How do no-planers explain away the people who were on the planes?

[Titanic Explorer]

If this thread has been covered, my apologies to the moderator....

No planers are rife in the Truther cult, mostly Shanksville and and Pentagon no-planers. They argue no planes crashed, so they think the people who boarded the planes either died elsewhere, or didn't exist. Some Truthers suggest the planes were landed in a secret location, and the passengers killed by government agents. (No proof of course...)

The WTC no-planers argue no planes crashed, so no planes= no people on the planes. They think any plane debris and body parts were planted, and all the film footage of the planes hitting the WTC are fakes.

So my question to No-planer Truthers is this (incuding WTC, Shanksville and Pentagon no-planers) ;

All the people who boarded the 4 planes that crashed in 9/11 vanished that day. Body parts were identified from all 3 crash sites. If you don't think people were on the planes- where did those people go, and what is your evidence?

[Quad4_72]

One word for you: "Vicsims"

[The Platypus]

They will say nothing at all, most likely.

Or if they do attempt to say anything it will be something stupid like, "the families were paid off to pretend they had a family member die."

or my personal favorite,

"You're an agent, aren't you! You must be paid by someone to disagree with me"

There's so many layers to how disturbingly funny that one is...

[Titanic Explorer]

They will say nothing at all, most likely.

Or if they do attempt to say anything it will be something stupid like, "the families were paid off to pretend they had a family member die."

or my personal favorite,

"You're an agent, aren't you! You must be paid by someone to disagree with me"

There's so many layers to how disturbingly funny that one is...

Yet the Trutherbots never offer a shred of proof....

[T.A.M.]

the truthers that believe in "no-plane" theory usually say,

(A) the planes and passengers never existed, those listed as passengers were govt assets who were simply given new identities and lives.

OR

(B) The passengers started out on the flights, as listed, but these flights were diverted elsewhere, where these passengers were off loaded, and then (i) killed, (ii) held captive, or (iii) placed into a form of witness protection so to speak.

Yes, I have seen all of the above come out of no-planers at some point over the last 3-4 years.

TAM:)

[Matthew Ellard]

There is, believe it or not, a 1989 Kris Kristofferson science fiction movie called Millenium that has passangers removed mid air before the plane crashes. Aliens from the future do this to repopulate the future. It isn't that bad a film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_(1989_film)

[grandmastershek]

fairly simple...
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/reality.jpg?t=1279824019

[Titanic Explorer]

Truther no-planers like to claim the airplane derbris and human remains were 'planted' at the crash sites- so where did the planters get the wreckage and body parts in the first place?- and what proof do the Truthers have to prove anything was planted?
They seem to pull these theories out of thin air..

[Furcifer]

Never try to analyze the Truther mind from the basis it operates rationally.

[Southwind17]

It seems to me that most if not all of these theories are certainly doable. The question is: are they plausible in the context of keeping things under wraps? Of course it's possible to plant a "crash site" with real debris and body parts, indeed pretty easy if you're the Government with the wherewithal. Is it plausible to pull it off risk-free? Away with you, laddy!

[MikeW]

Gerard Holmgren follows a variation of David Ray Griffins fatuous "no hijackers on the manifests" fraud.

That is, he takes lists of passengers that aren't official manifests, just names assembled from press reports. He then points out any errors, or variations in passenger numbers between the lists. And then ends like this:

The fact is - that in nearly three years - the media has tried to give the impression that they have published valid passenger lists, when all that has been provided is the contradictory rubbish exposed in this investigation. We are left with no choice but to conclude that these AA11 lists are fabrications. Personal stories of those allegedly involved have been built on the basis of these fabricated lists. As qualified earlier, some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage. But the passenger lists as complete entities are lies.
http://911review.org/brad.com/Holmgren/fake_passenger_lists.html

So what he wants to do is imply that we can't be sure any of the passengers exists.

If you want any more on why the AA11 passenger lists varied then I cover it on this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_11_Passengers). Beware, though, it's deeply tedious: Holgren raises lots of points without having a clue what they mean, and covering each one takes a very long time.

[Arisia]

Maybe they're living where all the Jews who actually survived the Holocaust went, instead of going back home. :boggled:

[CurtC]

Anytime I've heard this question come up, the Truthers simply say they don't know - they're Just Asking Questions, they don't have the answers.

That's probably a pretty good strategy when in a debate, because attempting an answer would be embarrassing. The fact that there is no answer that wouldn't embarrass them should be an indication that the starting idea is absurd, but the Truther mind is impenetrable to reason.

[Titanic Explorer]

The issue of the passengers and crew from the planes is one thing the no-planers (particulalry on this board) **REFUSE** to address directly. One no-planer on this board hinted the people never existed, yet when pressed, he refuses to get specific. Another no-planer here admitted he has no intrerest in discussing the people from the planes. Why is this? They can't explain away the people from the planes. They can't explain away the families and friends still in mouring. And when they claim that the families and friends are putting on an act or don't exist, it is an admission of insanity. No-planers claim body parts were planted at the crash sites- but what is their proof? They claim the calls made from the planes werre fakes- but what is their proof?

[T.A.M.]

The issue of the passengers and crew from the planes is one thing the no-planers (particulalry on this board) **REFUSE** to address directly. One no-planer on this board hinted the people never existed, yet when pressed, he refuses to get specific. Another no-planer here admitted he has no intrerest in discussing the people from the planes. Why is this? They can't explain away the people from the planes. They can't explain away the families and friends still in mouring. And when they claim that the families and friends are putting on an act or don't exist, it is an admission of insanity. No-planers claim body parts were planted at the crash sites- but what is their proof? They claim the calls made from the planes werre fakes- but what is their proof?

I can only answer your question as to their response content, not its sanity (or lack of)...sorry!!!

TAM:)

[Titanic Explorer]

Most Truthers are Shanskville No planers, with Pentagon no planers not far behind....The Shanksville no planers aparenty expected the downed plane that nosedived into the earth to be in large recognizable pieces.

[Captain_Swoop]

Most Truthers are Shanskville No planers, with Pentagon no planers not far behind....The Shanksville no planers aparenty expected the downed plane that nosedived into the earth to be in large recognizable pieces.

Sticking up out of the ground like a paper plane in the lawn.

Why would it be more difficultto have terrorists crash the planes than it would to secretly fly them somewhere else. kill everyone and then transport body parts and bits of plane back to the crash sites without the First Responders noticing?

It's like the Apollo Hoax, when you factor in everyone that would have to be involved it comes to many thousands of people in dozens of organizations.

[Titanic Explorer]

I wonder if no-planers believe planes have ever crashed in the past 70 years? What would they concider proof? Wreckage? body parts? eye witnesses?
If they reject these things, as they do with the 9/11 plane crashes, then they must reject the idea that a plane has ever gone down, as they would accept nothing as evidence of a crash.

[Southwind17]

Most Truthers are Shanskville No planers, with Pentagon no planers not far behind....The Shanksville no planers aparenty expected the downed plane that nosedived into the earth to be in large recognizable pieces.
Surely photographic evidence has been presented or is readily available to such truthers showing the aftermaths of other, non-contentious, airplane crashes demonstrating that under similar crash conditions the plane essentially disintegrates?! Any posted in this Forum, by chance?

[CORed]

Truther no-planers like to claim the airplane derbris and human remains were 'planted' at the crash sites- so where did the planters get the wreckage and body parts in the first place?- and what proof do the Truthers have to prove anything was planted?
They seem to pull these theories out of thin air..

Well sure, the planes were flown to a sooper seekrit airstrip, where the passengers were murdered and dismembered, and the planes dismantled (in just a few hours), then after the WTC towers and the Pentagon were destroyed by space beams/missiles/nanothermite, the plane parts and body parts were planted in the wreckage, because of course all this stuff was so much easier to do than just flying the freakin' planes into the freakin' buildings in the first place.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No-planers wouldn't dare to step on the Flight 93 Memorial site in Shanksville. If they would protest that Flight 93 didn't crash there & that the people onboard didn't die, they would be promptly decked by those who visit the site throughout the year. It's one thing to stand on a site & say: "It didn't happen." & then the other is getting alot of ****** off people wanting to kick the living **** outta you for being an arrogant & ignorant person. Especially those who lost loved ones on the site!

