned member so I won't link to it. In the OP there's a video in which IIRC Miller says he's seen the engine part in question, diagrams how it may have come to rest in the pond and he may have even photographed it, I don't remember.

Do a thread title search for "Wally Miller".

There you go. The mystery is solved. Next?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in bold:

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

You don't care to explain anything because you love to dodge. Your alleged "conflicting info" is garbage!

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.

95% of the aircraft was recovered. What don't you understand?

My question was simply to find out if there was any definitive information.

It's called the internet. You're just too damn lazy to find it yourself.

It's clear there is none.

Breach of Rule 10 removed. Please do not curse, or mask curse words in an attempt avoid the auto-censor, in your posts.

The reason for asking the question is to gain clarity.

You know nothing about clarity, your mind is foggy!

There are suggestions of distance ranging from 300ft, to 2000ft, to several kilometers, to...

snip

If the question can be answered with reference to some kind of official report, then all of the speculation from others about that can be *resolved*, and my own view of the conflicting informal details about it can be clarified.

I was down there a week after the crash occured. It's not "speculation", it's a known fact bub. Blah, blah, blah, blah your clarity is pure garbage!

[jammonius]

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole aleady existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is rediculas.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.

Hi chewy,

I've looked over the posts in response to this FL93 thread and it seems like it might need a little help. Oh, forget it, no need to be discreet. You guys never seem hungup on discretion in response to me, so let me give it to you straight, no chaser:

This thread needs a kick in the @ss if it's ever going to amount to anything.

First of all, chewy, if you're going to challenge people, then you need to come with more than your little 20 miles away anecdote where the very most you apear to be able to say is "(w)hen I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that..."

Well, chewy, if that's all you've got to say, then obviously you're not a witness -- either by sense of sight or of hearing -- of a plane crash.

So, chewy, hadn't your first duty, if you're going to challenge people, be that of posting up some proof that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville?

This thread has come forward with almost no proof of that assertion and very little else of substance. A cnn article -- cnn for goodness sake -- a wnd article, an inconclusive pbs transcript or two and one google screen capture as follows.

The cnn article contained the following dumb statement:

"The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, such as paper, nylon, thin nylon, things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. — "FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001..."

The google screen capture was this:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/93flight300yards.jpg

Look, posters, that's no way to treat a thread :boggled:

Can't you folks do better than that?

Look, let me do a little survey here. How many posters think a jetliner of some sort crashed in Shanksville PA?

And, how many of you think that the declaration that they found paper and nylon is a stupid thing to say about a jetliner crash?

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"


Paper as evidence that FL93 crashed:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

The FL 93 crash site:

http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg
Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.


chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

[carlitos]

jammonius, would you be willing to believe that this "evidence" exists in this thing called the "real world?" There are vast swaths of the "real world" that are not indexed by Google. Even today, in 2010, you need to pay extra for Google Scholar or go to a library** to read certain things. Really.

ETA -

**or call an airline, or call the NTSB, or call the FAA, or call the FBI, or go look for yourself, or...

[JimBenArm]

Normally, if someone wants proof of a plane crash, they go to the airlines and the FAA to get information.
However, for some reason, these sources are not good enough for these plane crashes. Why is that?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Twoofers are stupid.

[beachnut]

High speed impact the whole jet is there except for parts ejected 100 to 1000 feet away.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact5.jpg
With bodies buried 20 to 30 feet deep the impact speed with physics can be calculated. But 911 truth use lies, not physics to make up their moronic lies only morons can believe and repeat.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact3.jpg
Buried plane smashed and ejected parts from a high speed impact which 911 truth can't grasp due to complete ignorance in science and reality.

I worked crash sites and find the impact crater and debris of 93 to be consistent with a high speed high impact angle crash. Too bad 911 truth is evidence free and spewing lies. All trained experience aircraft accident investigator including myself understand the impact zone of 93 is reality. 911 truth can't be trained to do more than post lies.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/P200059-1.jpg
Flight 93, and it has never been refuted with facts; 911 makes up lies but have no facts and they can't do physics.
600 mph impact looks like this with all the ejected aircraft parts and parts of people all over.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
Only ignorant liars can ignore this evidence of a 600 mph impact.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
Aircraft parts from Flight 93 and all the Passenger DNA found in and around the impact crater.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg
Part of an engine buried because it was traveling at 600 mph. It belongs to Flight 93 found next to where all the DNA of the passengers and terrorists were found.

The passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes! They took action and they are the standard for figuring out 911.
911 truth can't figure out 911 after 8 years and the 911 truth remains evidence free and can only make up idiotic lies.

[jammonius]

jammonius, would you be willing to believe that this "evidence" exists in this thing called the "real world?" There are vast swaths of the "real world" that are not indexed by Google. Even today, in 2010, you need to pay extra for Google Scholar or go to a library** to read certain things. Really.

ETA -

**or call an airline, or call the NTSB, or call the FAA, or call the FBI, or go look for yourself, or...

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth? :covereyes

[BigAl]

chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

[carlitos]

Since you won't give me an explanation for what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, I'll just hang onto the myth, I guess.

[wargord]

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth? :covereyes

Lee Purbaugh stated he saw FL93 crash into the ground in Somerset County, PA. There, FL93 crashing in Somerset County, PA has been verified.

[twinstead]

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.


I'd be curious as to exactly what jammonius would accept as "PROOF" that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, because there sure is a hell of a lot of evidence that it did, everything from eye witnesses to DNA evidence to radar evidence to first responder evidence.

What the hell does he want?

[BigAl]

You are a troll. You a first-class troll with oak leaf clusters awarded for ignorance and arrogance as demonstrated to a panel of experts.

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

Any idiot can can't get something if he looks in the wrong place. Here it is.
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual93manifest.png


You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

Here it is.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Discussed : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924



You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Which was a tiny and not replaceable bit of information. The tapes that were cut up were backed up with other sources. Read Farmer, don't cherry-pick him.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth? :covereyes

You can't explain away the fact that parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found and DNA identifying most bodies with it. You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash. You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

[jammonius]

Normally, if someone wants proof of a plane crash, they go to the airlines and the FAA to get information.
However, for some reason, these sources are not good enough for these plane crashes. Why is that?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Twoofers are stupid.

jimbenarm,

It is as if you do not realize the airlines appear never to have issued passenger manifests for any 9/11 flight. One of the things posters here who affirm that jetliners crashed should do is produce official, validated manifests, instead of jumping up and down and engaging in righteous indignation.

So, point blank:

Can you produce a verified passenger manifest for Flight 93?

Hint: Good luck. Note: I am not here talking about lists gotten from newspapers, I am talking about validated passenger manifests. Do they exist?

Point blank for a second time.

You do know the FAA destroyed tapes and hid information, correct?

What information did FAA destroy? What ifnormation did FAA withhold?

The FAA destroyed tapes, lied, hid evidence and in other respects completely and totally misrepresented the truth of what happened on 9/11/01 such that the claim that jetliner crashes occurred cannot be proven reliably, precizely because of the FAA's deceit. One could say the FAA was incompetent, thus giving them the same label everyone else in authority was given.

But, the better interpretation is that the FAA was brilliant because they succeeded in obfuscating the fact that there were no jetliners involved in 9/11 in the first place.

Separate and apart from theory, the fact remains, the FAA lied, used deceit, destroyed records, withheld records and, in other respects, made their records and their accounts of what happened on 9/11 totally unreliable.

Isn't that a fine kettle of fish.

Here's a little background reading that might enable you to begin to get up to speed on the FAA's deception and tape destroying antics:

"Several air traffic controllers at the FAA’s New York Center and a union official representing them express concern that the controllers are going to be recorded recalling their experiences of the morning’s attacks, but are persuaded to go ahead with the recording. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; Washington Post, 5/7/2004] Mike McCormick, the New York Center manager, has directed that six controllers who communicated with, or tracked, the first two hijacked aircraft participate in a session where they are recorded giving their personal accounts of what happened. [Washington Post, 5/6/2004; Air Safety Week, 5/17/2004]
Controllers Apprehensive - According to McCormick, before the session commences there is a general concern among these controllers. He will later tell the 9/11 Commission that they “didn’t want to put things in a formal way that would be used in an investigation. There was also some worry about who would receive the tape.”
Local Union President Concerned - McCormick consults with Mark DiPalmo, the local president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)—the air traffic controllers’ union. DiPalmo is concerned because the tape recording of statements is not a standard procedure. McCormick assures him that the tape will be available only to law enforcement officers, will only serve as a temporary measure until written statements have been prepared, and the controllers will be able to use their taped statements to help them prepare written ones. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; New York Times, 5/6/2004] Ruth E. Marlin, the executive vice president of NATCA, will later say she cannot address the question of why DiPalmo wants the tape to be “temporary.” She will say, however, that if she were in his position, “my concern would be that if tapes were saved permanently, they might be subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, and then controllers would be subject to hearing their own voices recounted on television over and over again.” [Washington Post, 5/7/2004]
Controllers and Union President Consent - The controllers are reassured that the tape with their recorded statements on will not be used for disciplinary purposes, and will be strictly for use only by law enforcement personnel. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ] DiPalmo agrees to the recording of the controllers on the condition that the tape is only a temporary record until written statements are obtained, after which it should be destroyed. The recording session commences at 11:40 a.m. (see 11:40 a.m. September 11, 2001) and the resulting tape will be destroyed several months later (see Between December 2001 and February 2002). [US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ] "

"Investigators for the 9/11 Commission discover that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has withheld a large amount of documents from it about the day of the attacks and falsely claimed it had provided everything the Commission asked for (see August 2003). The discovery is made on a day when the Commission’s investigators begin interviewing air traffic controllers at centers on the East Coast and in the Midwest. John Farmer, the staffer who leads the Commission’s team dealing with this aspect of its work, is only a few minutes into interviews at the FAA’s Indianapolis Center when he realizes, in the words of author Philip Shenon, “just how much evidence the FAA had held back.” His interviewees tell him that there is “extensive information the Commission has not seen, including tape recordings of conversations between the individual air traffic controllers and the hijacked planes.” He also discovers that what the FAA has provided is merely the “accident package,” rather than the much larger “accident file.” Farmer is “furious” and contacts the Commission’s lawyer in Washington. Asked to explain the situation, the FAA rapidly admits there is other material and, within days, several boxes of new material, including the air traffic control tapes, arrive at the Commission’s offices. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 201-202] However, the Commission has lost confidence in the FAA and will issue it with a subpoena next month (see October 14, 2003)."

[AJM8125]

"The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, such as paper, nylon, thin nylon, things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. — "FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001..."
Look, posters, that's no way to treat a thread :boggled:

Can't you folks do better than that?

Look, let me do a little survey here. How many posters think a jetliner of some sort crashed in Shanksville PA?

And, how many of you think that the declaration that they found paper and nylon is a stupid thing to say about a jetliner crash?

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it? Take a look at this and get back to us. :rolleyes:

ff7h7Ll8Dl4

Thanks Walter Ego.

[jammonius]

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

Source your claim concerning flight data recorders and who analyzed them.

Source your dna claims and do not use freakin' newspaper accounts in doing so, either.

Also, do not use Dmort propaganda and please do not use the dna "experiment" and call that official dna reporting. That is especially true since the experiment confirmed it couldn't be certain of what it was identifying.

Source the other things you are saying that amount to some sort of claim that FL 93 was investigated and produced investigatory reports.

Now we're making some headway here.

You've made your claims, now source them.

[jammonius]

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it? Take a look at this and get back to us. :rolleyes:

ff7h7Ll8Dl4

Thanks Walter Ego.

Oh boy, I'm afraid we're going to get involved here in another FLAMMABLE - COMBUSTIBLE flap.

Let me ask, does anyone here consider it odd that the first people to arrive at a jetliner crash site could find paper, but no debris and no remains? Anyone at all?

As paper is thought to burn easily and to be easily destroyed in comparison with say, aluminum other forms of metal, hard plastic, not to mention alloys used for engines and so on, it can be considered odd that the main debris found was paper.

Jetliner crashes are not noteworty for producing paper as the first and most prominently mentioned form of debris.

Those who are not just a little bit nonplussed by the fact that paper was found, but not much else, should probably NOT be posting at a forum for skeptics, or so one would think.

However, there's an explanation for that, isn't there.

What posters here are really doing is trying to hold on desparately to the common myth of what happened on 9/11. Your capacities for skepticsm are probably fully intact, otherwise.

The emotional attachment to thei common myth of 9/11 is very strong, isn't it, posters?

[jammonius]

I'd be curious as to exactly what jammonius would accept as "PROOF" that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, because there sure is a hell of a lot of evidence that it did, everything from eye witnesses to DNA evidence to radar evidence to first responder evidence.

What the hell does he want?

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want. Keep in mind, until I showed up, the best evidence produced in the first 4 pages of this thread was a cnn clip that referenced "paper and nylon" and, apparently, not one poster found it necessary to question that source and that information for its reliability in proving a jetliner had crashed.

Is it asking too much to suggest that you think about whether proof of a jetliner crash is being offered up? (paper and nylon?)

[AJM8125]

Oh boy, I'm afraid we're going to get involved here in another FLAMMABLE - COMBUSTIBLE flap.

Let me ask, does anyone here consider it odd that the first people to arrive at a jetliner crash site could find paper, but no debris and no remains? Anyone at all?

As paper is thought to burn easily and to be easily destroyed in comparison with say, aluminum other forms of metal, hard plastic, not to mention alloys used for engines and so on, it can be considered odd that the main debris found was paper.

Jetliner crashes are not noteworty for producing paper as the first and most prominently mentioned form of debris.

Those who are not just a little bit nonplussed by the fact that paper was found, but not much else, should probably NOT be posting at a forum for skeptics, or so one would think.

However, there's an explanation for that, isn't there.

What posters here are really doing is trying to hold on desparately to the common myth of what happened on 9/11. Your capacities for skepticsm are probably fully intact, otherwise.

The emotional attachment to thei common myth of 9/11 is very strong, isn't it, posters?