I bet if there were No-planers in the 1860's, when the Civil War was going on, they would say that it never happened & that it was a "Gov. Black Op.". But yet over 620,000 lives were lost because of it. Then I'd be asking: "Where are the 620,000 people that died in the war?"

[Titanic Explorer]

No-planers wouldn't dare to step on the Flight 93 Memorial site in Shanksville. If they would protest that Flight 93 didn't crash there & that the people onboard didn't die, they would be promptly decked by those who visit the site throughout the year. It's one thing to stand on a site & say: "It didn't happen." & then the other is getting alot of ****** off people wanting to kick the living **** outta you for being an arrogant & ignorant person. Especially those who lost loved ones on the site!

I bet if there were No-planers in the 1860's, when the Civil War was going on, they would say that it never happened & that it was a "Gov. Black Op.". But yet over 620,000 lives were lost because of it. Then I'd be asking: "Where are the 620,000 people that died in the war?"

If Trutherbots can preach their ignorance at Ground Zero in NY, it's only a matter of time before they do the same in Washington and Shanksville. I'm surprised they are not already there..For a Trutherbot to preach their BS at one of the crash sites, is on the same level of tastelessness as when the Westborough Baptist Church (of 'God hates fags' infamy) protested the funerals of fallen soldiers.
I wouldn't shed a tear if members from either cult group recieved a harsh beating from family members of the fallen..

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If Trutherbots can preach their ignorance at Ground Zero in NY, it's only a matter of time before they do the same in Washington and Shanksville. I'm surprised they are not already there..For a Trutherbot to preach their BS at one of the crash sites, is on the same level of tastelessness as when the Westborough Baptist Church (of 'God hates fags' infamy) protested the funerals of fallen soldiers.
I wouldn't shed a tear if members from either cult group recieved a harsh beating from family members of the fallen..

I don't think it would be wise for those idiots to come to Shanksville. I might live 20 miles North of the town, which is good since I'm close, but us Pennsylvanians have alot of history in this state. We love our history more than anything & we're not going to let a few Truthers ruin our history because they want a shindig of a good time making jokes about those who died.

I got 1 thing to say those Truthers: "Y'ins better not come any where near Shanksville. Stay away from there! Y'ins better understand!"

[Titanic Explorer]

I don't think it would be wise for those idiots to come to Shanksville. I might live 20 miles North of the town, which is good since I'm close, but us Pennsylvanians have alot of history in this state. We love our history more than anything & we're not going to let a few Truthers ruin our history because they want a shindig of a good time making jokes about those who died.

I got 1 thing to say those Truthers: "Y'ins better not come any where near Shanksville. Stay away from there! Y'ins better understand!"

Does the Shanksville 9/11 memorial open next year? I hope that if Truthers do go with their billboard signs, they will quickly be shown the door.
How far along is construction on the memorial?
PA is rich in history, from the founding of this country to the Civil War, to the location of the greatest horror film in history ('Night of the Living Dead'- filmed near Pittsburg methinks). The only state that might rival PA in American history is MA, but you have one up on us with the Civil War...

[Davidg64]

I ended up on this thread after hearing a truther shout "the planes were never registered" (followed by claims of how stupid everyone else is), so I came here to find what has been said to this presumably old argument. But I guess this guy was saying that if they were never registered then they never existed and thus neither did the passengers??

[MIKILLINI]

Truthers have never been able to come up with anything reasonable concerning the passengers. It seems very inconvenient for them to try and honestly consider it because this ruins their no plane conspiracy theory.

[dafydd]

I why our resident truthers are avoiding this thread?

[Titanic Explorer]

I why our resident truthers are avoiding this thread?

I expected this....They refuse to address this issue because they don't have answers, or they will falsely claim they 'already' gave an answer and don't need to repeat it

[dafydd]

Truther no-planers like to claim the airplane derbris and human remains were 'planted' at the crash sites- so where did the planters get the wreckage and body parts in the first place?- and what proof do the Truthers have to prove anything was planted?
They seem to pull these theories out of thin air..

Wrong,out of their fundamental orifices.

[Bell]

I why our resident truthers are avoiding this thread?

I at least expected RedIbis to post and ask "How does NIST explain away the missing column 79 from WTC7?"

[MetalliSociety]

I always lol at this argument. ALL the bodies: of victims and hijackers; were identified long ago. The victims remains were given to the families for proper burial, and the hijacker remains are in DC somewhere because the guvmint doesn't know what to do with them because their home countries don't want them.

No planes. Then how do you explain allllll the NYC witnesses? I'm sure they'd say something idiotic like "it was obviously a hologram". And I guess the bombs were planted stretegically to fit the perfect dimensions of the plane to make the hole, and to make the blast hole IN THE SHAPE OF A PLANE. Honestly, I don't see a hole in that theory at all.

[jammonius]

Greetings Titanic,

Essentially, you have ignored altogether the plain as day fact that your query consists in nothing more and nothing less than a "Loaded Question" in terms of logic, dialogue, discourse and/or dialectical discussion. I have addressed this rather completely elsewhere, including illustration of why it is a loaded question. One example can be found here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6156187&postcount=2410

Another post that addresses the "loaded question" fallacy in even greater detail is found at:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6157244&postcount=2488

So, two posts, by way of non-exhaustive example, have addressed the matter from a perspective of dialogue.

What is at play, however, is not something that lends itself to reasoning. We are, instead, dealing with an emotional dynamic. Emotion trumps reason and sets it aside.

Your appeal to the emotion centering on "sympathy" for people who are envisioned to have died horribly and tragically has not got anything at all to do with reason and has only to do with the emotional psyop of 9/11. To the extent that "reason" is involved it is limited to an understanding of how PSYOPs work and how, when properly presented, a psyop can perpetuate itself in the absence of any confirming investigation.

There you have the essence of 9/11 could you but realize it; and, you cannot. You cannot realize that "whataboutthepassengers?" no matter how cleverly, tenderly, rememberingly or charmingly put is still a "loaded question" fallacy and it will not ever not be one.

If this thread has been covered, my apologies to the moderator....

No planers are rife in the Truther cult, mostly Shanksville and and Pentagon no-planers. They argue no planes crashed, so they think the people who boarded the planes either died elsewhere, or didn't exist. Some Truthers suggest the planes were landed in a secret location, and the passengers killed by government agents. (No proof of course...)

In the above you start out be describing that there are NO PLANERS. You then move, without pause, right into the presumption centering on passengers. I don't know what it takes for you to think logically about this. I have tried six ways to Sunday to show that what you are doing is a fallacy and fails the test of reasoning. To no avail. You don't get it and likely will not ever get it as, once again, emotion trumps reason.

The only think further I can sugges is this:

Deal drastically with your emotional mechanism. Stomp on it if need be and get it away from your conscious awareness when attempting to assess 9/11.

No, not even that is good enough for you, I fear.

Try this:

Kill your emotions.


The WTC no-planers argue no planes crashed, so no planes= no people on the planes. They think any plane debris and body parts were planted, and all the film footage of the planes hitting the WTC are fakes.

Why are you falsely stating the claims?

The claims are:

There were no plane parts identified as such by part number or serial number. The few photographs there are alleging plane parts are inclusive as plane parts, generically speaking and utterly devoid of proof of the proposition they came from any specific type of plane, let alone a Boeing 767 and still less the Boeing 767s/757s said to have been involved in 9/11.

Do you understand the foregoing is a true statement?

The claim there are body parts of passengers is not proven by valid evidence. There are a few newspaper articles, including, for instance, an article or two in the NYDailyNews, that make that claim, but newspapers are not evidence. There are no publicly available DNA records confirming passenger identification. There is a DMORT "editorial" written in gobbledy-gook language that goes around in a circle but does not make a DNA identification claim, per se. There is an AFIP "experiment" concerning DNA for hijackers that is conducted as a thought experiment and ends up with an inconclusive outcome. That study is limited to the Pentagon, but has a sentence or two suggesting that other 9/11 flights were involved in the study, but the langauge containing that suggestion is vague.