That's a long way to go to dodge the question isn't it?

Who said nobody found debris or human remains?

[BigAl]

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want.

Can someone call up the links to all the Flight 93 pictures that were accepted by both the the defense and prosecution as real in the Moussaoui trial?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

[Garb]

So jam, were the cell phone calls faked?

If we ignore the "paper trail" (no pun intended) regarding the pieces found at the crash site and assume the crash didn't happen (and they just took some debris and buried it into the ground and mainly scattered burnt paper around the site thinking "if we put paper people will definitely buy a plane crash!") how could they fake a phone call from the plane to their loved ones? And why would they want to?

[beachnut]

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want. Keep in mind, until I showed up, the best evidence produced in the first 4 pages of this thread was a cnn clip that referenced "paper and nylon" and, apparently, not one poster found it necessary to question that source and that information for its reliability in proving a jetliner had crashed.

Is it asking too much to suggest that you think about whether proof of a jetliner crash is being offered up? (paper and nylon?)
Most your posts are off topic debunked junk from years ago.
If you have some evidence besides the moronic lies, please present it. But you don't and you will lost idiotic junk not related to much more than proof you can't figure out 911 after 8 years of failure and nut case ideas. you can't even to do the physics to save you from supporting idiots who made up the lies you spread out of ignorance.

You sure waste a lot of time spewing lies, lots of them.

more proof of 93, more aircraft parts.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
But you can't figure out what aircraft parts look like in a 600 mph impact you have DEW, and the failed physics of Leaphart on your side of fantasy and idiotic delusions.

How many more failed delusions do you have before you stop your quest to post dumber and dumber junk?

[jammonius]

You are a troll. You a first-class troll with oak leaf clusters awarded for ignorance and arrogance as demonstrated to a panel of experts.



You can't explain away the fact that parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found and DNA identifying most bodies with it. You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash. You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

Big Al,

As you know, the drill is if you make a claim, you have to source it.

You claim:

"...parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found..."

Please source those claims.

You claim:

"...DNA identifying most bodies with it..."

Prove it with validly sourced information.

You claim:

"You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash."

Prove that claim, keeping in mind the FAA's deceit.

You claim:

"You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since..."

That is a double dose of pure fallacy and here's why. People disappear for all sorts of reasons. You cannot presume jetliner crashes because people are said to have disappeared.

You have not proven what planes were involved by any identified plane part for any of the alleged crashes. Accordingly, you cannot presume what planes have not been seen. You must first prove what planes were involved.

[jammonius]

Can someone call up the links to all the Flight 93 pictures that were accepted by both the the defense and prosecution as real in the Moussaoui trial?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

Let me get this straight. Is Big Al about to offer up Zacarias Moussaoui as his source for what happened on 9/11, via his freakin' stipulation with the prosecution?

Say it ain't so, Big Al. You wouldn't reveal how weak your claim is by doing that, would you?

[BigAl]

Source your claim concerning flight data recorders and who analyzed them.

Source your dna claims and do not use freakin' newspaper accounts in doing so, either.

Also, do not use Dmort propaganda and please do not use the dna "experiment" and call that official dna reporting. That is especially true since the experiment confirmed it couldn't be certain of what it was identifying.

Source the other things you are saying that amount to some sort of claim that FL 93 was investigated and produced investigatory reports.

Now we're making some headway here.

You've made your claims, now source them.

9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1, plus the million or so pages of staff investigator's interview notes that have recently been released. MikeW, I believe is the expert on this. Sen him a PM.

[jammonius]

So jam, were the cell phone calls faked?

If we ignore the "paper trail" (no pun intended) regarding the pieces found at the crash site and assume the crash didn't happen (and they just took some debris and buried it into the ground and mainly scattered burnt paper around the site thinking "if we put paper people will definitely buy a plane crash!") how could they fake a phone call from the plane to their loved ones? And why would they want to?

Garb,

Cut the crap. If you've got some reliable cell phone data that you are claiming entitlement to rely on as proof then you offer it up via valid sourcing.

Stop the bull crap of trying to get away with pure, unsupported assumptions.

Demonstrate with proper sourcing what cell phone calls you are talking about, please?

And, stop conflating the cell phone calls with the lack of debris. The one has nothing to do with the other. Offering up sourcing for cell phones does not explain away a lack of debris. That point stands on its own merit.

You remind me of that 9/11 simulated narrator who said:

"There's another one" in reference to the shadow thingy explosion at Tower 2 seeking to conflate what no one had confirmed as a jetliner crash into the North Tower with such a crash. "Another one" indeed.

9/11 is one fallacy after another, posters, could more of you but realize it.

[dtugg]

So what you're saying is that everybody is lying? Literally thousands of people. Yeah, that makes much more sense than that the plane actually crashed there. If you're crazy.

[jammonius]

9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1, plus the million or so pages of staff investigator's interview notes that have recently been released. MikeW, I believe is the expert on this. Sen him a PM.

Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated and found to have been unreliable? If you're going to use parts of it that you think are valid, despite the overall repudiation of that report, then hadn't you ought to cite the specific parts of it that you claim are valid, despite the disrepute of the report in general?

Take your time. You can post up clear and concise sources for your claims.

Hey posters, I must say, you folks haven't given me much to refute yet.:eek:

[beachnut]

Please source those claims.

You claim:

Prove it with validly sourced information.

Prove that claim, keeping in mind the FAA's deceit.

That is a double dose of pure fallacy and here's why. People disappear for all sorts of reasons. You cannot presume jetliner crashes because people are said to have disappeared.

You have not proven what planes were involved by any identified plane part for any of the alleged crashes. Accordingly, you cannot presume what planes have not been seen. You must first prove what planes were involved.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11b.jpg

[dtugg]

Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated and found to have been unreliable?

Nope, that must have been in entirely in your imagination. I am sure that sort of thing happens all the time to you.

[jammonius]

So what you're saying is that everybody is lying? Literally thousands of people. Yeah, that makes much more sense than that the plane actually crashed there. If you're crazy.

dtugg,

As I said before, your posts reveal a lot about you. In this instance, you appear to be relying on the "everybody believes..." fallacy.

I thought we were a little bit beyond that, dtugg.

Earth to dtugg: I know damn well everybody believes the 9/11 myth. The whole point of this exercise is to engage in rational recognition that the proof of the assertion of jetliner crashes is lacking.

I am here daring posters, not daring, I am here requesting posters come forward with their best proof and best sources for their claims a jetliner, a Boeing 757, desginated Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pa. I am saying that I expect to be able to refute the claims that can be made with information that will, at a minimum, cast doubt on the reliability of the sources or the information that those claiming a crash occurred can show.

So far, very little sourced information has been provided.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, given the level of righteous indignation normally expressed by supporters of the common myth. I would have thought you folks would be ready to come forward with your best shots a bit faster than you are.

I'm waiting patiently, posters:boggled:

[BigAl]

You are a troll, first class with oak leaf clusters.

Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated

What do you mean "we", loon.

and found to have been unreliable? If you're going to use parts of it that you think are valid, despite the overall repudiation of that report, then hadn't you ought to cite the specific parts of it that you claim are valid, despite the disrepute of the report in general?

Take your time. You can post up clear and concise sources for your claims.

Hey posters, I must say, you folks haven't given me much to refute yet.:eek:

You can't point to a single fault in the report. Find the page and show us. Don't forget your precious citations.

www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

Until you can, go away.

[AJM8125]

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it?

I vaguely recall asking a question....

[dtugg]

dtugg,

As I said before, your posts reveal a lot about you. In this instance, you appear to be relying on the "everybody believes..." fallacy.

I thought we were a little bit beyond that, dtugg.

Earth to dtugg: I know damn well everybody believes the 9/11 myth. The whole point of this exercise is to engage in rational recognition that the proof of the assertion of jetliner crashes is lacking.

I am here daring posters, not daring, I am here requesting posters come forward with their best proof and best sources for their claims a jetliner, a Boeing 757, desginated Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pa. I am saying that I expect to be able to refute the claims that can be made with information that will, at a minimum, cast doubt on the reliability of the sources or the information that those claiming a crash occurred can show.

So far, very little sourced information has been provided.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, given the level of righteous indignation normally expressed by supporters of the common myth. I would have thought you folks would be ready to come forward with your best shots a bit faster than you are.

I'm waiting patiently, posters:boggled:

Honestly, I am not interested in having a rational discussion with you because you have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are not capable of reason. After all, you believe that some giant spaced based laser destroyed the WTC. And honestly that is one of the top three craziest things I have ever heard.

[AJM8125]

And honestly that is one of the top three craziest things I have ever heard.

Holy carp. what are the other two?

[jammonius]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11b.jpg

What the **** is that, a part of horse carrier?
Breach of rule 10 removed. Do not deliberately misspell words to get around the autocensor.

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?

[carlitos]

My inconsistently-followed rule about engaging 9/11 "truthers" who won't affirmatively state what DID HAPPEN is a good rule.

[beachnut]

Like all 911 liars you are spewing lies and junk. Off topic.

Get back on topic or be reported for being off topic for the last few off topic posts. Start your own lies thread, moronic lies and fantasy claims using faulty logic.

Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated and found to have been unreliable? If you're going to use parts of it that you think are valid, despite the overall repudiation of that report, then hadn't you ought to cite the specific parts of it that you claim are valid, despite the disrepute of the report in general?

Take your time. You can post up clear and concise sources for your claims.

Hey posters, I must say, you folks haven't given me much to refute yet.:eek:

This is topic; you like to spew lies and make up junk ideas based on lies, but the topic is below, get back on topic if you can take the time out of SPAMMING lies in each failed evidence free post.


According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole aleady existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is rediculas.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.

Just a reminder you have failed to refute anything and are off topic spewing lies.


Wait there is no plane for you so you have zero, zip, to say about the shoot down idiotic delusion.

Okay prove the parts were planted and the DNA. No you have to refute it with evidence not your stupid statements of woo. Go ahead try some logical investigation techniques instead of posting lies, real dumb ones at that. Where do you get the trash you spew?

Get on topic or be reported. simple stuff, this means you have to come up with evidence.

[dtugg]

Holy carp. what are the other two?

In no particular order I would say the top three are:

Giant laser from outer space destroyed the WTC
The Earth is flat
Nuclear weapons don't exist

[jammonius]

Most your posts are off topic debunked junk from years ago.
If you have some evidence besides the moronic lies, please present it. But you don't and you will lost idiotic junk not related to much more than proof you can't figure out 911 after 8 years of failure and nut case ideas. you can't even to do the physics to save you from supporting idiots who made up the lies you spread out of ignorance.

You sure waste a lot of time spewing lies, lots of them.

more proof of 93, more aircraft parts.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
But you can't figure out what aircraft parts look like in a 600 mph impact you have DEW, and the failed physics of Leaphart on your side of fantasy and idiotic delusions.

How many more failed delusions do you have before you stop your quest to post dumber and dumber junk?

beachnut,

You've got this pattern of posting up inconclusive photos, beachnut. What on earth do you claim your photo stands for proof of? There is not one thing in that photo that can be attributable either exclusively or even reliably to a plane crash.

Do you for one moment claim otherwise, beachnut? Let me ask you this. Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up.

That's all I'm asking. Prove your claims with sourced material.

For example airdisaster.com provides photo proof of most plane crashes that occur. Needless to say, 9/11 was an exception and airdisaster.com did not provide its normal reporting for any of the alleged 9/11 crashes. But, just by way of example, here's how airdisaster.com photos typical plane crashes. This one is of the recent AirFrance crash of the flight from Rio to Paris:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/afr447/1.jpg

I know it's harder for 9/11 because not one jetliner tail survived any of those four crashes, something that is quite rare, but hey, that's 9/11 for you. Almost nothing that was supposed to happen, happened. Literally!!

[Garb]

Garb,

Cut the crap. If you've got some reliable cell phone data that you are claiming entitlement to rely on as proof then you offer it up via valid sourcing.

Stop the bull crap of trying to get away with pure, unsupported assumptions.

Demonstrate with proper sourcing what cell phone calls you are talking about, please?

And, stop conflating the cell phone calls with the lack of debris. The one has nothing to do with the other. Offering up sourcing for cell phones does not explain away a lack of debris. That point stands on its own merit.

You remind me of that 9/11 simulated narrator who said:

"There's another one" in reference to the shadow thingy explosion at Tower 2 seeking to conflate what no one had confirmed as a jetliner crash into the North Tower with such a crash. "Another one" indeed.

9/11 is one fallacy after another, posters, could more of you but realize it.

There is no crap. You ignore the evidence that was put there, ignore the amount of people it would take to set up such a ridiculous conspiracy, ignore the cell phone calls (and I mean all of them where the passengers called their loved ones and those same loved ones believed it was them), ignore the black box found at the scene, and all the other data supporting it.

Paper normally comes with airplanes. Finding paper at a crash site that dealt with an airplane would make sense. Other parts of the plane WERE found along with the paper.

And if we ignore that there are the cell phone calls.

And if we ignore that there is the black box.

And if we ignore that there is the witness testimony.

And around and around we go.

So what is the problem here?

[Garb]

What the tuck is that, a part of horse carrier?

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?

Ladies and gentlemen, the poster above just compared this:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11b.jpg

To this:

http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/


I give your trolling attempt a 7/10. Goodbye.

[carlitos]

Well, who am I going to believe?

- An insane truther on the internet
- A trained flight accident investigator / pilot / engineer

Hmm...

[BigAl]

You are a first class loon.

beachnut,

You've got this pattern of posting up inconclusive photos, beachnut. What on earth do you claim your photo stands for proof of? There is not one thing in that photo that can be attributable either exclusively or even reliably to a plane crash.

Do you for one moment claim otherwise, beachnut? Let me ask you this. Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up.

That's all I'm asking. Prove your claims with sourced material.

Tell it to the several thousand people who either worked the crash site or the forensics investigation who would be very surprised to hear what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Any of these people could have blown the whistle on the fraud you claim happened. In 9 years, nobody has and you insult these people by making your accusations.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

[beachnut]

What the tuck is that, a part of horse carrier?