There exists no valid evidence of passenger identification.

As to the video claims, there are some that are almost certainly fakes. However, not all of them can be fully explained as fakes, imho; and, in any event, there are some (about 20 to, perhaps, as many as 40) valid witnesses who claim they saw a plane. Witnesses therefore cast doubt on the claim all the videos were fakes. Mind you, there are more witnesses who did not claim seeing a plane and who, instead, claim having seen a fireball and heard an explosion. Most eyewitnesses who are in the best position to have seen the event describe it solely as an explosion. So, as to witnesses, the issue is muddled at best, with the majority of the valid ones being consistent with NO PLANE.

Based on the status of the evidence, one has to include a holographic possibility as the one that best suits the totality of the known evidence. In other words, some videos are fake, some are not. The event also included image projection weaponry of deception.


So my question to No-planer Truthers is this (incuding WTC, Shanksville and Pentagon no-planers) ;

All the people who boarded the 4 planes that crashed in 9/11 vanished that day. Body parts were identified from all 3 crash sites. If you don't think people were on the planes- where did those people go, and what is your evidence?

Titanic, I am sincerely hoping you will have an ahha moment here and recognize the absurdity of the above inquiry.

Good luck

Source of Hints and Clues concerning your problem:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6156187&postcount=2410

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6157244&postcount=2488

[Oystein]

...
There exists no valid evidence of passenger identification.
...

Cutting away all the unbecoming and unnecessary word salad, this is what the issue boils down to:

You, the no-planer, doubt that passengers died in plane crashed on 9/11.

Is that a fair representation of your claim? If so, very well, let's take it at face value for the moment: Possibly no passengers (and crew) were harmed that day by plane crashes.


Now do you recognize the existence of a multitude of claims such as these:

"Betty Ong assigned herself to duty on flight AA 11 and is now presumed dead because of flight 11 crashing into the World Trade Center"
"Ed Felt was last seen boarding flight 93. His remains were found and ID's in a rubble pile near Shanksville, where, presumably, fliht 93 crashed"
"Betty Ong and Ed Felt are missing to this day"



Obviously, statements like these are in conflict with your presumption that no plane crashed and hence no person aboard was harmed.

But presumably, Ed Felt and Betty Ong are missing.


How then to reconcile the conflict? If we suppose your presumption to be true, what then, exactly, is wrong woth the others? Can logically be only one of the following:


Betty/Ed never existed
Betty/Ed died before 9/11
Betty/Ed lived after 9/11
Betty/Ed died on 9/11, but not in the supposed plane crashes


So which one is it? or is there a logical possibility that I overlooked? No word salad needed. Just 9 words or less. Show us you can do it, jammonius!

[jammonius]

Cutting away all the unbecoming and unnecessary word salad, this is what the issue boils down to:

You, the no-planer, doubt that passengers died in plane crashed on 9/11.

Is that a fair representation of your claim? If so, very well, let's take it at face value for the moment: Possibly no passengers (and crew) were harmed that day by plane crashes.


Now do you recognize the existence of a multitude of claims such as these:

"Betty Ong assigned herself to duty on flight AA 11 and is now presumed dead because of flight 11 crashing into the World Trade Center"
"Ed Felt was last seen boarding flight 93. His remains were found and ID's in a rubble pile near Shanksville, where, presumably, fliht 93 crashed"
"Betty Ong and Ed Felt are missing to this day"



Obviously, statements like these are in conflict with your presumption that no plane crashed and hence no person aboard was harmed.

But presumably, Ed Felt and Betty Ong are missing.


How then to reconcile the conflict? If we suppose your presumption to be true, what then, exactly, is wrong woth the others? Can logically be only one of the following:


Betty/Ed never existed
Betty/Ed died before 9/11
Betty/Ed lived after 9/11
Betty/Ed died on 9/11, but not in the supposed plane crashes


So which one is it? or is there a logical possibility that I overlooked? No word salad needed. Just 9 words or less. Show us you can do it, jammonius!

I will try one more time:

There you have the essence of 9/11 could you but realize it; and, you cannot. You cannot realize that "whataboutthepassengers?" no matter how cleverly, tenderly, rememberingly or charmingly put is still a "loaded question" fallacy and it will not ever not be one.


Oystein, on some level you do realize you cannot assume there were passengers and you cannot therefore delineate a rational for proving the events of 9/11 based on the assumption there were passengers, right?

On some level you understand this, don't you?

[dafydd]

Cutting away all the unbecoming and unnecessary word salad, this is what the issue boils down to:

You, the no-planer, doubt that passengers died in plane crashed on 9/11.

Is that a fair representation of your claim? If so, very well, let's take it at face value for the moment: Possibly no passengers (and crew) were harmed that day by plane crashes.


Now do you recognize the existence of a multitude of claims such as these:

"Betty Ong assigned herself to duty on flight AA 11 and is now presumed dead because of flight 11 crashing into the World Trade Center"
"Ed Felt was last seen boarding flight 93. His remains were found and ID's in a rubble pile near Shanksville, where, presumably, fliht 93 crashed"
"Betty Ong and Ed Felt are missing to this day"



Obviously, statements like these are in conflict with your presumption that no plane crashed and hence no person aboard was harmed.

But presumably, Ed Felt and Betty Ong are missing.


How then to reconcile the conflict? If we suppose your presumption to be true, what then, exactly, is wrong woth the others? Can logically be only one of the following:


Betty/Ed never existed
Betty/Ed died before 9/11
Betty/Ed lived after 9/11
Betty/Ed died on 9/11, but not in the supposed plane crashes


So which one is it? or is there a logical possibility that I overlooked? No word salad needed. Just 9 words or less. Show us you can do it, jammonius!

I predict a deafening silence from Jammy,or a non-answer.

[Oystein]

I will try one more time:

There you have the essence of 9/11 could you but realize it; and, you cannot. You cannot realize that "whataboutthepassengers?" no matter how cleverly, tenderly, rememberingly or charmingly put is still a "loaded question" fallacy and it will not ever not be one.


Oystein, on some level you do realize you cannot assume there were passengers and you cannot therefore delineate a rational for proving the events of 9/11 based on the assumption there were passengers, right?

On some level you understand this, don't you?

Jammonius, jammonius, what do you not understand when I write "please no word salad, 9 words or less will suffice"?

Again, just for you:

If Ed Felt was not a passenger and Betty Ong was not a crew member on any plane that crashed on 9/11, then one, and only one, of the following must be true, as these options completely enumerate the logical possibilities:

* Betty/Ed never existed
* Betty/Ed died before 9/11
* Betty/Ed lived after 9/11
* Betty/Ed died on 9/11, but not in the supposed plane crashes
(The fifth option is already ruled out there, , for your convenience and at your request that I ought not assume it: Ed/Betty died in a plane crash on 9/11)

There is nothing loaded about this. This is formal logic. Can you apply formal logic to the real world, jammonius? Then, please, tell us which of these 4 options is true, in your opinion.

[Captain_Swoop]

DNA was identified by a Coroner. Are you saying he is lying as well?

If the passengers weren't on the planes and the planes didn't crash, what happened to them?

You never provide an answer to this.
They had to go somewhere as they are now missing.

[Oystein]

To illustrate:
I could, by the way, ask the same question about King Arthur, Elvis, Osama Bin Laden or the Swiss linguist and ethnologian Paul Zinsli:

If King Arthur/Elvis/OBL/Paul Zinsli was not on any of the planes that supposedly crashed on 9/11, then one, and only one, of the following must be true, as these options completely enumerate the logical possibilities:

* King Arthur/Elvis/OBL/Paul Zinsli never existed
* King Arthur/Elvis/OBL/Paul Zinsli died before 9/11
* King Arthur/Elvis/OBL/Paul Zinsli lived after 9/11
* King Arthur/Elvis/OBL/Paul Zinsli died on 9/11, but not in the supposed plane crashes

As these questions are not loaded, they can be answered in every single case with few words:

* King Arthur never existed
* Elvis died before 9/11
* OBL lived after 9/11
* Paul Zinsli died on 9/11, not in a plane crash (but of a different cause, presumably old age as he was 95 years old, in Bern, Switzerland)

See, this is easy. Even if some claim that King Arthur did exist and Elvis is alive and OBL has long been dead, or if some don't know Paul Zinsli. I was able to answer the question based on my knowledge and my theories about the world.