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?
It is a fuselage, the only large jet airliner that crashed in PA on 911 was flight 93; making only morons incapable of a positive identification; you are not a moron, so you are left with a dilemma?

Your ignorance is not limited to 911, it is broad and encompasses general knowledge and exposes your poor research skills and lack of logical arguments. No wonder 8 years is not enough time for you to figure out the simple parts of 911.

You debunked your own moronic post; good job you are exactly like the other failed 911 conspiracy theorists you are self-debunking.

With one post you prove you can't figure out much of anything related to 911. You should sign up at the pilots for truth forum where they love lies and idiotic junk abou 911.

Instead of you posting on topic you expose your inability to identify an aircraft fuselage section. Good job, you exceed qualification to be a cult member and join the liars in the 911 conspiracy theory club, where no idea is too stupid to be rejected, including DEW, and other idiotic insane ideas.

[AJM8125]

I know it's harder for 9/11 because not one jetliner tail survived any of those four crashes, something that is quite rare,

Source please.

[jammonius]

Like all 911 liars you are spewing lies and junk. Off topic.

Get back on topic or be reported for being off topic for the last few off topic posts. Start your own lies thread, moronic lies and fantasy claims using faulty logic.



This is topic; you like to spew lies and make up junk ideas based on lies, but the topic is below, get back on topic if you can take the time out of SPAMMING lies in each failed evidence free post.




Just a reminder you have failed to refute anything and are off topic spewing lies.


Wait there is no plane for you so you have zero, zip, to say about the shoot down idiotic delusion.

Okay prove the parts were planted and the DNA. No you have to refute it with evidence not your stupid statements of woo. Go ahead try some logical investigation techniques instead of posting lies, real dumb ones at that. Where do you get the trash you spew?

Get on topic or be reported. simple stuff, this means you have to come up with evidence.

Well, I certainly don't want to go off topic. I thought if one asserts a plane either crashed or got shot down, it was implicit, to the point of being explicit, that a crash had to be proven and not assumed.

However, I know we're dealing with 9/11 believers. For such people, it may not be necessary to prove what happened on 9/11. So, I'll stop here and allow the thread to get back on topic, as it sees fit.

For those to whom I asked for sources of their various claims, you're off the hook.

Don't source anything.

I'll look for other threads where I might be able to ask for sourcing of claims without going off topic.

all the best

[jammonius]

Source please.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/

[jammonius]

It is a fuselage, the only large jet airliner that crashed in PA on 911 was flight 93; making only morons incapable of a positive identification; you are not a moron, so you are left with a dilemma?

Your ignorance is not limited to 911, it is broad and encompasses general knowledge and exposes your poor research skills and lack of logical arguments. No wonder 8 years is not enough time for you to figure out the simple parts of 911.

You debunked your own moronic post; good job you are exactly like the other failed 911 conspiracy theorists you are self-debunking.

With one post you prove you can't figure out much of anything related to 911. You should sign up at the pilots for truth forum where they love lies and idiotic junk abou 911.

Instead of you posting on topic you expose your inability to identify an aircraft fuselage section. Good job, you exceed qualification to be a cult member and join the liars in the 911 conspiracy theory club, where no idea is too stupid to be rejected, including DEW, and other idiotic insane ideas.

Your fallacies are showing.

Do you have a photo showing when and where the alleged "fuselage" was found? It does not appear to have been on the scene of that large photo you displayed, why is that?

[jammonius]

You are a first class loon.



Tell it to the several thousand people who either worked the crash site or the forensics investigation who would be very surprised to hear what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Any of these people could have blown the whistle on the fraud you claim happened. In 9 years, nobody has and you insult these people by making your accusations.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

Another "everybody knows" fallacy. OK, Big Al, I give up. You just aren't going to source your claims, are you?

I did need to respond to these last few posts, before signing off. I do not want to be accused of moving this thread off topic, so I will stop here. But, if you guys keep on responding, then I might be required to post up.

I'm willing to stop so as not to veer off topic. I've let you guys off the hook and have not asked for sources.

So, are we agreed to call it a day?

[BigAl]

Well, I certainly don't want to go off topic. I thought if one asserts a plane either crashed or got shot down, it was implicit, to the point of being explicit, that a crash had to be proven and not assumed.

However, I know we're dealing with 9/11 believers. For such people, it may not be necessary to prove what happened on 9/11. So, I'll stop here and allow the thread to get back on topic, as it sees fit.

For those to whom I asked for sources of their various claims, you're off the hook.


9/11 Commission Report
Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Sumner
Report from Ground Zero by Smith


Those are good for a start. If you find something wrong in any, please let us know. Be sure to provide the page number.

[AJM8125]

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/

Oh dear, you're not responding to me with anything other that's 100% set-in-stone-god's-honest-verifiable-truth are you? That would be a shame.

[BigAl]

Another "everybody knows" fallacy. OK, Big Al, I give up. You just aren't going to source your claims, are you?

I did.


I did need to respond to these last few posts, before signing off. I do not want to be accused of moving this thread off topic, so I will stop here. But, if you guys keep on responding, then I might be required to post up.

I'm willing to stop so as not to veer off topic. I've let you guys off the hook and have not asked for sources.

So, are we agreed to call it a day?

Who is this "we" you keep speaking of. Are you off your meds ok?

[beachnut]

For example airdisaster.com provides photo proof of most plane crashes that occur. Needless to say, 9/11 was an exception and airdisaster.com did not provide its normal reporting for any of the alleged 9/11 crashes.

The NTSB does accidents, the police do crime.

... the goal of AirDisaster.Com
AirDisaster.Com began operations in 1996 as a small website dedicated to aviation safety information under the name 'The Aviation Accident Site.' They do accidents, not crime. (but do they have 911 stuff? yes, can't trust anyone)

There are currently 2,519 photographs, representing 519 accidents, in the gallery
Our latest expert was looking for crime photos at an accident web site.
And he missed it.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/12.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/wtc/2.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/2.shtml
They also post photos from crimes.
Aircraft crashes documented at airdisaser.com.

Your fallacies are showing.

Do you have a photo showing when and where the alleged "fuselage" was found? It does not appear to have been on the scene of that large photo you displayed, why is that? It was from Flight 93 crash area; and you can't prove it was not because you can't identify it. Due to your lack of knowledge you say it was horse trailer. That make you not an expert at much more than being wrong about everything. You failed to prove it was horse trailer, and you can't refute it was found near the imapct area. 8 years to put togther your fantasy and you can't identify part of an airliner. Is this your A-game?

It is a fuselage section, either you have knowledge and you agree or you lack knowledge and make up moronic lies and call it a horse trailer. Which is it, are you capable of rational thought or do you make up lies and spread false information? So far you are in the make up lies business, how do you intend to back out of being a poster of pure nut case discombobulated poppycock?

That photo is from Flight 93 the only plane to go down in Pennsylvania on 911 of that size. Only a morons can't identify the aircraft with the evidence available; and I agree you are not a moron, you just post lies about 911. The fact it is Flight 93 is backed up by the FDR, RADAR, and DNA of the passengers is proof it is flight 93. And I know you will never refute the DNA evidence because you can't even find it; so you can't start to refute evidence you can't even find out of ignorance, the judge will laugh you out of court and your the Pulitzer Prize is not granted to the baseless delusions and lies you post.

If you need help with rational questions you can get help here. So far you post lies and poppycock and act like a kid who can't learn.

This is skeptic forum, are you at the wrong place, you don't hold any of the lies you post without evidence to any scrutiny. Do you think you will ever use evidence to bake your claims which are definitely delusions without any evidence. Do you know what evidence is? You know FDR, DNA, RADAR, and the aircraft parts from Flight 93 exactly where the RADAR track stops, and the FDR confirms the speed of impact, which is evident by the damage to the aircraft? Any clues on where your evidence is lost at? Did you dog eat it?


If you have evidence to deny Flight 93 crashed in PA why do you hold it and keep it a secret (you don't have any)? Post your evidence, and stop posting proof of your ignorance by claiming the fuselage is a horse trailer. That was a stupid post.

What do your friends in the Navy call your delusions on 911?

[A W Smith]

What the tuck is that, a part of horse carrier?

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?


"Horse Carrier" windows slide open. Those of aircraft do not. And you can see that in the image you posted. Don't panic jammonius. You can log off and stick your head in the sand, and tell yourself there were no planes on 9/11 four times.

You bring up incredulity that paper documents and articles of clothing survived the aircraft impacts Jammonius, Tell us. How fast must you throw a document or cloth into the earth to destroy it?

You are troubled that the investigators will not release specific documentation verifying DNA or serial numbers for aircraft parts to your satisfaction. Anyone here can see that you are attempting to use an argument from ignorance logical fallacy (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Ignorance) to cast doubt on tiny aspects of the events of 9/11 and qualify your 9/11 conspiracy.

Your manifests

Flight 93
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight93Manifest_a.jpg

Flight 11

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_b.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_c.jpg

Flight 77

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_a.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_b.jpg

Flight 175

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight175Manifest_a-1.jpg

[TruthersLie]

I love truthers with their arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
Hi chewy,
<snip>

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"


Paper as evidence that FL93 crashed:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

The FL 93 crash site:

http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg

chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

Lets look up PSA 1771, a jet which struck the ground in a similar manner.

QrT6joi4gco
aMkWFIoVBXQ

What do they say about what they found? Oh... really just paper at the crash scene.

Absolutely amazing. It would help if you did any real investagoogling. ur skillz suck.

[TruthersLie]

dtugg,

As I said before, your posts reveal a lot about you. In this instance, you appear to be relying on the "everybody believes..." fallacy.

I thought we were a little bit beyond that, dtugg.

Earth to dtugg: I know damn well everybody believes the 9/11 myth. The whole point of this exercise is to engage in rational recognition that the proof of the assertion of jetliner crashes is lacking.

I am here daring posters, not daring, I am here requesting posters come forward with their best proof and best sources for their claims a jetliner, a Boeing 757, desginated Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pa. I am saying that I expect to be able to refute the claims that can be made with information that will, at a minimum, cast doubt on the reliability of the sources or the information that those claiming a crash occurred can show.

So far, very little sourced information has been provided.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, given the level of righteous indignation normally expressed by supporters of the common myth. I would have thought you folks would be ready to come forward with your best shots a bit faster than you are.

I'm waiting patiently, posters:boggled:

Using your methodology, please prove to me that the statue of liberty exists. Don't use crappy newspaper articles, or anecdotes. PROVE IT TO ME!!!

how do you know that the eiffel tower exists? OR germs? Or anythign else?

come on now, PROVE they exist.:boggled:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hi chewy,

I've looked over the posts in response to this FL93 thread and it seems like it might need a little help. Oh, forget it, no need to be discreet. You guys never seem hungup on discretion in response to me, so let me give it to you straight, no chaser:

This thread needs a kick in the @ss if it's ever going to amount to anything.

First of all, chewy, if you're going to challenge people, then you need to come with more than your little 20 miles away anecdote where the very most you apear to be able to say is "(w)hen I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that..."

Well, chewy, if that's all you've got to say, then obviously you're not a witness -- either by sense of sight or of hearing -- of a plane crash.

So, chewy, hadn't your first duty, if you're going to challenge people, be that of posting up some proof that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville?

This thread has come forward with almost no proof of that assertion and very little else of substance. A cnn article -- cnn for goodness sake -- a wnd article, an inconclusive pbs transcript or two and one google screen capture as follows.

The cnn article contained the following dumb statement:

"The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, such as paper, nylon, thin nylon, things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. — "FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001..."

The google screen capture was this:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/93flight300yards.jpg

Look, posters, that's no way to treat a thread :boggled:

Can't you folks do better than that?

Look, let me do a little survey here. How many posters think a jetliner of some sort crashed in Shanksville PA?

And, how many of you think that the declaration that they found paper and nylon is a stupid thing to say about a jetliner crash?

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"


Paper as evidence that FL93 crashed:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

The FL 93 crash site:

http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg

chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

Look you little ingrate, I live only 20 miles North of Shanksville in Johnstown, Pa. You can't tell me to prove that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. You never visited the town nor did you look for anything online about Johnstown. Flight 93 was instructed to land at Johnstown Airport by the ATC, they didn't. You're 100% WRONG!

[JimBenArm]

jimbenarm,

It is as if you do not realize the airlines appear never to have issued passenger manifests for any 9/11 flight. One of the things posters here who affirm that jetliners crashed should do is produce official, validated manifests, instead of jumping up and down and engaging in righteous indignation.

So, point blank:

Can you produce a verified passenger manifest for Flight 93?

Hint: Good luck. Note: I am not here talking about lists gotten from newspapers, I am talking about validated passenger manifests. Do they exist?

Point blank for a second time.

You do know the FAA destroyed tapes and hid information, correct?

What information did FAA destroy? What ifnormation did FAA withhold?

The FAA destroyed tapes, lied, hid evidence and in other respects completely and totally misrepresented the truth of what happened on 9/11/01 such that the claim that jetliner crashes occurred cannot be proven reliably, precizely because of the FAA's deceit. One could say the FAA was incompetent, thus giving them the same label everyone else in authority was given.

But, the better interpretation is that the FAA was brilliant because they succeeded in obfuscating the fact that there were no jetliners involved in 9/11 in the first place.

Separate and apart from theory, the fact remains, the FAA lied, used deceit, destroyed records, withheld records and, in other respects, made their records and their accounts of what happened on 9/11 totally unreliable.

Isn't that a fine kettle of fish.

Here's a little background reading that might enable you to begin to get up to speed on the FAA's deception and tape destroying antics:

"Several air traffic controllers at the FAA’s New York Center and a union official representing them express concern that the controllers are going to be recorded recalling their experiences of the morning’s attacks, but are persuaded to go ahead with the recording. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; Washington Post, 5/7/2004] Mike McCormick, the New York Center manager, has directed that six controllers who communicated with, or tracked, the first two hijacked aircraft participate in a session where they are recorded giving their personal accounts of what happened. [Washington Post, 5/6/2004; Air Safety Week, 5/17/2004]
Controllers Apprehensive - According to McCormick, before the session commences there is a general concern among these controllers. He will later tell the 9/11 Commission that they “didn’t want to put things in a formal way that would be used in an investigation. There was also some worry about who would receive the tape.”
Local Union President Concerned - McCormick consults with Mark DiPalmo, the local president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)—the air traffic controllers’ union. DiPalmo is concerned because the tape recording of statements is not a standard procedure. McCormick assures him that the tape will be available only to law enforcement officers, will only serve as a temporary measure until written statements have been prepared, and the controllers will be able to use their taped statements to help them prepare written ones. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; New York Times, 5/6/2004] Ruth E. Marlin, the executive vice president of NATCA, will later say she cannot address the question of why DiPalmo wants the tape to be “temporary.” She will say, however, that if she were in his position, “my concern would be that if tapes were saved permanently, they might be subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, and then controllers would be subject to hearing their own voices recounted on television over and over again.” [Washington Post, 5/7/2004]
Controllers and Union President Consent - The controllers are reassured that the tape with their recorded statements on will not be used for disciplinary purposes, and will be strictly for use only by law enforcement personnel. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ] DiPalmo agrees to the recording of the controllers on the condition that the tape is only a temporary record until written statements are obtained, after which it should be destroyed. The recording session commences at 11:40 a.m. (see 11:40 a.m. September 11, 2001) and the resulting tape will be destroyed several months later (see Between December 2001 and February 2002). [US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ] "

"Investigators for the 9/11 Commission discover that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has withheld a large amount of documents from it about the day of the attacks and falsely claimed it had provided everything the Commission asked for (see August 2003). The discovery is made on a day when the Commission’s investigators begin interviewing air traffic controllers at centers on the East Coast and in the Midwest. John Farmer, the staffer who leads the Commission’s team dealing with this aspect of its work, is only a few minutes into interviews at the FAA’s Indianapolis Center when he realizes, in the words of author Philip Shenon, “just how much evidence the FAA had held back.” His interviewees tell him that there is “extensive information the Commission has not seen, including tape recordings of conversations between the individual air traffic controllers and the hijacked planes.” He also discovers that what the FAA has provided is merely the “accident package,” rather than the much larger “accident file.” Farmer is “furious” and contacts the Commission’s lawyer in Washington. Asked to explain the situation, the FAA rapidly admits there is other material and, within days, several boxes of new material, including the air traffic control tapes, arrive at the Commission’s offices. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 201-202] However, the Commission has lost confidence in the FAA and will issue it with a subpoena next month (see October 14, 2003)."
All this just to prove twoofers are stupid?
You could have done it with half the words. As you have in the past.

[jammonius]

"Horse Carrier" windows slide open. Those of aircraft do not. And you can see that in the image you posted. Don't panic jammonius. You can log off and stick your head in the sand, and tell yourself there were no planes on 9/11 four times.

You bring up incredulity that paper documents and articles of clothing survived the aircraft impacts Jammonius, Tell us. How fast must you throw a document or cloth into the earth to destroy it?

You are troubled that the investigators will not release specific documentation verifying DNA or serial numbers for aircraft parts to your satisfaction. Anyone here can see that you are attempting to use an argument from ignorance logical fallacy (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Ignorance) to cast doubt on tiny aspects of the events of 9/11 and qualify your 9/11 conspiracy.

Your manifests

Flight 93
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight93Manifest_a.jpg

Flight 11

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_b.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_c.jpg

Flight 77

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_a.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_b.jpg

Flight 175

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight175Manifest_a-1.jpg

AW,

This is to acknowledge, with gratitude, your reasoned and supported response. I wish other posters here would do the same.

Let me respond to your post as follows in reverse order of your presentation:

The manifests:

(1)The lists are not authenticated by a stamp or signature or anything that reveals their source or any reason why they should be deemed authentic.

(2) Neither the FBI nor any other investigatory agency has ever publicly acknowledged these lists as the "authentic" or "original" passenger lists. For instance, you need to consider that fact that the lists you posted up were not used at the Moussaoui trial, where the FBI - instead - provided a graphic that shows the passenger names and their seat numbers. Let me quickly add, I am not here accrediting the Moussaoui exhibits as being good or reliable, I am merely saying that the lists you posted up would be the TYPE of lists that WOULD be used as evidence, instead of the graphics that were put forward at the Moussaoui trial.

Given the emotional attachment that 9/11 causes, I suspect I will have to repeat and clarify the above statement about the absence of your lists from the Moussaoui exhibits or from any other source a couple of times before people might be able to get it. That is how 9/11 discussion works.

Here, I'll put it another way and ask you a question: Where have your lists been used as evidence in any formal setting?

(3) Note the bad quality of the photo copies, suggesting that these are copies of other photocopies and are therefore unreliable as well as unauthenticated. You know what happens at trials when documents are offered into evidence, right? The side opposing the admission of the documents gets the chance to question their authenticity, right?

Do you consider what I am doing here to be fair comment on your lists that is in the nature of questioning or challenging their authenticity?

Do you acknowledge that you have the burden of showing that the documents are authentic if you are offering them as being real and valid?

(4) This thread focuses in particular on Flight 93. Note that the UA93 list was printed on Oct. 4, 2002. Can you please state from where that printing was obtained? By whom was it obtained? Who printed it on that date and to whom was it sent?

(5) Note that at least four of names were published in media between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 14, 2001 as suspected hijackers, but they do not appear on these lists, including the Bukhari brothers, Amer Kamfar and Mosear Caned (ph.). One cannot assume that CNN or other such media would publish names that do not appear on some FBI documents. Accordingly, there exists that anamoly that casts doubt on later produced lists, like yours, that just so happen to match only the most recent pronouncements. Mind you, I am not saying this anamoly cannot be explained, I am only saying it is an anamoly that must be explained by those offering up the lists as being authentic.

(6) Note that according to CNN of 14. September 2001, Hani Hanjour was not on the original passenger manifest of AA77 "because he may not have had a ticket." Yet on this computer print-out his name appears. How that anamoly resolved requires explanation from anyone who claims the list you provided is authentic.

Once again, thank you for posting those lists. They are helpful in furthering reasoned discussion of the topic of passenger lists.

Skeptic wiki

I support your thought of having skeptic wiki in mind, thank you for doing that. However, I think you have used the wrong page. The page that more properly fits this discussion is the burden of proof one:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

I am not here "arguing from ignorance." Rather, and this has been clear all along, I think, I am pointing out that those who claim jetliners were hijacked and crashed on 9/11 do not bother to offer up proof of their claim. It is, after all, their claim. It is not divinely revealed truth. Rather, it basically comes from teevee, which is not known for being a medium that projects truth very often.

Here is a particular quote from skepticwiki that I would call to your attention:

"In law the burden of proof refers to the obligation of one participant in an action to prove allegations. In less formal contexts, the phrase is often used to describe the different degrees of evidence required for a hypothetical dispassionate and rational observer to believe one's claims. For example, in scientific debate, the less a priori reasonable a claim is, the greater the amount and quality of evidence that will typically need to be presented before one's claim is believed.

In the above quote, three different settings are mentioned: law, less formal contexts and scientific debate. It doesn't matter much which context you envision this discussion to be in. For my part, I think scientific debate might be applicable. I note, too, that the proposition that 4 jetliners were hijacked by people who had no experience flying jetliners who then successfully navigated them from well beyond the horizon, to hit the WTC and the Pentagon strains credulity and must, therefore, be subjected to a lot of valid evidence, all as specifically mentioned in the above quote.

Note, too, that on the day in question, hijackings were being simulated in military war games. That factor raises the burden of proof on those claiming any such thing happened to an even higher degree. As does the fact that the FAA lied, hid and destroyed evidence.

DNA and Serial number of parts:

Talk about using fallacies. In questioning my calling for proof of DNA and proof of jetliner parts you make it sound as if I am being unreasonably demanding. That is rich, AW. You appear, without being specific, to be appealing to an emotional premise here that goes like this:

9/11 was so painful. Think of the victims. Oh, my my, now don't ask us to prove anything because it was just so horrible.

Is that what you were implying in your attempt to paint me as being unreasonable for asking for proof of authenticity in DNA and plane part claims? If so, that tactic has been used time and time again in 9/11 world and you are not unique in doing so.

I here assert that doing crap like that is a blatant tactic of falsification and has nothing whatever to do with sympathy for victims. It is the opposite. It uses victims to falsify. AW, I am not here accusing you of doing that. Mind you, however, those who post here do not hesitate to accuse people like me of all sorts of things, all the time. I think you can see that being thought of as not having feelings for victims stings, doesn't it?

So, why do proponents of the common myth do that?

Survival of paper and clothing:

You are burden shifting. Your side has the burden of proving a plane crash. When a passport of an alleged "terrorist" survives a plane crash where virtually nothing else is seen, not even the ubiquitous tail section of the jetliner itself, that find strains credulity because it is "too good to be true" and certainly far too convenient for words.

Now, I think we can agree to disagree on this. You are apparently willing to stand on and by the proposition that finding paper, including a "terrorist's passport" at a jetliner crash site where virtually nothing else was seen visibly to have survived, no wreckage and no remains, accoring to those first on the scene, is believable.

I contend it is not and will, instead, draw the conclusion that since first responders saw neither wreckage nor remains, ergo, a jetliner did not crash.

Horse carrier windows versus jetliner windows:

The image posted seemed to be perfectly flat to me and therefore inconsistent with jetliner windows that are curved. Once again, the way to have resolved this matter would have been to show a plane part identification number. Do you agree that is the way to prove existence of a jetliner part?


Panic:

Reasoned discussion does not give rise to a need for panic. The facts are what they are and the fallacies are what they are. We are here examining information to try to determine what the information can properly be said to stand for. Believe it or not, I have no vested interest in being "right" or "wrong." In 9/11 world, one is practically mandated to agree with the common myth in order not to have to examine the possibility that one may controlled by forces that are indescribably vicious. It is almost impossible to question 9/11 without provoking a very strong emotional reaction.

So, no, there is no panic. The reality of 9/11 consists in the emotion that it generates. Facts and reason are secondary considerations, at best.

[BigAl]

AW,

This is to acknowledge, with gratitude, your reasoned and supported response. I wish other posters here would do the same.

Let me respond to your post as follows in reverse order of your presentation:

The manifests:

(1)The lists are not authenticated by a stamp or signature or anything that reveals their source or any reason why they should be deemed authentic.


19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 passenger jets and crashed them into two towers, the Pentagon and a corn field. Keep that in mind when you demand links. Not all information is on the Internets.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18409)

[twinstead]

jammonius the only way you will be taken seriously is if you apply the same standards to any of the evidence you present (whenever you happen to provide some) as you do to the evidence we present.

Until then you're just hand waving.

[jammonius]

Posters,

In my opinion, AW Smith has come up with the most detailed attempt to prove Fl93 was hijacked and crashed. Permit me to suggest we focus on AW's post for the time being. It is not that I am ignoring Big Al and, especially, chewy, because chewy started this thread. Rather, I think I need to deal with AW's post a bit, before responding to Big Al and chewy, among others.

If AW doesn't respond in a couple of hours, chewy, I will address your post where you referred to me as an "ingrate." Hint: It would behoove you to get your facts straight on what is said to have happened at Shanksville. Be ready.

[BigAl]

Posters,

In my opinion, AW Smith has come up with the most detailed attempt to prove Fl93 was hijacked and crashed.

Troll.

[twinstead]

jammonius, are you telling me that this is the first time you have ever seen the evidence that AW presented to you? Dude. This is basic stuff. The evidence that 93 crashed into that field in Penn is HUGE, and in the public domain for all to see and scrutinize.

[A W Smith]

Your handwave, as expected. When presented with manifests you invoke :

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts)

Originally Posted by jammonius http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5630830#post5630830)
AW,

This is to acknowledge, with gratitude, your reasoned and supported response. I wish other posters here would do the same.

Let me respond to your post as follows in reverse order of your presentation:

The manifests:

(1)The lists are not authenticated by a stamp or signature or anything that reveals their source or any reason why they should be deemed authentic.



i have never seen a "stamp" or "signature" on any trial exhibit. Such a mark would classify as an alteration of a document and make it ineligible for trial.

Evidence that flight 93 crashed in Somerset County pa was presented at trial. and was uncontested by the defense. Despite your "Horse Carriage" protests.

P200057 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200057.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200058 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200058.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200059 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200059.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset, County Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200060 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html) Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200061 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200062 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200063 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200063.html) Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200064 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200064.html) Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200065 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200065.html) Photograph of the cockpit voice recorder found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200066 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200066.html) Photograph of the flight data recorder found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200068 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200068.html) Photograph of the driver's license of John Talignani found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200069 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200069.html) Photograph of the personal effects of CeeCee Lyles found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed

[carlitos]

Really. I fly almost every week, and I occasionally see the attendant printing the manifests. That's what they look like. There isn't some wax seal attached to them, with the King's signature or whatever. Just white thermal printer paper.

[ElMondoHummus]

Good grief. The manifests are barely scratching the surface of the evidence about FL93. There are all the pieces relevant to UA93 in the Moussaoui evidence roster (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html). Let's not forget the data that forms the flight path study (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm). Or the cell/airphone calls (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/UA93phonecallscopy.jpg/UA93phonecallscopy-full;init:.jpg), which in and of themselves actually comprise both electronic evidence (the call records) as well as witness testimony (the airphone operator staff). I haven't even gotten into the witnesses, the radar data, or the cleanup crew testimonies.

It's ridiculous to try to claim that the evidence for FL93's crash is weak or nonexistent. That betrays a complete lack of understanding of what evidence exists. Even these few links are merely the surface of it.