You can do the same thing with Ed Felt.
You can do the same thing with Betty Ong.
You can do the same thing with Christine Hanson.

All without word salad. Please do. 9 words or less per person.

[dafydd]

I have Jammy on ignore.I presume that he dodged the questions yet again? Anything to avoid dealing with reality.I blame Care In The Community.

[Oystein]

I have Jammy on ignore.I presume that he dodged the questions yet again? Anything to avoid dealing with reality.I blame Care In The Community.

Yup, another word-salad-dodge.

[BigAl]

I will try one more time:


Oystein, on some level you do realize you cannot assume there were passengers and you cannot therefore delineate a rational for proving the events of 9/11 based on the assumption there were passengers, right?

On some level you understand this, don't you?

Jam, what do you think became of Ed and the nearly 300 other people that boarded planes on 9/11 and have never been seen since?

[sophia8]

the truthers that believe in "no-plane" theory usually say,

(A) the planes and passengers never existed, those listed as passengers were govt assets who were simply given new identities and lives.

OR

(B) The passengers started out on the flights, as listed, but these flights were diverted elsewhere, where these passengers were off loaded, and then (i) killed, (ii) held captive, or (iii) placed into a form of witness protection so to speak.

Yes, I have seen all of the above come out of no-planers at some point over the last 3-4 years.

TAM:)You've left out (B)(iv): The passengers were taken to Area 51 where they were handed over to the Greys for breeding/experimentation, in exchange for alien technology. I've seen that explanation put forward quite seriously.

[dafydd]

Jam, what do you think became of Ed and the nearly 300 other people that boarded planes on 9/11 and have never been seen since?

Now you are the one who is flogging a dead horse,he will never answer that question.

[Titanic Explorer]

No planers must have serious anger issues with reality, to be so flippant about rejecting reality.

[Titanic Explorer]

You don't get it and likely will not ever get it as, once again, emotion trumps reason.

The only think further I can sugges is this:

Deal drastically with your emotional mechanism. Stomp on it if need be and get it away from your conscious awareness when attempting to assess 9/11.

No, not even that is good enough for you, I fear.

Try this:

Kill your emotions.[/I]





I edited down my response- Jammy was doing the usual 'Toofer Two step', going off topic, and avoiding the thread question.
Jammy, I know you have little emotion for those who died on 9/11 and look down on those who are still in mourning, but you cannot claim there to have been no planes, yet refuse to address the fate of the people on the planes.

I'll ask again- from your no-planer perspective- where are the people who were listed as having been on the planes?

jam, you have YET to give a direct answer to this question.

This thread is not for you to claim there were holographic planes, or assert that you think nobody saw planes hit the WTC- please stay on topic.

Where do YOU think the people went who were listed as having been on the planes? I'd be quite interested to hear your opinion on this matter..and please cite proof to back your claims.

[Rolfe]

Titanic Explorer, I wish you would use the quote function correctly. Not only is it very difficult to follow your post like this, your post cannot easily be quoted in its turn.

Rolfe.

[Titanic Explorer]

Titanic Explorer, I wish you would use the quote function correctly. Not only is it very difficult to follow your post like this, your post cannot easily be quoted in its turn.

Rolfe.

I fixed it a bit..

[ElMondoHummus]

Titanic Explorer, I wish you would use the quote function correctly. Not only is it very difficult to follow your post like this, your post cannot easily be quoted in its turn.

Rolfe.

I'm sorry, TE, but I have to agree with Rolfe: If we're going to complain to Major Tom about quoting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6120952#post6120952), fairness dictates that we hold non-truthers to the same standard. But please don't look at this as me bitching at you; that's totally not my intent. Rather, take it as friendly advice from a fellow forum denizen. :)

Sorry about that, I'm the one in bold. I'll do it differently next time..

Thank you for this. That is very unlike a certain truther who refuses to eliminate an easily removable source of ambiguity from his posts. I don't mean to beat this into the ground, but I appreciate that you're willing to do this for us.

[Titanic Explorer]

I'm sorry, TE, but I have to agree with Rolfe: If we're going to complain to Major Tom about quoting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6120952#post6120952), fairness dictates that we hold non-truthers to the same standard. But please don't look at this as me bitching at you; that's totally not my intent. Rather, take it as friendly advice from a fellow forum denizen. :)



Thank you for this. That is very unlike a certain truther who refuses to eliminate an easily removable source of ambiguity from his posts. I don't mean to beat this into the ground, but I appreciate that you're willing to do this for us.


Point taken. I deleted the whole thing and decided to address just one point in jammy's rambling post.

[jammonius]

DNA was identified by a Coroner. Are you s]aying he is lying as well?

What and who are you talking about and what is your source for the claim?

If it's Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County PA, then the claim is not substantiated, to my knowledge. Perhaps you have source information I am unaware of, though. So please source your claim so it can be considered.

Thanks in advance.


If the passengers weren't on the planes and the planes didn't crash, what happened to them?

At this point, I doubt you can ascertain you have asked a fallacious, loaded question. That is too bad.


You never provide an answer to this.
They had to go somewhere as they are now missing.

No matter how you phrase a loaded, fallacious question, it is not ever going to be answered as the question is totally screwed up. It assumes what has not been proven.

In theory, the phrase "assumes what has not been proven" is easy enough to grasp. However, that concept does not apply to 9/11 world.

We are not ever going to get past that, absent an ahha moment on your part.

[EventHorizon]

What and who are you talking about and what is your source for the claim?

If it's Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County PA, then the claim is not substantiated, to my knowledge. Perhaps you have source information I am unaware of, though. So please source your claim so it can be considered.

Thanks in advance.



At this point, I doubt you can ascertain you have asked a fallacious, loaded question. That is too bad.



No matter how you phrase a loaded, fallacious question, it is not ever going to be answered as the question is totally screwed up. It assumes what has not been proven.

In theory, the phrase "assumes what has not been proven" is easy enough to grasp. However, that concept does not apply to 9/11 world.

We are not ever going to get past that, absent an ahha moment on your part.

There is nothing loaded about those questions. At all. You won't answer them because they are inconvenient to your delusion. That's it. If you were not dishonest you would answer, but you haven't been honest once, not to yourself or anybody else, at any time on this forum. It's sad and pathetic.

[uke2se]

Jam, the only thing the question assumes is that the people existed and that their loved ones believes they went on the relevant planes on the morning of 911. These people are now missing. How do you explain that? What happened to them?

Note, Jam, that we are talking about real people here, the relatives of which have not heard from their loved ones since 9/11, 2001. Something happened to these people. If they were not on the planes, where are they? We are also talking about the loss of four airplanes, which were registered and definitely real. Where are these planes today?

These questions are absolutely vital for your "hypothesis". If you keep dodging them you will never gain any credibility. So, for your own sake, answer the questions.

[Redtail]

What and who are you talking about and what is your source for the claim?

If it's Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County PA, then the claim is not substantiated, to my knowledge. Perhaps you have source information I am unaware of, though. So please source your claim so it can be considered.

Thanks in advance.



At this point, I doubt you can ascertain you have asked a fallacious, loaded question. That is too bad.



No matter how you phrase a loaded, fallacious question, it is not ever going to be answered as the question is totally screwed up. It assumes what has not been proven.

In theory, the phrase "assumes what has not been proven" is easy enough to grasp. However, that concept does not apply to 9/11 world.

We are not ever going to get past that, absent an ahha moment on your part.
What hasn't been proven?

[jammonius]

There is nothing loaded about those questions. At all. You won't answer them because they are inconvenient to your delusion. That's it. If you were not dishonest you would answer, but you haven't been honest once, not to yourself or anybody else, at any time on this forum. It's sad and pathetic.

Your claim is false. The questions are loaded and there is nothing inconvenient about them from a NO PLANE perspective.

[EventHorizon]

Your claim is false. The questions are loaded and there is nothing inconvenient about them from a NO PLANE perspective.