Gravy summarized a list of evidence available on the web; it covers 3 web pages, and is full of links:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

Ref put together some stuff too:
http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/flight93.htm

And there's Mike W's links:
http://911myths.com/html/flight_93_links.html

And as I said above, don't forget the Moussaoui trial evidence roster:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

This isn't even debatable. The preponderance of the evidence clearly puts UA93 at Shanksville, and lays out why it crashed there. No silly arguments to the contrary can overcome that.

[tsig]

. The reality of 9/11 consists in the emotion that it generates. Facts and reason are secondary considerations, at best.

Nice summation of trutherdom.

Remember "we don't need facts we need doubts".

[BigAl]

Posters,

In my opinion, AW Smith has come up with the most detailed attempt to prove Fl93 was hijacked and crashed.

The ugly part of jammonius's crap claims and frivolous demands, at least for me is that I had a work mate die on Flight 93. He made one of the phone calls. The wife and kids haven't heard from him since 9/11.

His name was Ed Felt. R.I.P.

I wonder where jammonius thinks he went to. To the extent that the wife knows about the "Truth Movement" claims about planes, it makes her sick.

jammonius, care to respond?

[twinstead]

Gravy's page ALONE seals the deal for any rational person.

[tsig]

jammonius, are you telling me that this is the first time you have ever seen the evidence that AW presented to you? Dude. This is basic stuff. The evidence that 93 crashed into that field in Penn is HUGE, and in the public domain for all to see and scrutinize.

There's poor reception under most bridges.

[jammonius]

Your handwave, as expected. When presented with manifests you invoke :

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts)



i have never seen a "stamp" or "signature" on any trial exhibit. Such a mark would classify as an alteration of a document and make it ineligible for trial.

Evidence that flight 93 crashed in Somerset County pa was presented at trial. and was uncontested by the defense. Despite your "Horse Carriage" protests.

P200057 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200057.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200058 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200058.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200059 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200059.html) Photograph of the scene in Somerset, County Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200060 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html) Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200061 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200062 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200063 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200063.html) Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200064 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200064.html) Photograph of debris found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200065 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200065.html) Photograph of the cockpit voice recorder found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200066 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200066.html) Photograph of the flight data recorder found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200068 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200068.html) Photograph of the driver's license of John Talignani found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed P200069 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200069.html) Photograph of the personal effects of CeeCee Lyles found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed

Greetings AW,

This time around I will respond in the order presented:

raising the bar on the manifests:

Your assertion is incorrect. I had plainly said "validated, autheniticated manifests."

I was also careful to describe the plain as day faults in the documents you offered up, including the following:

a) Not authenticated. Authentication is a flexible process that can be achieved, by say, notarization, affidavit of preparation by whom, to whom, when, etc. Your documents offer zilch in the way of authentication.

b) They are of poor copy quality, being copies of copies and therefore unreliable.

c) They are plainly dated more than 1 year after they necessarily would have been prepared, without so much as a hint as to the identity of the preparer, the sender, or recipient.

Instead of complaining, why didn't you deal with the objections I raised. The photo copies of photo copies you presented can't be the best evidence you have of passenger manifests that you can point to, can they:confused:

So, you did seek to dodge. I thought you would continue the emotional ploy. Instead, you are seeking to invoke a misplaced reliance on "moving the goalposts."

Do you consider yourself as having the right to offer up documents without having them questioned at all?

Are you immune from questioning, in a skeptics forum, no less?

Who prepared the manifests?
When?
To/from whom sent/received?

These are legitimate, ordinary questions that need to be answered.

In addition, they WERE NOT used in the Moussaoui trial, to which we now turn, as your next grouping of information comes from that trial. Haven't you set a logical trap for yourself by relying on photo copies of photo copies of flight lists, on one hand, completely ignoring my observation that they were not used in the Moussaoui trial, on the other? And then you reference Moussaoui exhibits in the very next section of your post?

Hey, AW, I am not making this up and I am not moving goal posts or anything of that nature.

Moussaoui trial

First of all, you claim too much for the Moussaoui trial. You claim: "Evidence that flight 93 crashed in Somerset County pa was presented at trial..." meaning the Moussaoui trial, which is the source of the 'Pnumber' documents that you link, but do not display.


There was no Moussaoui "trial" and no evidence was actually presented through the normal means of offer of evidence, cross examination for purposes of authenticity and so on.

Moussaoui copped a plea. Thus, your claim of a trial is not accurate. True, there were trial proceedings, but no verdict and no jury deliberations.

Furthermore, the trial judge, Judge Brinkema, publicly rebuked the prosecution for seeking to keep what little evidence it had "secret."

Even when the judge succeeded in getting the prosecution to show what it had, one can say "small wonder" the prosecution sought to keep its evidence secret. That evidence was paltry, puny and inconclusive.

You seem to have taken your cue from what the prosecution tried to do. You link, but do not display, what you claim is evidence. Permit me to ask you to just display the two or three best photos or pieces of evidence from your linked ones so that we can see what you consider to be persuasive as evidence of a jetliner crash. Merely providing us with various Pnumbers doesn't show us anything that we can all see and assess.

I here contend that the first photo you provide a link for, this one, shows nothing in particular and is not the kind of photographic evidence one expects to see for the proposition of a fatal jetliner crash. In particular, the unbiquitous tail section is missing, as is, for that matter, everything else except the picture of what appears to be a clean field where the grass is missing, together vith, what, two and half vehicles, a couple of unidentifiable rectangular shaped thingys, maybe a few scattered persons and a blue tent, maybe?. That is what your photo shows:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200057.jpg

I assert your photo is inconclusive. Are there one or two others that you claim, seen in a series, provides reasonable proof of a jetliner crash? If so, show us what you got.

[carlitos]

Incredulous troll has never heard of a fax header. Why am I not surprised.

[tsig]

Incredulous troll has never heard of a fax header. Why am I not surprised.

If he had in his hands a certified, verified, notarized and authenticated flight manifest all we would hear is how good the fake was thereby proving it was a fake.

[beachnut]

Incredulous troll has never heard of a fax header. Why am I not surprised.
Poor guy never saw a 600 mph aircraft impact and can't see the thousands of pieces in a photo from far away. Physics is good, who failed the 911 truthers' education? Sad to see so many 911 truthers who can type so much tripe are mentally unable to grasp 911, they learned to type, but failed to learn to think.

[jammonius]

If he had in his hands a certified, verified, notarized and authenticated flight manifest all we would hear is how good the fake was thereby proving it was a fake.

tsig,

I'm going to here ask AW to post up the kind of fallacy you've used. I think it has something to do with "strawman" where you've constructed a hypothetical out of whole cloth and then given your own answer to your own construct.

Your post has nothing whatever to do with anything I have posted and is not based on reason.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jammonius is just dodging, my challenge for him is to produce the evidence or he can leave this thread entirely.

[jammonius]

The ugly part of jammonius's crap claims and frivolous demands, at least for me is that I had a work mate die on Flight 93. He made one of the phone calls. The wife and kids haven't heard from him since 9/11.

His name was Ed Felt. R.I.P.

I wonder where jammonius thinks he went to. To the extent that the wife knows about the "Truth Movement" claims about planes, it makes her sick.

jammonius, care to respond?

Greetings Big Al,

Let me start by assuming you might forward this to Edward Felt's family and by asking you to forward it to them, even if you weren't planning on doing so.

Based on that assumption, I here express deep sympathy for the Felt family and heart felt acknowledgment of the loss, the grief and the tragedy of the loss of Edward Felt.

I can only say this, and say it plainly: I do not disrespect the loss of Edward Felt or of anyone else who died as a result of what happened on 9/11/01. I am one who questions the common explanation of what happened on 9/11, but I do not do so out of disrespect for anyone who suffered a loss related to 9/11. Of course, we all suffered on a certain level, but that has no comparison whatever to those who suffered personally.

Now, based on the overwhelming emotional burden of 9/11, I will stop here, Big Al.

Please show this to the Felt family and ask them if it would be alright with them for me to respond further to your post without upsetting them. You have here entered into a private area where one has to tread lightly. I will have no further comment unless and until you post up that the Felt family has indicated that will have no objection to my responding further to your post.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this sensitive matter.

[beachnut]

Jammonius is just dodging, my challenge for him is to produce the evidence or he can leave this thread entirely.
Poor guy found all the 911 truth junk he likes and and posts it not thinking about the fact he has no skill in physics and does not understand why a plane can bury itself in the ground and eject parts for hundreds of feet.

He post the photo from far away and can't see the tiny aircraft parts from the 600 mph impact and has not clue that E=mv2. Must of dropped out of high school or skipped science and math.

Doubt he read the OP, Opening Post!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Poor guy found all the 911 truth junk he likes and and posts it not thinking about the fact he has no skill in physics and does not understand why a plane can bury itself in the ground and eject parts for hundreds of feet.

He post the photo from far away and can't see the tiny aircraft parts from the 600 mph impact and has not clue that E=mv2. Must of dropped out of high school or skipped science and math.

Doubt he read the OP, Opening Post!

Yeah, I just love how he thinks that my statement is "errornous" when I live 20 miles North of Shanksville. I wonder where he lives & how far he lives from Shanksville.

Jammonius is the end result of poor education. I think he believes that the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights doesn't exist or that the people onboard Flight 93 ever existed at all.

I went down to the crash site a week after it happened. I was about 300 yards away (they wouldn't anyone get near the site) & looked through the binoculars to see the County coroner & the FBI looking for parts of people & plane. There's no way Jammonius can refute my statement due to the fact that he has no evidence to counter it.

[BigAl]

Greetings Big Al,

Let me start by assuming you might forward this to Edward Felt's family and by asking you to forward it to them, even if you weren't planning on doing so.


WHy?

I wouldn't insult the family with your stupidity.

If I posted the text from a response, you could and, based on your record would dismiss it because it doesn't have an embossed stamp or something.

[carlitos]

Stupidity
Incredulity
Logical Fallacies

jammonius' arguments are not convincing. Perhaps if he could tell me what happened on 9/11/2001 rather than all of this back-and-forth, I would take him more seriously.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Stupidity
Incredulity
Logical Fallacies

jammonius' arguments are not convincing. Perhaps if he could tell me what happened on 9/11/2001 rather than all of this back-and-forth, I would take him more seriously.

Jammonius is kind of like Alex Jones, loudmouthed & delusional!

[tsig]

tsig,

I'm going to here ask AW to post up the kind of fallacy you've used. I think it has something to do with "strawman" where you've constructed a hypothetical out of whole cloth and then given your own answer to your own construct.

Your post has nothing whatever to do with anything I have posted and is not based on reason.

So if i gave that document to you you would admit you were wrong?

[jammonius]

WHy?

I wouldn't insult the family with your stupidity.

If I posted the text from a response, you could and, based on your record would dismiss it because it doesn't have an embossed stamp or something.

Well, it looks like AW has upped and left us with the result being the thread has returned to its norm of little or no substance being posted.

Big Al, you had your chance and now, yet again, you've demonstrated your piety when it comes to 9/11 victims is fake.

This is the second time in as many threads that you've pulled a fast one over on us with fake sympathy for victims.

In the other thread you posted up this:

"I live near one of the medical facilities dedicated to 9/11 first responders.
You are welcome and encouraged to stand at the entry to this facility and ask these heroes any questions you want. If it should become necessary, I'm sure the docs will patch you up, not that I wish violence on anyone.


The Mount Sinai WTC Program Clinical Center on Staten Island
Richmond University Medical Center
690 Castleton Ave
Staten Island, NY 11801"

As I did in this one, I was polite and respectful and gave you every chance to show you had a real concern for victims and would follow through. You didn't then and you haven't done so now.

I politely told you that the WTC Program that you expressed so much concern for was having funding problems, and would CLOSE DOWN as of June.

You live so close to it and didn't know that? You asked for a link to the article about Dr. Moline and I provided it to you.

http://www.onearth.org/node/1719

Why didn't you independently post up the fact that the WTC Program was in danger of imminent closing if you are so concerned?

Why have you waited for me to do that for you.

Posters, please read the article on the WTC Program. It is about to close as of June, for lack of funding.

Unless there are those among you who are Tea baggers and who, therefore, think that "YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR PROBLEM" to quote a Tea bagger sign, I am sure that all of you pious supporters of 9/11 victims will do all you can to see to it that the WTC Program, located right there next door to your boy, Big Al, will not close.

Big Al, this is your last chance to pass on my message to the Felt family and let them know I'd like to speak with them.

[jammonius]

Yeah, I just love how he thinks that my statement is "errornous" when I live 20 miles North of Shanksville. I wonder where he lives & how far he lives from Shanksville.

Jammonius is the end result of poor education. I think he believes that the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights doesn't exist or that the people onboard Flight 93 ever existed at all.

I went down to the crash site a week after it happened. I was about 300 yards away (they wouldn't anyone get near the site) & looked through the binoculars to see the County coroner & the FBI looking for parts of people & plane. There's no way Jammonius can refute my statement due to the fact that he has no evidence to counter it.

chewy,

I respect that you live nearby to Shanksville. All I'm saying is that while you live nearby, you were not a witness to anything. And, to the extent that you reported what you heard, your exact statement is inconsistent with a jetliner crash. You said you heard a jet and then you heard nothing else. You did not hear a crash. Of course, if you live 20 miles away, and in the PA mountains somewhere, then it may be unlikely you could have heard a crash.

Whatever, the fact is you are not a witness.

Going to the site a week later and being kept back 300 yards obviously meant you didn't see anything that you could swear to either. You live nearby, but you are not a witness.

By the way, do you have the ability to show this post to Wallace Miller? Please let him know that I would like to speak with him.

Here is what he is said to have said at the time:

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

I am not making this up, chewy, that is what he said.

The statements by and about Wallace Miller continue with this:


"The only recognizable body part he sees is a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. He will later tell Australian newspaper The Age, “I’ve seen a lot of highway fatalities where there’s fragmentation. The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven’t, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.” [Age (Melbourne), 9/9/2002] Dave Fox, a former firefighter, also arrives early at the crash scene, but sees just three chunks of human tissue. He says, “You knew there were people there, but you couldn’t see them.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002] Yet, in the following weeks, hundreds of searchers are able to find about 1,500 scorched human tissue samples, weighing less than 600 pounds—approximately eight percent of the total body mass on Flight 93. Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin, several hundred yards from the crash site. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002]"

Once again, chewy, a meeting with coroner Miller would be a good thing I think. Is he still coroner, close on to 10 years later? Have you already met with him?

[carlitos]

Awesome. Incredulous truther also doesn't understand 'simile.'

Any chance to post this video.

BhKiAUkw7SY

ETA - I am starting to be reminded of Simon Shack, who didn't believe that President Obama existed because he hadn't seen him in person. Is there some type of condition where one starts to believe that nothing, anywhere is real? (I'm being serious, in case it's not clear)

[beachnut]

Awesome. Incredulous truther also doesn't understand 'simile.'

Any chance to post this video.

BhKiAUkw7SY

ETA - I am starting to be reminded of Simon Shack, who didn't believe that President Obama existed because he hadn't seen him in person. Is there some type of condition where one starts to believe that nothing, anywhere is real? (I'm being serious, in case it's not clear)
Our new wonder-kin is gullible, he will be upset with himself and those who lies he is spreading without thinking, if he can climb out of the pit of ignorance and lies known as 911 truth.

[aggle-rithm]

ETA - I am starting to be reminded of Simon Shack, who didn't believe that President Obama existed because he hadn't seen him in person. Is there some type of condition where one starts to believe that nothing, anywhere is real? (I'm being serious, in case it's not clear)

Solipsism. It's more of a philosophy than a condition.

[aggle-rithm]

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

I am not making this up, chewy, that is what he said.



What would you expect to find left of bodies that had hit the ground at 500 mph, were ground up in the wreckage of a disintegrating airliner, and burned?

Really, do you have such a hard time understanding this?

[A W Smith]

Jammonious, What you failed to understand in my post re:the trial, Was that the prosecution used the data extracted from the manifests I posted as evidence in other documents used during that trial.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

Notice how the seat assignments in the flash presentation. match that of the faxed manifests I had shown you in my post. And as far as moving the goalposts. you did not read the full text of the heading I had posted.

Which is why i posted it

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):


Have I made this clear to you now?

There is no wax seal. or handmark of the emperor, or video of the court clerk hand carrying the document from the airliner port of departure to the court. There is however a preponderance of evidence which clearly shows proof that flight 93 crashed into the earth at high speed in shanksville. The families of those on board are unanimous in their satisfaction of the evidence. there are no whistle blowers who contest otherwise. You are here to argue just for the sake of arguing. I do not believe you are mentally ill enough to actually believe what you spew. Your only skill is pick away with your incredulity at meaningless points in a weak and obvious attempt to cast the most insignificant morsel of doubt. The surviving passport, the flatness of the windows in the piece of surviving fuselage, Their resemblance to a horse trailer window. The authentication of a handful of documents that are not freely available to you. When shown trial exhibits you hand wave it away because he plead guilty. Why would any prosecution risk presenting so much evidence that in your jaundiced eyes could simply be discarded as faked? Time to open your eyes jammonious, You will not make any headway here. You have convinced no one. You present the same crap that's been presented here for years. And no one. not one of the first responderes at shanksville today think anything but flight 93 crashed at Shanksville.

Take it up with them

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

[A W Smith]

a meeting with coroner Miller would be a good thing I think. Is he still coroner, close on to 10 years later? Have you already met with him?
Already done, Good luck changing simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile) to conspiracy, Dumbenick tried to put words in his mouth.

2456935081384261617&ei.

[jammonius]

What would you expect to find left of bodies that had hit the ground at 500 mph, were ground up in the wreckage of a disintegrating airliner, and burned?

Really, do you have such a hard time understanding this?

The above is unworthy of discussion based on reason. How many times must one remind folks here that you cannot presume what hasn't been proven? You cannot use presumed facts about what happens in a jetliner crash to prove a jetliner crash occurred.

You cannot say there's no evidence of a jetliner crash, therefore the jetliner must have vaporized and burned away all of the evidence of a jetliner crash. Doing so is an unworthy trick of reasoning.

Look, you have an advantage over me. Were I to post up something as illogical as what you did, you would likely, if this thread is any guide, promptly post up epithets, put downs and pronouncements about my sanity. I cannot do that in turn. First of all, it isn't worth it and I don't need that kind of emotional gratification.

The second and more important factor is also emotional. I have said several times that the emotional attachment to the official 9/11 myth is very strong and there exists an emotional need to trust that official version. That is because if the official version fails, then Americans will be forced to consider the unthinkable; namely, that elements that we do not understand did this to us for reasons that are equally unthinkable; namely, reasons involving false pretenses and horrificly pretextual justification to attack innocent peoples and countries. If that were true, then, what does that make us? Don't answer. But that is precisely why the emotional attachment to the official version of events is so strong and why it is well nigh impossible to engage in a reasoned challenge to the events.

Here's the deal, posters. Unless you folks are willing to set aside the emotional attachment to the official version of events, hadn't we ought to just call it a day?

Emotion trumps reason, unless there is agreement and/or a requirement to set emotion aside.

[Alferd_Packer]

Hey Jam, Why did you abandon the Judy Woods threads?

[jammonius]

Already done, Good luck changing simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile) to conspiracy, Dumbenick tried to put words in his mouth.

2456935081384261617&ei.

What are you gloating about, AW? Kindly explain in words and phrases. I gather you have no real response to the weak, insipid nature of the Moussaoui evidence you previously posted up? Asking questions about the reliability of documents is not moving the goal posts. I had plainly said validated and authenticated lists. Photocopies of photocopies that were not used in a setting (the Moussaoui evidence) where one would have expected them to be used is an outcome determining event in connection with the unreliability of the lists you produced, as I see it.

But, let's put it this way. If you are satisfied with the authenticity of the lists you produced, then you are free to say so. If that is where YOU want the goal posts to be planted, namely not very far away, then fine, I can't change that.

I will stand by my assertion that those poor photocopies dated as of October 4, 2002, coming from who knows whither and going to who knows where are fundamentally inadmissible as evidence.

I thought you were taking your time in order to try to salvage the Moussaoui evidence you tried to rely on by posting up some more persuasive photos and/or to try to resurrect those unreliable photocopies of photocopies of alleged passenger manifests dated a year after the event with something better than a restatement of your goal post claim. Why didn't you respond to the burden of proof quote from skeptic wiki that I posted up? Do you claim your photocopies of photocopies cannot be questioned at all?

Please explain what you think the video stands for. And, once again, this is not about "winning" and "losing." It is about posting up reasoned statements. Reason stands or falls on its own merit and doesn't need to be hyped.

thanks

[A W Smith]

What are you gloating about, AW. Kindly explain in words and phrases. I gather you have no response to the weak, insipid nature of the Moussaoui evidence you previously posted up?

I thought you were taking your time in order to try to salvage the Moussaoui evidence you tried to rely on and/or to try to resurrect those unreliable photocopies of photocopies of alleged passenger manifests dated a year after the event?

You appear to have dropped that ball completely and now you come with some sort of video splurb that you do not even explain?

Please explain what you think the video stands for.

thanks

Apparently. you skipped a post jammonius

And since you are editing your own posts. I guess I can edit mine

A reminder

the prosecution used the data extracted from the manifests I posted as evidence in other documents used during that trial.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/P200018.html (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html)

Notice how the seat assignments in the flash presentation. match that of the faxed manifests I had shown you in my post.

[beachnut]

Some people who prefer lies and telling lies about 911, inspired by the liars called 911Truth, call these parts of Flight 93 a myth, they can't form rational conclusions based on evidence. These people who lack knowledge prefer to remain in ignorance and post lies on the Internet.

Thousand of parts of Flight 93 called a myth by knowledge free people who can't do physics.

All the Passengers were identified on Flight 93 by DNA.

These are parts from a 600 mph. The impact crater is behind this location. Not a single person has refuted with evidence these are parts from Flight 93. Why can't 911 truth produce a single fact or shred of evidence? They only post lies backed up by delusions, hearsay and stupidity.

[BigAl]

Well, it looks like AW has upped and left us with the result being the thread has returned to its norm of little or no substance being posted.

Big Al, you had your chance and now, yet again, you've demonstrated your piety when it comes to 9/11 victims is fake.




I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

[jammonius]

Apparently. you skipped a post jammonius

That is true. I only noticed it after posting the original draft. I did modify, somewhat, after seeing your attempt to resurrect your "goal post" claim.

For what it's worth, that is all a part of the same concept as that of "impossible perfection." If you think it is asking too much for authenticated manifests, then please know we have a disagreement.

More than that, however, it is becoming clear that the emotional factor is too dominant for reason.

I see no reason to continue much further, absent someone posting up a piece of compelling evidence of information supporting the proposition that a Boeing 757 jetliner crashed in Shanksville Pa.

Big Al took a pass at the 'cell phone' evidence, but posted it in a way that was too personal for me to respond to, absent the clearances I requested.

Just as a suggestion, AW, why don't you go down the cell phone path?

In my experience, in 9/11 discussion, the A number 1, drop-dead show stopper for proponents of the official version of events consists in variations on the fallacy "...what about the passengers?...

That one is a show stopper because it sets up an emotional barrier to reasoning. Big Al almost went there, but he framed it in a way that killed it.

Cell phone calls are an aspect of "what about the passengers?" and might be useful for you to explore.

If you give that one your best shot, I will respond. Mind you, I am not here telling you what to do, I'm just making a suggestion.

[jammonius]

The NTSB does accidents, the police do crime.

... the goal of AirDisaster.Com
They do accidents, not crime. (but do they have 911 stuff? yes, can't trust anyone)


Our latest expert was looking for crime photos at an accident web site.
And he missed it.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/12.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/wtc/2.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/2.shtml
They also post photos from crimes.
Aircraft crashes documented at airdisaser.com.

It was from Flight 93 crash area; and you can't prove it was not because you can't identify it. Due to your lack of knowledge you say it was horse trailer. That make you not an expert at much more than being wrong about everything. You failed to prove it was horse trailer, and you can't refute it was found near the imapct area. 8 years to put togther your fantasy and you can't identify part of an airliner. Is this your A-game?

It is a fuselage section, either you have knowledge and you agree or you lack knowledge and make up moronic lies and call it a horse trailer. Which is it, are you capable of rational thought or do you make up lies and spread false information? So far you are in the make up lies business, how do you intend to back out of being a poster of pure nut case discombobulated poppycock?

That photo is from Flight 93 the only plane to go down in Pennsylvania on 911 of that size. Only a morons can't identify the aircraft with the evidence available; and I agree you are not a moron, you just post lies about 911. The fact it is Flight 93 is backed up by the FDR, RADAR, and DNA of the passengers is proof it is flight 93. And I know you will never refute the DNA evidence because you can't even find it; so you can't start to refute evidence you can't even find out of ignorance, the judge will laugh you out of court and your the Pulitzer Prize is not granted to the baseless delusions and lies you post.

If you need help with rational questions you can get help here. So far you post lies and poppycock and act like a kid who can't learn.

This is skeptic forum, are you at the wrong place, you don't hold any of the lies you post without evidence to any scrutiny. Do you think you will ever use evidence to bake your claims which are definitely delusions without any evidence. Do you know what evidence is? You know FDR, DNA, RADAR, and the aircraft parts from Flight 93 exactly where the RADAR track stops, and the FDR confirms the speed of impact, which is evident by the damage to the aircraft? Any clues on where your evidence is lost at? Did you dog eat it?


If you have evidence to deny Flight 93 crashed in PA why do you hold it and keep it a secret (you don't have any)? Post your evidence, and stop posting proof of your ignorance by claiming the fuselage is a horse trailer. That was a stupid post.

What do your friends in the Navy call your delusions on 911?

beachnut,

This replies both to the quoted post and to the most recent one where you reposted this photo:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg

I think you remarked or quoted the fact that airdisaster.com has 2,519 photos of 519 air crash accidents.

I admit I haven't looked at all of them. However, among those that I have looked at, they all pretty clearly show conditions that are indisputably consistent with, well, plane crashes.

Your photo, big and blown up as it is, shows conditions that might be consistent with a UFO claim or a ghost claim, bedause of those pink circles, probably caused by sun glare, but your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash.

There is no emotional condition strong enough for you to be able to post the above photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

I don't care how strongly you need to defend the official version of events, that photo does not do it. Are we clear on this, beachnut? Your photo shows nothing at all that would support a claim a jetliner crashed anywhere shown on that photo and it is ludicrous for you to try to say otherwise.

[DavidJames]

I see no reason to continue much further...Good bye and please give Killtown my regards.

[aggle-rithm]

The above is unworthy of discussion based on reason. How many times must one remind folks here that you cannot presume what hasn't been proven? You cannot use presumed facts about what happens in a jetliner crash to prove a jetliner crash occurred.

You cannot say there's no evidence of a jetliner crash, therefore the jetliner must have vaporized and burned away all of the evidence of a jetliner crash. Doing so is an unworthy trick of reasoning.

Look, you have an advantage over me. Were I to post up something as illogical as what you did, you would likely, if this thread is any guide, promptly post up epithets, put downs and pronouncements about my sanity. I cannot do that in turn. First of all, it isn't worth it and I don't need that kind of emotional gratification.


Any reasonable, well-adjusted person would realize that when the coroner expressed surprise that there were no bodies, he was commenting on the violence of the crash. He was NOT expressing skepticism that there was an actual crash there.

Truthers don't seem to understand the concept of subtext. If you look at what someone says in the context of the situation and in other statements he makes, then you can usually figure out these sorts of things. That's why journalists rarely explain exactly what a person meant when they reference a quote--to the average person, the full meaning is obvious.

To truthers, not so obvious. It's as if context were not relevant and all that matters is his own set of beliefs, through which everything he experiences is filtered.

[carlitos]

I think that further engagement would just be mean on my part. jammonius is to "evidence" for 9/11 as Joseph Farah is to President Obama's birth certificate.