Nope. Sorry, not loaded. Oystein has illustrated exactly why. Again, if you are honest you would answer them. But you are not honest so you will not.

[jammonius]

Nope. Sorry, not loaded. Oystein has illustrated exactly why.

Oystein did no such thing. This thread is not that lengthy yet. All one has to do is look at this and the prior page to see that Oystein has not refuted my detailed illustration of why "whataboutthepassengers?" is a loaded question, including illustration and documentation of the fallacy entailed thereby.

Oystein has simply said he wanted a shorter answer. That is not refutation.


Again, if you are honest you would answer them. But you are not honest so you will not.

You probably don't get that the above is a form of loaded question in its own right, do you?

Posters, lurkers and victims family members, all you need to do here to understand threads like this one is take a look at who is finding it necessary to engage in playground put downs. Much is revealed by the inability to engage in actual dialogue, consisting in reasoned responses.

One more time:

Do better

[EventHorizon]

Posters, lurkers and victims family members,

Don't worry, they all see exactly what you are doing here. And none of them are being fooled by it. Thankfully.

[Titanic Explorer]

Your claim is false. The questions are loaded and there is nothing inconvenient about them from a NO PLANE perspective.

In your no-planer opinion, did Ed Felt and Betty Ong exist?
Why are you afraid to answer these questions?
If you argue there were no planes, then you need to explain the people on the planes. If there were no planes, I assume you think the people were fictional. If thats the case, then what about people who say their loved ones and/or friends were on the planes? Do you think they are lying?
Don't be such a coward Jam, answer the questions!

[Titanic Explorer]

Your appeal to the emotion centering on "sympathy" for people who are envisioned to have died horribly and tragically has not got anything at all to do with reason and has only to do with the emotional psyop of 9/11. To the extent that "reason" is involved it is limited to an understanding of how PSYOPs work and how, when properly presented, a psyop can perpetuate itself in the absence of any confirming investigation.


Obviously you have no sympathy for those killed on 9/11. The question posed in this thread is not difficult- You assert there were no planes- so how do you explain away the passenger and crew compliment? Even if you think they were just names on a list- do you doubt they were real people?
You insist there were no planes, but resfuse to take on the issue of the people on the planes. You know it exposes your theories as impossible and ridiculous.

[Titanic Explorer]

There exists no valid evidence of passenger identification.

As to the video claims, there are some that are almost certainly fakes. However, not all of them can be fully explained as fakes, imho; and, in any event, there are some (about 20 to, perhaps, as many as 40) valid witnesses who claim they saw a plane. Witnesses therefore cast doubt on the claim all the videos were fakes. Mind you, there are more witnesses who did not claim seeing a plane and who, instead, claim having seen a fireball and heard an explosion. Most eyewitnesses who are in the best position to have seen the event describe it solely as an explosion. So, as to witnesses, the issue is muddled at best, with the majority of the valid ones being consistent with NO PLANE.

Based on the status of the evidence, one has to include a holographic possibility as the one that best suits the totality of the known evidence. In other words, some videos are fake, some are not. The event also included image projection weaponry of deception.




Remains of the victims from the planes have been found and identified from all 3 crash sites.

Prove the videos were fakes. That's off topic btw.

Holograms? That's padded cell lunacy, and off topic. Are you suggesting the people on the planes were holograms? This isn't Star trek- holographic cloaking devices don't exist.

How about it Jam-explain the people that you don't think were on the planes (since you assert there were no planes). What happened to those people?

[EventHorizon]

Posters, lurkers and victims family members, all you need to do here to understand threads like this one is take a look at who is finding it necessary to engage in playground put downs. Much is revealed by the inability to engage in actual dialogue, consisting in reasoned responses.

One more time:

Do better

Should have added that I am not the one resorting to playground antics. I'm calling you dishonest. That is a demonstrable fact. You, on the other hand are sticking your fingers in your ears saying, "I'm not listening I'm not listening!" Those would be playground antics.

[Grizzly Bear]

If this thread has been covered, my apologies to the moderator....?

Only one answer needs to be given concerning no planers; They substitute reality with their own. I will not waste a single extra moment of my life debating with an individual that believes in a completely different realm of reality like that ever. THe only reason I can think of anybody trying to convince these guys they're wrong is sheer boredom.

[Southwind17]

No matter how you phrase a loaded, fallacious question, it is not ever going to be answered as the question is totally screwed up. It assumes what has not been proven.

In theory, the phrase "assumes what has not been proven" is easy enough to grasp. However, that concept does not apply to 9/11 world.
I believe "begging the question" is the logical fallacy term that's seemingly eluding you. Regardless ...

We are not ever going to get past that, absent an ahha moment on your part.
Not if you intend to use that as an excuse to be elusive with other posters we're not. The simple, non-loaded starting question here is: Do you contest that airline passengers were killed in connection with the events of 9/11?

[Titanic Explorer]

Only one answer needs to be given concerning no planers; They substitute reality with their own. I will not waste a single extra moment of my life debating with an individual that believes in a completely different realm of reality like that ever. THe only reason I can think of anybody trying to convince these guys they're wrong is sheer boredom.

Your are right..I just hope Truthers can see how insane their delusions are and come to their senses. Most Truthers are just ignorant-and when their ignorance is shown to them, some of them can be saved from a life of tinfoil hattery- but a few are just plain nuts....

[uke2se]

Jam, the only thing the question assumes is that the people existed and that their loved ones believes they went on the relevant planes on the morning of 911. These people are now missing. How do you explain that? What happened to them?

Note, Jam, that we are talking about real people here, the relatives of which have not heard from their loved ones since 9/11, 2001. Something happened to these people. If they were not on the planes, where are they? We are also talking about the loss of four airplanes, which were registered and definitely real. Where are these planes today?

These questions are absolutely vital for your "hypothesis". If you keep dodging them you will never gain any credibility. So, for your own sake, answer the questions.

Since Jammonius seems to have missed my post, here's a reminder.

[Oystein]

Oystein did no such thing. This thread is not that lengthy yet. All one has to do is look at this and the prior page to see that Oystein has not refuted my detailed illustration of why "whataboutthepassengers?" is a loaded question, including illustration and documentation of the fallacy entailed thereby....

The question would be loaded, if I assumed anything that is inconvenient to you. However, the question as I posed it assumes nothing in its original form, and even takes away the bit of load that you could justifiably complain about, namely, the option "people died in plane crashes".

You need to notice that my question, as posed the most recent time in this thread, is specifically NOT "whatabouthtepassengers", as the options do not contain any mention of them being passengers, and the question specifically rules out that they are passengers.

So here it goes again:

In your world, jammonius, Ed Felt and Christine Hanson were not passengers on planes that crashed, and Betty Ong was not a crew member on a plane that crashed.

Question 1: Is that a fair conclusion from your no-plane theory?

Supposing your answer is "yes", I will respect that, for the time being. And go on asking the same question about the following persons:
* King Arthur
* jammonius
* Oystein
* Elvis Presley
* Betty Ong
* Ed Felt
* Christine Hanson

The first four are of course easy ones to warm you up and make you comfortable with the question. And here the question is:
Question 2(a-g) What about each of the following persons?

By complete enumeration, one and only one of the following is true about each one of the seven:
- Person never existed
- Person died before 9/11
- Person lived after 9/11
- Person died on 9/11

Please notice: No plane is mentioned this time. This is not about any passengers or crew. This is simply about people. No unwarranted load!

As Arthur, Elvis, you and I do not appear in this question as connected to any alleged flights, you should feel free to answer the question about them.
I encourage you to regard the other three in the exact same spirit: People, whose names we have happened to read in some publicly available writing. If you imagine any load to this question, please be at liberty to remove any such load in your mind. Surely, the question can be validly asked about any person, whether real or imagined, whether dead, alive or not yet born. So it can be asked about Ed, Betty and Christine.

[jammonius]

The question would be loaded, if I assumed anything that is inconvenient to you. However, the question as I posed it assumes nothing in its original form, and even takes away the bit of load that you could justifiably complain about, namely, the option "people died in plane crashes".

You need to notice that my question, as posed the most recent time in this thread, is specifically NOT "whatabouthtepassengers", as the options do not contain any mention of them being passengers, and the question specifically rules out that they are passengers.

So here it goes again:

In your world, jammonius, Ed Felt and Christine Hanson were not passengers on planes that crashed, and Betty Ong was not a crew member on a plane that crashed.

Question 1: Is that a fair conclusion from your no-plane theory?

Supposing your answer is "yes", I will respect that, for the time being. And go on asking the same question about the following persons:
* King Arthur
* jammonius
* Oystein
* Elvis Presley
* Betty Ong
* Ed Felt
* Christine Hanson

The first four are of course easy ones to warm you up and make you comfortable with the question. And here the question is:
Question 2(a-g) What about each of the following persons?

By complete enumeration, one and only one of the following is true about each one of the seven:
- Person never existed
- Person died before 9/11
- Person lived after 9/11
- Person died on 9/11

Please notice: No plane is mentioned this time. This is not about any passengers or crew. This is simply about people. No unwarranted load!

As Arthur, Elvis, you and I do not appear in this question as connected to any alleged flights, you should feel free to answer the question about them.
I encourage you to regard the other three in the exact same spirit: People, whose names we have happened to read in some publicly available writing. If you imagine any load to this question, please be at liberty to remove any such load in your mind. Surely, the question can be validly asked about any person, whether real or imagined, whether dead, alive or not yet born. So it can be asked about Ed, Betty and Christine.

Well, well, well. A step in the right direction. Thanks, Oystein, for posting up your attempt to explain why your queries were set up so as to avoid loading.

While noble, in theory, your post fails, in fact.

Your queries are still loaded as they still do two things:

a) Make unproven assumptions; and
b) Endeavor to control the universe of responses down to a mere few, preferably "yes" or "no". That is a control game, Oystein. It is in the nature of "20 questions" and as you know, full well, I don't play BS "20 questions" games, either structuring them myself, or participating in the constructs of others, precisely because such games are mere tools of control.

You want to compel me to say something. Get this: NO, you will not control my responses. You may make whatever claims you would like to make and you may seek to refute my claims in whatever fashion you think is effective. However, I will not play "20 questions".

Got it?

[BigAl]

Well, well, well. A step in the right direction. Thanks, Oystein, for posting up your attempt to explain why your queries were set up so as to avoid loading.

While noble, in theory, your post fails, in fact.

Your queries are still loaded as they still do two things:

a) Make unproven assumptions; and
b) Endeavor to control the universe of responses down to a mere few, preferably "yes" or "no". That is a control game, Oystein. It is in the nature of "20 questions" and as you know, full well, I don't play BS "20 questions" games, either structuring them myself, or participating in the constructs of others, precisely because such games are mere tools of control.

You want to compel me to say something. Get this: NO, you will not control my responses. You may make whatever claims you would like to make and you may seek to refute my claims in whatever fashion you think is effective. However, I will not play "20 questions".

Got it?

How about one little question, Jam?

What do you think happened to my work-mate, Ed?

[Titanic Explorer]

You want to compel me to say something. Get this: NO, you will not control my responses. You may make whatever claims you would like to make and you may seek to refute my claims in whatever fashion you think is effective. However, I will not play "20 questions".

Got it?


You claim there were no planes.
So how do you explain away the people who were listed as being on the planes?
It's amazing to me that you seem terrified to even address that question. It makes me suspect that you know your no-planer views are insane, and you have no answers. You do a terrible job at presenting your theories.
You have given every indication that you don't think the people existed, and nobody is really mourning for those people. I'f I'm mistaken, please correct me. If you doubt those people existed- what is your proof?

When asked about Ed Felt and Betty Ong, you react as a vampire does to sunlight- you recoil and vanish into a dark corner.

[jammonius]

How about one little question, Jam?

What do you think happened to my work-mate, Ed?

Greetings, BigAl,

Your question is not loaded. I have answered that question before, I do believe.

If you ask a person what the person thinks, then you are asking that person a fair question.

What I think happened to your work-mate Ed, is that Ed is missing and presumed to be dead. As there has not ever been a competent investigation into the circumstances concerning his being missing, it is not possible for either me or anyone else to say what happened to him with any degree of exactitude.

I here request you show this reply to Ed's family, transmitting as it does, my condolences to them for their loss. And, transmitting to them my request for dialogue with them concerning their experiences in re the investigation of the events of 9/11/01.


all the best

[Titanic Explorer]

Jam,
Here is a question- do you put any value at all on the lives of those murdered on 9/11? You have been very dismissive on anyone who exhibit any emotion towards those who were killed. Why is this? What do you feel for the people who were on the planes? You seem to exhibit scorn and infifference..

[BigAl]

Greetings, BigAl,

Your question is not loaded. I have answered that question before, I do believe.

If you ask a person what the person thinks, then you are asking that person a fair question.

What I think happened to your work-mate Ed, is that Ed is missing and presumed to be dead.

How did his remains wins up at the crash site in Shanksville with 43 other people ?

[Titanic Explorer]

Greetings, BigAl,

Your question is not loaded. I have answered that question before, I do believe.

If you ask a person what the person thinks, then you are asking that person a fair question.

What I think happened to your work-mate Ed, is that Ed is missing and presumed to be dead. As there has not ever been a competent investigation into the circumstances concerning his being missing, it is not possible for either me or anyone else to say what happened to him with any degree of exactitude.

I here request you show this reply to Ed's family, transmitting as it does, my condolences to them for their loss. And, transmitting to them my request for dialogue with them concerning their experiences in re the investigation of the events of 9/11/01.


all the best



Ed Felt was murdered on 9/11. Jam, you are nothing more than an apologist for the murderous Islamic terrorists, since you deny they ever even commited their act of mass murder. Disgusting.

Jam, what is your proof Ed was not killed on 9/11?

[Titanic Explorer]

Here is a question Jam- do you put any value at all on the lives of those murdered on 9/11? You have been very dismissive on anyone who exhibit any emotion towards those who were killed. Why is this? What do you feel for the people who were on the planes? You seem to exhibit scorn and infifference..

[Titanic Explorer]

I here request you show this reply to Ed's family, transmitting as it does, my condolences to them for their loss. And, transmitting to them my request for dialogue with them concerning their experiences in re the investigation of the events of 9/11/01.


all the best




Disgusting.
Jam, you have shown nothing but disrespect and contempt for the 9/11 murder victims and their families. You deny their loved ones were ever murdered. You have implied the families are liars and are 'in on it'.

[jammonius]

Alright, we're still making progress. I detect that posters are gradually easing up on the asking of "loaded" questions and are re-phrasing their queries in ways that call for a fair reply. I will answer such queries where otherwise appropriate.

You claim there were no planes.

Yes, that is what I claim.


So how do you explain away the people who were listed as being on the planes?

The above is loaded, but in comparison with prior versions, and especially when coupled with the first inquiry, I will here provide an answer:

Firstly, you probably don't grasp that you've loaded the query by saying "how do you explain away..." The reason why that is loaded is that it assumes anyone and everyone admits there were passengers. However, if there were no planes, there cannot have been passengers. Accordingly, our premises are different. You assume planes, therefore it apparently does not occur to you that you are also assuming passengers.

You may or may not have noticed that I have elsewher provided a list of data sets, claims or forms of evidence that cast doubt on the claim of passengers. Do you recall any such listing?

Here are a few of the items previously listed, listed again:

1--No authenticated passenger manifests.
2--No authenticated plane parts (id by serial number).
3--No authenticated DNA identification.
4--No NTSB investigation.
5--No hull insurance payout
6--Incomplete passenger claims list, including the lack of Ed Felt's name among those who's family was compensated. Mind you, this does not mean the Felt family was not compensated. Lists are sometimes incomplete. The information may not be publicly available.
7--The passenger claims are strangely only supported by propaganda websites.


It's amazing to me that you seem terrified to even address that question.

I am not terrified. I simply refuse to address loaded questions and will do so vigorously. The reason is not terror; rather, the reason is that loaded questions are a form of "gotcha." Whatever way you answer a loaded question the reply is "gotcha."

Right?