ETA - good point on context / subtext. I think it's in someone's signature here, that Google is great because it removes context automatically?

[jammonius]

I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

Big Al,

You cherry-picked my post to you and made it sound as if I was saying something that I wasn't really saying. However, this is a message board and we are engaging in competitive banter, I suppose, even if there's nothing to be won or lost.

So, I accept that you know of real people who died on 9/11 and that the experience was personally traumatic. I am not taking issue with you on that, at all.

What I do take issue with is that you do not have the right to presume that you are more sympathetic to victims than I am and that questioning 9/11, in general, by anyone, is unsympathetic to victims. It is no such thing.

However, that said, I have already acknowledged, several times now, that taking exception to the common version of events of 9/11 does inherently raise questions that are far too painful and far too difficult for most people to confront. If the implications of 9/11 being a false flag op, to some degree or other, are true, then that makes us a rogue nation who did something that is almost historically unprecedented in its wickedness; as well as having made fools of all of us.

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.

take care, Big Al

[carlitos]

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.
Could you possible describe the "what" in your sentence above. Also the "it" that is highlighted. I'm dying for this info and you won't give it to me. I find this very, very odd. What happened that was so bad that "it" might happen again on an even larger and more deadly scale?

[BigAl]

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.

take care, Big Al

19 Arab Islamists lead by bin Laden (who declared war on the US in 1991 and was already responsible for killing a couple hundred Americans) hijacked 4 jets and proceeded to crash them into two towers, the Pentagon and a corn field, killing all on board and about 3,0000 other people.

[aggle-rithm]

The second and more important factor is also emotional. I have said several times that the emotional attachment to the official 9/11 myth is very strong and there exists an emotional need to trust that official version.

What is emotional about accepting the theory that best fits the evidence? What you call the official "myth" is not just the best theory, it is THE ONLY THEORY!

What are we supposed to trust? Do YOU have a theory about what happened on 9/11?

No, you do not. At least not one you'd be willing to share, because it would be crazier than purple spaghetti.

That is because if the official version fails, then Americans will be forced to consider the unthinkable; namely, that elements that we do not understand did this to us for reasons that are equally unthinkable; namely, reasons involving false pretenses and horrificly pretextual justification to attack innocent peoples and countries.

No, the consequences are more dire than that. If the official version fails, then it will mean that the rules of cause and effect that govern the Universe are null and void. We will all cease to exist with a blinding flash of gamma rays.

[jammonius]

Any reasonable, well-adjusted person would realize that when the coroner expressed surprise that there were no bodies, he was commenting on the violence of the crash. He was NOT expressing skepticism that there was an actual crash there.

Truthers don't seem to understand the concept of subtext. If you look at what someone says in the context of the situation and in other statements he makes, then you can usually figure out these sorts of things. That's why journalists rarely explain exactly what a person meant when they reference a quote--to the average person, the full meaning is obvious.

To truthers, not so obvious. It's as if context were not relevant and all that matters is his own set of beliefs, through which everything he experiences is filtered.

aggle,

You start with phraseology that seeks to politicize the matter "...any reasonable... would realize..." Well, your purpose is clear; namely, to put yourself on the side of truth and virtue and to put me on the opposite side; but the fact is, you are engaging in a cheap argumentation trick by doing that. I am sorry you found it necessary to do that.

Coroner Miller has a certain expertise, but there is no reason to attribute to him expertise in crash physics and/or the forensics of jetliner crashes. One often hears the phrase "vaporized" when the issue of the jetliners of 9/11 are under discussion. The fact is, there is so little debris, and no properly identified parts from ANY of the 4 crashes that it is baffling as to the amount of time the myth of jetliner crashes has been able to maintain its hold on the public imagination.

Where is the metalurgical analysis that supports this "vaporization" of jetliners? Yes, it is true that the jetliners of 9/11 do appear to have vaporized because there damn sure aren't any jetliners to be found.

But, the reasoned explaination is that is true because there were no jetliners there, and not that they all vaporized for one reason or another. Yet, that word might well be the key word: VAPORIZATION.

Is that what you folks have done to yourselves? Have you driven yourselves into that corner that requires you to assume 4 jetliners got vaporized and left no trace, unlike virtually any other plane or rocket crash ever and none I can think of offhand?

What the heck posters, you talk about 600 mph?

The space shuttle Columbia came unglued at close on to, what was it? 12,000mph and much of it, including the ubiquitous tail section, I believe, or parts of it, like the vertical stabilizer, as well as other recognizable parts, not to leave out respectful mention of human remains, were all found.

I know darn well none of you are going to source or prove your vaporization claims, because the claim has not been proven, merely assumed. And, it has been assumed to have happened not once, twice or thrice, but four times. That is what you folks are reduced to.

good night and good luck

[sylvan8798]

I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

See comments 100 and 101 for the potential outcome of such an action:

http://unlimitedhorizonsintl.com/tinc?key=TMMkDV8T&start=-1&reverse=1

Truthers take the cake when it comes to despicable, and they have no limits or boundaries they won't cross. :mad:

[sylvan8798]

Ok, this guy's a no-planer through and through. Why are people bothering with him? My late mother used to say "never argue with small children or the insane".

[A W Smith]

That is true. I only noticed it after posting the original draft. I did modify, somewhat, after seeing your attempt to resurrect your "goal post" claim.

For what it's worth, that is all a part of the same concept as that of "impossible perfection." If you think it is asking too much for authenticated manifests, then please know we have a disagreement.Again, watch the presentation that was used as evidence at the trial. The seating locations. the list of passengers. Its all there. presented in a court of law and not contested by the defense.

More than that, however, it is becoming clear that the emotional factor is too dominant for reason.

I see no reason to continue much further, absent someone posting up a piece of compelling evidence of information supporting the proposition that a Boeing 757 jetliner crashed in Shanksville Pa.
I have linked to compelling evidence as well as contact info of those who collected it. And interviews of witnesses, Forensic data, Yet your agenda blinds you to it. At this point you are hopelessly lost deep in your rabbit hole.

Big Al took a pass at the 'cell phone' evidence, but posted it in a way that was too personal for me to respond to, absent the clearances I requested.

Just as a suggestion, AW, why don't you go down the cell phone path? Its been done already in the past
from http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
The Phone Calls


GTE Airfone recovered from flight 93 wreckage

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight93Airphonephotocopy.jpg/Flight93Airphonephotocopy-custom;size:250,246;crop:0.02,0.05,0.99,0.77.jpg (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight93Airphonephotocopy.jpg/Flight93Airphonephotocopy-full;init:.jpg)
Details of 37 phone calls made from flight 93, from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/UA93phonecallscopy.jpg/UA93phonecallscopy-full.jpg (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/UA93phonecallscopy.jpg/UA93phonecallscopy-full;init:.jpg)
Graph below shows flight 93 at about 5,000 feet when the two cell phone calls at 9:58 were made.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight93altitudeprofilesm.jpg/Flight93altitudeprofilesm-full.jpg (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight93altitudeprofilesm.jpg/Flight93altitudeprofilesm-full;init:.jpg)
Interview with Lisa Jefferson, the phone supervisor who took Todd Beamer's call from United Flight 93. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19399_2.html)

Operator can't forget haunting cries from Flight 93 (http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn022.htm). (9/10/02)

Dispatcher honored for Flight 93 efforts (John Shaw) (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatcher1207p3.asp)

Tom’s Burnett's last calls, as remembered by his wife Deena (http://www.tomburnettfamilyfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html) Note that Deena says she received four calls from Tom, but the chart above indicates only three. It seems likely that Tom would have used an Airfone for the 9:54 call as he did with the others.

Edward Felt's Phone Call


Conspiracists often mention a phone call placed by flight 93 passenger Edward Felt to the Westmoreland County 911 Emergency switchboard, because in one version, Felt is said to have heard an explosion and seen white smoke in the plane. This is commonly used by conspiracists to support their claim that flight 93 was shot down: a claim that is supported by no other evidence. There are numerous sources that say Felt did not mention an explosion or smoke, including Felt's family, who heard the recording of his phone call. The incorrect story apparently originated with Glenn Cramer:"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor. "We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Source (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp)

"For example, in the days following the crash, the Associated Press interviewed Glen Cramer, a Westmoreland County emergency services supervisor, who told AP and other news agencies that he had read "off a transcript" that minutes before the crash a passenger, David Felt [sic], had called and told the dispatcher that he had he had heard an explosion and that there was white smoke in the pane.

But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated". Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml)

“A male passenger, Edward Felt, did call from the bathroom of the plane, but never mentioned an explosion or puff of smoke, said John Shaw, the dispatcher who took the call. “Didn't happen,” he said. Felt's wife, who heard a tape of the call, corroborated Shaw's story.” (Among the Heroes, p. 369) (New York Times, 3/27/02)
The transcript of Ed Felt's call in the 9/11 Commission files (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box12_93Calls_EdFelt.pdf) (PDF. Thanks Mike W. of 911myths.com.)
John Shaw: received a call from Flight 93
(http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020911shaw0911p9.asp)GTE Airfone instructions, FAQ, 1998 (http://web.archive.org/web/19980415060212/http://www.gteairfone.com/faq.html#9)



In my experience, in 9/11 discussion, the A number 1, drop-dead show stopper for proponents of the official version of events consists in variations on the fallacy "...what about the passengers?...

That one is a show stopper because it sets up an emotional barrier to reasoning. Big Al almost went there, but he framed it in a way that killed it.

Cell phone calls are an aspect of "what about the passengers?" and might be useful for you to explore.

If you give that one your best shot, I will respond. Mind you, I am not here telling you what to do, I'm just making a suggestion.See above, And please do not bother presenting a link to A.K. Dewdney, he's been debunked here years ago (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=A+K+dewdney+site%3Arandi.org&aq=f&aqi=&oq=)

[aggle-rithm]

aggle,

You start with phraseology that seeks to politicize the matter "...any reasonable... would realize..." Well, your purpose is clear; namely, to put yourself on the side of truth and virtue and to put me on the opposite side; but the fact is, you are engaging in a cheap argumentation trick by doing that. I am sorry you found it necessary to do that.


Wrong.


Coroner Miller has a certain expertise, but there is no reason to attribute to him expertise in crash physics and/or the forensics of jetliner crashes.


Which was probably why he was surprised by the lack of bodies, don't you think?

One often hears the phrase "vaporized" when the issue of the jetliners of 9/11 are under discussion. The fact is, there is so little debris, and no properly identified parts from ANY of the 4 crashes that it is baffling as to the amount of time the myth of jetliner crashes has been able to maintain its hold on the public imagination.

Where is the metalurgical analysis that supports this "vaporization" of jetliners? Yes, it is true that the jetliners of 9/11 do appear to have vaporized because there damn sure aren't any jetliners to be found.

But, the reasoned explaination is that is true because there were no jetliners there, and not that they all vaporized for one reason or another. Yet, that word might well be the key word: VAPORIZATION.

Is that what you folks have done to yourselves? Have you driven yourselves into that corner that requires you to assume 4 jetliners got vaporized and left no trace, unlike any other plane or rocket crash ever?

What the heck posters, you talk about 600 mph?

The space shuttle Columbia came unglued at close on to, what was it? 12,000mph and much of it, including the ubiquitous tail section, was recovered.

I know darn well none of you are going to source or prove your vaporization claims, because the claim has not been proven, merely assumed. And, it has been assumed to have happened not once, twice or thrice, but four times. That is what you folks are reduced to.

good night and good luck

Contact United Airlines. They have recovered 95% of the wreckage of flight 93. Maybe they will let you see it.

Not that this would stop you believing.

[DavidJames]

Ok, this guy's a no-planer through and through. Why are people bothering with him? My late mother used to say "never argue with small children or the insane".Very good advice. If people on this forum would only respond to sound logic and presentation of evidence, the forum would die. As far as I'm concerned this forum should RIP.

[A W Smith]

Well I guess he logged off to make some "phone calls". after I posted about the flight 93 calls

[beachnut]

... your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash. ... The photo does show conditions consistent with ejected parts from a 600 mph impact, your inability to process evidence and do rational research has left you lacking, and makes you conclusion a failure.
You are wrong, the photo is exactly consistent with a airliner crash at 600 mph into the ground. I have investigate aircraft accidents and was trained to investigate accidents, and you don't know what you are talking about. How much effort does it take to ignore evidence and remain in ignorance?

Please tell me where you were trained as an aircraft accident investigator to pronounce the parts in the photo are not from Flight 93 which crashed right behind ejected parts from the ground impact. Do you have any training? It appears you lack any skill in research and investigation, you don't know a fuselage from a horse-trailer. Not doing too good on 911 do you have other skills to fall back on?

How is the Navy? How long have you been in the Navy? Do you think you will post on topic?

What happen, did you buy an delusional DVD on 911? How did you not figure out 911 8 years ago?

You are posting in the wrong thread, this is about the idiotic lie of a shoot down of Flight 93, and the idiotic delusion that parts were planted. Since your moronic delusion is no plane at all, you need to start your own thread and stop the delusional SPAM in this thread. Where do you get your failed ideas on 911 from? Home? Work? School? An idiot at the corner?

[twinstead]

It's stuffy in my house today, but who needs a fan with all jammonius' hand waving?

[jammonius]

AW,

Thanks for taking up my suggestion of going down the cell phone route. You have selected as your source for this crucial issue wtc7lies, a respectable enough, website, one supposes, where it is said to have been put together by the ""The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" or, alternatively, the "The Yoda of 9/11 reality."

OK, one can here anticipate that you will accuse me of moving the goal posts or of demanding perfection by pointing out that your source is just a set of volunteers, collecting and then giving a predetermined perspective on the information, so collected.

You next assert, in apparent disregard of your own disdain for perfection in explanation, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked, therefore it is not good enough.

That is the kind of claim, AW, that does fall within the scope and the meaning of the 'perfection" fallacy. The reason for that is quite simple, say what you will about the AK Dewdney study, the fact remains that in the yar 2001, cell phone technology was not thought of as being capable of connection when one was in the air.