It makes me suspect that you know your no-planer views are insane, and you have no answers.

I do not question what you think, let alone believe. You can think or believe whatever you like for as long as you can.


You do a terrible job at presenting your theories.

Pity that.


You have given every indication that you don't think the people existed, and nobody is really mourning for those people. I'f I'm mistaken, please correct me. If you doubt those people existed- what is your proof?

You are mistaken. I have said the people may be said to be missing and presumed dead. That assumes the eulogies, memorials and testimonials are valid. People usually do not lie about where they born, when and whom they married and when they died.

However, the key operative word is "usually." As you know, there are exceptions. Do any come to your mind at present?


When asked about Ed Felt and Betty Ong, you react as a vampire does to sunlight- you recoil and vanish into a dark corner.

That is incorrect. Furthermore, here's a tip: Whenever someone asks you a loaded question, do not answer it other than by telling the inquisitor that the question posed is loaded.

[Bell]

Greetings, BigAl,

Your question is not loaded. I have answered that question before, I do believe.

If you ask a person what the person thinks, then you are asking that person a fair question.

What I think happened to your work-mate Ed, is that Ed is missing and presumed to be dead. As there has not ever been a competent investigation into the circumstances concerning his being missing, it is not possible for either me or anyone else to say what happened to him with any degree of exactitude.

Funny that, you and your terrorist apologists have no problem claiming bombs or missiles or DEWs and all other kinds of bat crap crazy stuff without even one single shred of evidence.

[Titanic Explorer]

You may or may not have noticed that I have elsewher provided a list of data sets, claims or forms of evidence that cast doubt on the claim of passengers. Do you recall any such listing?

Here are a few of the items previously listed, listed again:

1--No authenticated passenger manifests.
2--No authenticated plane parts (id by serial number).
3--No authenticated DNA identification.
4--No NTSB investigation.
5--No hull insurance payout
6--Incomplete passenger claims list, including the lack of Ed Felt's name among those who's family was compensated. Mind you, this does not mean the Felt family was not compensated. Lists are sometimes incomplete. The information may not be publicly available.
7--The passenger claims are strangely only supported by propaganda websites.



.


You really do live in a fantasy world.
You have not offered any proof to back any of your claims.

Do you think the families of people who were on the planes- many of them who brought their loves ones to the airport- were 'in on it'?

All you have Jam are tinfoil hat delusions, and no evidence.

Why are you such a shameless apologist for the 19 radical islamic hijackers?

[uke2se]

What I think happened to your work-mate Ed, is that Ed is missing and presumed to be dead. As there has not ever been a competent investigation into the circumstances concerning his being missing, it is not possible for either me or anyone else to say what happened to him with any degree of exactitude.


Progress at last. Do you believe that Ed's disappearance on 9/11 was a coincidence, unrelated to the attacks, or do you think that it is connected?

[BrianX]

You know, it seems to me that the most effective way to plant body and plane parts at the scene of a supposed crash is to crash a plane holding people into the site. Just sayin.

[Oystein]

Well, well, well. A step in the right direction. Thanks, Oystein, for posting up your attempt to explain why your queries were set up so as to avoid loading.

While noble, in theory, your post fails, in fact.

Your queries are still loaded as they still do two things:

a) Make unproven assumptions; and

Which unproven assumption do you see in my question?


b) Endeavor to control the universe of responses down to a mere few, preferably "yes" or "no".

That is an outright LIE as the possible answers contain neither "yes" nor "no".


That is a control game, Oystein. It is in the nature of "20 questions" and as you know, full well, I don't play BS "20 questions" games, either structuring them myself, or participating in the constructs of others, precisely because such games are mere tools of control.

You do understand the concept of complete enumeration of possibilities, jammonius? That is not control, it is the application of formal logic. Do you understand the value of formal logic for constructing valid arguments, jammonius?


You want to compel me to say something. Get this: NO, you will not control my responses. You may make whatever claims you would like to make and you may seek to refute my claims in whatever fashion you think is effective. However, I will not play "20 questions".

Got it?

You know my claims. The question is not about my claims.

The question is about YOUR claims, jammonius. You have failed yet to make a claim about the people that we claim were passengers that crashed. In your theory, no planes crashed.

You must be able to make claims about people such as King Arthur, yourself or Ed Felt within the framework of your world view and theories about 9/11.

[jammonius]

You really do live in a fantasy world.
You have not offered any proof to back any of your claims.

Your claim is preposterous. There are threads with multiple dozens of posts containing sources, links and confirmation of all claimed points when and where they are made.


Do you think the families of people who were on the planes- many of them who brought their loves ones to the airport- were 'in on it'?

Post up your proof. Beware, however, do NOT post up stupid newspaper article claims as such claims are not proof.


All you have Jam are tinfoil hat delusions, and no evidence.

I will separate the above so as to answer the part that is appropriate:

I continuously, regularly post up evidence of claims.


Why are you such a shameless apologist for the 19 radical islamic hijackers?

Your loaded query is not worthy of response.

[jammonius]

Progress at last. Do you believe that Ed's disappearance on 9/11 was a coincidence, unrelated to the attacks, or do you think that it is connected?

I have said many, many times that I do not question people's beliefs. Have you seen a post where I have made that statement?

If not, hear this: I do not question people's beliefs or engage in posting concerning beliefs, including what "I believe." I do not engage in "belief" discussions because what people believe is far different from what people can substantiate on an a posteriori basis. I engage in dialogue on an aposteriori basis. That is to say, I limit my discussion to what is or is not worthy of consideration as proof or as refutation of claims.

Let me know if there's anything unclear in the above, and I will try to clarify.

The salient point that can lead to understanding is that: I do not engage in discussion based on "belief."

all the best

[Oystein]

...
1--No authenticated passenger manifests.
2--No authenticated plane parts (id by serial number).
3--No authenticated DNA identification.
4--No NTSB investigation.
5--No hull insurance payout
6--Incomplete passenger claims list, including the lack of Ed Felt's name among those who's family was compensated. Mind you, this does not mean the Felt family was not compensated. Lists are sometimes incomplete. The information may not be publicly available.
7--The passenger claims are strangely only supported by propaganda websites.
...

Let us look at these claims individually, and how to resolve them.

1--No authenticated passenger manifests.
Jammonius: who (organisation) would be in a position to authoritatively list the names of passengers and crew aboard flights? Who would know authoritatively if a scheduled flight took of with passengers aboard or not?
I suggest: The airline operating the flight.
Do you agree?

2--No authenticated plane parts (id by serial number).
Suppose you are an expert auto mechanic. You arrive at the scene of some as yet undetermined event. Do you think you would be able to tell if what happend was a car accident or not, based on the debris you find? You know, things like steering wheel, engine parts, car seats, headlights... Would you have serious doubts about the nature of the debris, even if you did not identify the car parts by serial number?
You may remain in doubt or the dark about the identity of the car(s) involved, however an expert can tell if debris is that of a car (plane), and most of the time also what make and model - all without serial numbers.

3--No authenticated DNA identification.
In general - who would "authenticate" DNA identification? Can you explain this by pointing to any criminal investigation where DNA was used as evidence, and pointing out how the DNA ID was authenticated in that case?

4--No NTSB investigation.
Are you saying no NTSB experts were involved in any investigation? If you agree that NTSB experts were involved in any investigation, are you saing, their findings were wrong or falsified, or they did not find anything?

5--No hull insurance payout
How do you know this?

6--Incomplete passenger claims list
What would this prove?

[Bell]

The salient point that can lead to understanding is that: I do not engage in discussion based on "belief."

all the best

Like you believe no planes were used on 9/11? Well, bye then!

[Oystein]

...I do not ... engage in posting concerning beliefs, including what "I believe."...

That is a lie, jammonius.

Entire threads are devoted to your spreading of your beliefs. Such as your belief that SAIC and ARA have provided weapons and technology to the mass murder of 9/11.

[CompusMentus]

In general - who would "authenticate" DNA identification?