I can here use my own anecdotal experience and say that I never was able to get a signal on a jetliner in that time period and was never able to make a call. Mind you, I am not here putting this anecdote forward as proof of the claim cell phone calls could not have been made, but I am putting it forward, in conjunction with the perfection fallacy, to say that it is a stretch for you to claim, in advance, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked.

Your assertion in that respect is false. The AK Dewdney study has some merit and can be relied on to cast doubt on the cell phone claim.

I however, choose to place primary reliance on two types of evidence and information in dealing with the cell phone claim:

1--the military exercise part of the equation; and

2--governmental deception in evidence tampering and withholding.


1--For me, the importance of the military exercises, including the Vigilant Guardian exercise, is demonstrated by the fact that even high ranking military personnel, in communicating via phone, radio or whatever, openly and candidly admitted they did not know if the persons they were speaking with were communicating real conditions or exercise conditions. You can here take a look at the reported statements of Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, by way of illustration.

Thus, we have, right at the outset, this key issue that must be properly understood: Any transmission that is said to involve either a telephone communication or a radio transmission, let alone a recording of one and still less a transcript of one, in the context of 9/11, is tainted by the fact that military war games were going on involving simulated hijackings and involving the transmission of phony conversations.

That is a fact, AW. False communications were taking place.

A second example here requires us to use the FL 11 situation. There, the air traffic controllers were said to be listening to hijackers say things like the famous and the 9/11 iconic declaration: "We have some planes." Like the FL93 conversations, that one is iconic and is a linchpin of the 9/11 common version of events.

But, what is less well known is this fact: The air controllers DID NOT know where the conversations were coming from and are not in a position to say that it was coming from FL 11.

And, therein lies the key to any of the cell phone calls: There is no way to know where they were coming from. Once again, the key to the cell phone issue comes right smack back down to the real nitty gritty of 9/11:

The emotional need to believe the common myth. The cell phones are probably the Ace of Spades of 9/11 because they involve people who are victims, people who are heroes and people who appear to be traceable, by and loarge.

That is powerful stuff. The only problem is, the cell phone calls are a huge assumption and the rules of reason still apply, irrespective of the gigantic emotional tug that the cell phones entail.

Look, let's be candid here. Questioning the cell phones can be interpreted as calling Todd Beamer a liar. I am doing no such thing, posters, so before you go there, just know that if you do that, you are only jerking off emotionally.

I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot.

The cell phone calls still have to be understood in context of the rest of the story. And, the rest of it does not support jetliner hijackings or crashes.

2--The FAA openly hid information and destroyed tapes, such that if there were contradictions between what the FAA knew and what the story of the cell phones seek to impart, that evidence is gone. The same is true for other types of govenmental deception that includes acknowledgment that the military exercises have not ever been properly explained.

We only know that there were a lot of them taking place on 9/11, up to 25 and that they involved simulation of hijackings of jetliners and crashing them into buildings. They also involved fake conversations that we know of for certain. What we don't know is the extent of the deception.

Another aspect here is that psyops involving false communications have some limits. False or what are also referred to as "cover stories" can only be released abroad, if I understand the restriction on them correctly. Some aspects of the cell phone story were only introduced via UK media.

Virtually all sourcing for the cell phone story is merely newspapers of some kind. And, while you claim there were 37 cell phone calls from FL 93, the Moussaoui prosecution was only prepared to come forward with claims about 2 of them.

The flight path data for the 4 9/11 flights that you rely on comes from sources that could have been a part of the simulated exercises for all we know. What we know for certain is that such simulations were taking place. Thus, in the absence of a full and transparent investigation, there can be no confidence that what is claimed about the cell phones or the flight paths, upon which the success of the cell phones depends, is accurate or true.

The only thing we know for certain is that when the 9/11 Commission tried to find out what happened, it encountered deception such that the commission's report is not considered by those who prepared it, including most recently, John Farmer, have warned us that the truth of 9/11 hasn't been told.

Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell? Has obe-wan or yoda provided a source for that quintessentially important photographic evidence?

No, AW, your cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

[BigAl]

AW,



bin Laden publicly declared war on the US in 1991 and was killing Americans prior to 9/11/2001.

[twinstead]

No, AW, your cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much.

Nothing alone is a slam dunk. ALL the evidence together, in spite of your hand waving, IS a slam dunk. According to you, every single accident investigation in the history of avionics is suspect.

Face it. All you have is rhetoric. You'd make a perfect sleazy lawyer trying to get an obviously guilty criminal off the hook.

[AJM8125]

the fact remains that in the yar 2001, cell phone technology was not thought of as being capable of connection when one was in the air.

You fail again.Here's another item for you to handwave away. ( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in Bold:

chewy,

I respect that you live nearby to Shanksville. All I'm saying is that while you live nearby, you were not a witness to anything. And, to the extent that you reported what you heard, your exact statement is inconsistent with a jetliner crash. You said you heard a jet and then you heard nothing else. You did not hear a crash. Of course, if you live 20 miles away, and in the PA mountains somewhere, then it may be unlikely you could have heard a crash.

I'm a witness reguardless what you say. You just can't stand that a witness will stand up to Truthers who are 100% wrong all the time.

Whatever, the fact is you are not a witness.

I am, deal with it!

Going to the site a week later and being kept back 300 yards obviously meant you didn't see anything that you could swear to either. You live nearby, but you are not a witness.

I had binoculars & saw Wallace Miller & the FBI there. I am a witness, you aren't a witness to anything.

By the way, do you have the ability to show this post to Wallace Miller? Please let him know that I would like to speak with him.

You're too lazy to find his e-mail address.

Here is what he is said to have said at the time:

"Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.”[Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

There was hardly anything left to the people on the plane after impacting hard soil. He did an amazing job using DNA to ID the victims.

I am not making this up, chewy, that is what he said.

And you're taking his words out of context. You aren't showing anyone here anything.

The statements by and about Wallace Miller continue with this:


"The only recognizable body part he sees is a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. He will later tell Australian newspaper The Age, “I’ve seen a lot of highway fatalities where there’s fragmentation. The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven’t, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.” [Age (Melbourne), 9/9/2002] Dave Fox, a former firefighter, also arrives early at the crash scene, but sees just three chunks of human tissue. He says, “You knew there were people there, but you couldn’t see them.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002] Yet, in the following weeks, hundreds of searchers are able to find about 1,500 scorched human tissue samples, weighing less than 600 pounds—approximately eight percent of the total body mass on Flight 93. Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin, several hundred yards from the crash site. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002]"

What do you think what would happen to your body after it gets sliced & diced by sharp aluminum?

Once again, chewy, a meeting with coroner Miller would be a good thing I think. Is he still coroner, close on to 10 years later? Have you already met with him?

Wallace Miller contradicts your own words. He found body parts & IDed them. You have no credibility nor evidence! My challenge still stands, present your evidence or get out of this thread, troll.

If Jammonius keeps up his antics I will report him to Darat & let Darat take care of him.

I'm not here to play any games, Jammonius!

[aggle-rithm]

I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot.


Now, we're getting somewhere!

Please tell us who (specifically) perpetrated the psyop, what (specifically) they did, how (specifically) they did it.

I won't even ask you to provide evidence. Just tell us how it all fits together. The "common myth", as you call it, has this very important property. It is possible to state simply and clearly what it is.

Can your theory say the same?

Stop--don't answer that. I'll answer for you. Tell me if I get it wrong.

You HAVE NO THEORY. You have nothing. You either lack the wit to think the problem through, or the courage to come right out and say what you believe.

Am I right? I'm right, aren't I?

[aggle-rithm]

Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell? Has obe-wan or yoda provided a source for that quintessentially important photographic evidence?


Why does it have to be documented to YOUR satisfaction? What decisions do you make or actions you take that you need direct access to this information?

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you automatically doubt everything, and it certainly doesn't mean you doubt only claims that endanger your cherished beliefs, as you clearly do. It means that you doubt unusual claims until evidence is provided to support them.

If someone makes a reasonable claim, such as that the wreckage of a plane crash has been recovered, then it is ridiculous to doubt that claim unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary. To have a pathological need to ask for proof of any claim, indiscriminately, is a massive waste of time and energy. Kind of like reading your posts.

[beachnut]

... I can here use my own anecdotal experience and say that I never was able to get a signal on a jetliner in that time period and was never able to make a call. Mind you, I am not here putting this anecdote forward as proof of the claim cell phone calls could not have been made, but I am putting it forward, in conjunction with the perfection fallacy, to say that it is a stretch for you to claim, in advance, that the AK Dewdney study has been debunked. ...
I am a pilot, cell phones can work in flight; I have used them and they worked in 2001 but you can't go back and figure this one out.
The people on 911 mainly used the phones on the seat backs, have you ever flown? The crew has phones to talk to their company; you don't have a clue so you spew lies out of ignorance.

Is your goal to be wrong on every aspect of 911?

... 1--the military exercise part of the equation; and
2--governmental deception in evidence tampering and withholding.

1--For me, the importance of the military exercises, including the Vigilant Guardian exercise, is demonstrated by the fact that even high ranking military personnel, in communicating via phone, radio or whatever, openly and candidly admitted ...
... The exercise on 911 helped the military response. ...Nothing you posted on this subject has anything to do with 911. Your source failed to understand the military and reality. I was on active duty on 911, and your post is total nonsense taken from idiot web sites on 911.

Is your goal to repeat moronic lies without a conscience?

... A second example here requires us to use the FL 11 situation. There, the air traffic controllers were said to be listening to hijackers say things like the famous and the 9/11 iconic declaration: "We have some planes." Like the FL93 conversations, that one is iconic and is a linchpin of the 9/11 common version of events.

But, what is less well known is this fact: The air controllers DID NOT know where the conversations were coming from and are not in a position to say that it was coming from FL 11. ... That pretty much exposed your ignorance of ATC and flying.
"we have some planes" was clearly one of the terrorists who keyed the wrong button and talked to ATC instead of the Passengers on his flight.
How do I know this is true? Because the FAA has a tape and the only plane that failed to check in was 11, and therefore it was 11 and the terrorists who the crew who called their company confirmed.

Did you make up this false idea on your own?

... And, therein lies the key to any of the cell phone calls: There is no way to know where they were coming from. Once again, the key to the cell phone issue comes right smack back down to the real nitty gritty of 9/11: ... What?
Is this more stupidity you dredged up from some idiot on the Internet? The people who called other people prove who called who and where they were. You can know were each plane was during each call because of RADAR taped for later use.
If I was on Flight 93 and call my wife during the flight, that placed me on Flight 93 and my wife is the evidence of the call as are the SEAT-BACK PHONE RECORDS, and the RADAR tapes show the location of the plane at the time of the call.

You are SMACKED DOWN due to lack of knowledge.

... The emotional need to believe the common myth. ... the cell phone calls are a huge assumption and the rules of reason still apply, irrespective of the gigantic emotional tug that the cell phones entail.
Pure poppy. How many were seat-back phones? How many calls were from the seat-back phones?
... Look, let's be candid here. Questioning the cell phones can be interpreted as calling Todd Beamer a liar. I am doing no such thing, posters, so before you go there, just know that if you do that, you are only jerking off emotionally. ... . Yes, you are calling the FAA, NORAD, Pilots who flew on 911, Todd, Todd's mom, FBI, the ATC controllers and more liars. You do this with failed ideas.

And you tell us we are jer..... Real cool as you spew lies freely you are the one who is...

... I am here pointing to the very severe form of psyop that has been perpetrated upon us. Using people in this way and, perhaps, killing them to boot and making believe they were on phantom jetliners, to boot. ...
No, you are here spewing idiotic lies you picked up from idiots who post them on the Internet. You have googled your way to exposing you have no knowledge on flying, RADAR, ATC, radios, FAA procedures, physics, Cell phones, Seat-Back phones, and more.
19 terrorists did 911 and you have had 8 years to figure it out and you failed.
You are here apologizing for terrorists and posting real dumb lies.
You are the one spewing lies and doing the psyop based on hearsay, lies, and your lack of knowledge.

You believe in no planes, phantom planes. You have idiotic delusions, where did you find them? Why are you repeating failed ideas from years ago?

... The cell phone calls still have to be understood in context of the rest of the story. And, the rest of it does not support jetliner hijackings or crashes.

2--The FAA openly hid information and destroyed tapes, such that if there ...

The flight path data for the 4 9/11 flights that you rely on comes from sources...
The terrorist took the planes and used as kinetic energy weapons; here is where your lack of physics is killing your chance to understand most of 911. Your lack of knowledge is responsible for you posting dirt dumb lies you found on the internet.

The FAA did not hide information; that is a lie.

The flight path data is from multiple RADAR systems, you should study up before making up lies. You call the FAA and the military liars on the RADAR data; I was on active duty on 911 and you blame me for the deaths; how cool you are.

... Finally, the claim tht the "FBI" returned 95% of the jetliner to UA has not ever been documented with any photographic or other evidence. Where is the wreckage of Flight 93, pray tell?...
Prove it! You can't prove any of your ideas.

... cell phone information is not a slam dunk at all and is not persuasive in terms of reason. The cell phone aspect of the 9/11 myth is, however, one of the most emotionally compelling portions of the myth. I will grant you that much. How many calls were from Seat-Back Phones?

I know cell phones can work in flight 2001 and before because I am a pilot and I used cell phones in-flight. I have seen people use cell phones in-flight on commercial airlines so your cell phone theory is bogus.

If you check the technical literature, the cell phone technical information does not preclude cell phones from working in-flight.

Again, how many of the calls were Seat-Back Phone calls? The seat-back phones on the aircraft used on 911?

You failed this time, but if you study up on the FAA, flight procedures, FBI, RADAR, ATC procedures, cell phones, seat phones, physics, aircraft accidents, and more you may understand 911 eventually. The best you can do is call a fuselage a horse trailer now, so study and gain knowledge. Why do you apologize for terrorists, the murderers who did 911 all by themselves?
8 years of failure.