<jammonius>

DNA evidence? Planted.
Radar tracks? Falsified.
Video? Faked.
Audio? Inconclusive.
Eyewitnesses? Duped.
News Reports? Fabricated.
Expert Testimony? Corrupt

</jammonius>


Compus

[uke2se]

I have said many, many times that I do not question people's beliefs. Have you seen a post where I have made that statement?

If not, hear this: I do not question people's beliefs or engage in posting concerning beliefs, including what "I believe." I do not engage in "belief" discussions because what people believe is far different from what people can substantiate on an a posteriori basis. I engage in dialogue on an aposteriori basis. That is to say, I limit my discussion to what is or is not worthy of consideration as proof or as refutation of claims.

Let me know if there's anything unclear in the above, and I will try to clarify.

The salient point that can lead to understanding is that: I do not engage in discussion based on "belief."

all the best

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was how you wanted the questions to be framed in order for them to not be "loaded". Let's try again:

In your "hypothesis", does Ed factor in at all? I.e, is his disappearance related to the 9/11 attacks at all according to your extensive evidence?

[Southwind17]

You know, it seems to me that the most effective way to plant body and plane parts at the scene of a supposed crash is to crash a plane holding people into the site. Just sayin.
Except that that wouldn't then amount to "planting", would it, and hence misses the point!

[Southwind17]

That is to say, I limit my discussion to what is or is not worthy of consideration as proof or as refutation of claims.

Let me know if there's anything unclear in the above, and I will try to clarify.

Yes, there is - thanks in advance. It's not clear why you consider the information upon which you apparently rely satisfies your criteria for "worthiness" (whatever those criteria may be). Such information seems to offer no greater proof or sound refutation of anything than the counter-information that you wantonly disregard arguably does. Most importantly, however, such information goes no way towards refuting what, to everybody but Truthers, it seems, constitutes the most sensible, logical and probable explanations afforded by the wider information, knowledge and experience available.

Like you believe no planes were used on 9/11? Well, bye then!
Oh no, it's not belief, it's sound rationale based on information "worthy of consideration"!

[TSR]

5--No hull insurance payout

.
Wrong (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20010923/ISSUE01/10004865)

.

The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said.

.
And you knew this to be wrong when you posted it, since it was posted in your 43 videos thread.
.

[Southwind17]

5--No hull insurance payout


Wrong (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20010923/ISSUE01/10004865)
And you knew this to be wrong when you posted it, since it was posted in your 43 videos thread.
.
Surely the Government coerced the insurance companies into paying out on fabricated claims then reimbursed them by the back door with dirty money obtained from unrelated drugs busts, didn't they? Yes ... I'm sure that must be the case. :rolleyes:

[TSR]

Surely the Government coerced the insurance companies into paying out on fabricated claims then reimbursed them by the back door with dirty money obtained from unrelated drugs busts, didn't they? Yes ... I'm sure that must be the case. :rolleyes:
.
Actually, bardamu's explanation is that the consortium engaged in massive insurance fraud because zie didn't like the investigation they did before paying out.

Not that zie could even say what should have been done differently, mind you...
.

[BrianX]

Except that that wouldn't then amount to "planting", would it, and hence misses the point!

Psht. Details.

[Titanic Explorer]

Your claim is preposterous.





That sums up all of your assertions.

Where is Ed Felt? Where is Betty ong?

[Southwind17]

That sums up all of your assertions.

Where is Ed Felt? Where is Betty ong?
To be fair(!), these are inappropriate questions. There are, at least in theory, many possible answers. That's not to say that there's not a probable answer, but you're clearly flogging a dead horse with jammonius pursuing this line of retort.

[Titanic Explorer]

To be fair(!), these are inappropriate questions. There are, at least in theory, many possible answers. That's not to say that there's not a probable answer, but you're clearly flogging a dead horse with jammonius pursuing this line of retort.


How are they inappropraite questions? Those people were murdered when the planes they were on were crashed by hijackers-do you doubt this?
Jam is a no planer, who like all no planers try to take the passenger and crew that were the planes out of the equation. He tries to explain why he feels there were no planes, yet had not even tried to explain the fate of the people. If he doesn't think they died on 9/11- what does he think happened to them?
It's bad enbough no-planers are apologists for the terrorists, but they insult the people on the planes who were killed, and their families.

[Southwind17]

I'm in no way inferring anything "trutherish" here, but does it not seem extraordinary that Flight 93 was only around 20% full, and around half of the passengers plus the pilot and four of the cabin crew were assigned or re-assigned to the flight very close to the departure date (details here (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=edward_felt))?

I've never planned or booked on a flight and then switched the day before or on the day. Of course, That's not to say that people, including crew, don't sometimes do that, but it just seems odd that half a plane load of people including crew go and do it, and on such a significant flight. I don't know - I'm just asking. Maybe my own travel habits are untypical.

[Southwind17]

How are they inappropraite questions?
Because, as I wrote, there are numerous theoretical answers. Of course, if you have compelling evidence of their fate then those questions become valid in terms of challenging jam.

Those people were murdered when the planes they were own were crashed by hijackers-do you doubt this?
I honestly don't know the facts. It seems that you do, so I'm inclined to go with you on it, at least for the time being. I have no reason to doubt it, other than not knowing the facts. I have no doubts about the planes being crashed.

[Titanic Explorer]

Because, as I wrote, there are numerous theoretical answers. Of course, if you have compelling evidence of their fate then those questions become valid in terms of challenging jam.


I honestly don't know the facts. It seems that you do, so I'm inclined to go with you on it, at least for the time being. I have no reason to doubt it, other than not knowing the facts. I have no doubts about the planes being crashed.


The facts are known. 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists on 9/11 and were deliberatly crashed, killing all those on board. There is no question these acts of mass murder occoured. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an apologist for Islamic terrorism, and is ignorant or insane. Debris from all of the planes as well as remains of the people who were on the planes were found at all 3 crash sites. Jamm's claims to the contrary are based on lies , tinfoil hat paranoia, ignorance and delusion.
The evidence that the planes crashed is ironclad. The burden is on Truthers to back up their conspiracy claims with proof, something none of them have ever done. All Truthers ever offer as 'proof' is their own paranoia and delusion.

[Southwind17]

The facts are known. 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists on 9/11 and were deliberatly crashed, killing all those on board. There is no question these acts of mass murder occoured. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an apologist for Islamic terrorism, and is ignorant or insane. Debris from all of the planes as well as remains of the people who were on the planes were found at all 3 crash sites. Jamm's claims to the contary are based on lies , paranoia, ignorance and delusion.
The evidence that the planes crashed is ironclad. The burden is on Truthers to back up their conspiracy claims with proof, something none of the none of them have ever done.
Not wishing to be accused of jumping to Jam's aid (as I wrote, I have no doubt that the planes crashed and that people were killed), but, in the interests of objectivity, and by way of example, what's your basis for stating as fact the deliberate crashing of Flight 93? In particular, how have you ruled out the possibility that it was shot down by the military (or does that count as deliberate crashing?)?

[Titanic Explorer]

Not wishing to be accused of jumping to Jam's aid (as I wrote, I have no doubt that the planes crashed and that people were killed), but, in the interests of objectivity, and by way of example, what's your basis for stating as fact the deliberate crashing of Flight 93? In particular, how have you ruled out the possibility that it was shot down by the military (or does that count as deliberate crashing?)?


Do you have proof flight 93 was shot down?

[Southwind17]

Do you have proof flight 93 was shot down?
No. Do you have proof it wasn't?

[Titanic Explorer]

No. Do you have proof it wasn't?

Sorry , thats not how it works. When you suggest or claim there was any kind of conspiracy, you need to back up your claim with proof.
You are doing what all Truthers do. They claim there was a conspiracy, but have zero evidence. Since they have no evidence, they insist debunkers have to 'prove it wasn't an inside job'. The burden is on the Truther to back up their paranoid theories with evidence-which they can't, because there was no inside job.
Try again.

[Southwind17]

Sorry , thats not how it works. When you suggest or claim there was any kind of conspiracy, you need to back up your claim with proof.
You are doing what all Truthers do. They claim there was a conspiracy, but have zero evidence. Since they have no evidence, they insist debunkers 'prove it wasn't an inside job'.
Nice try.
Steady on now. I've made no suggestions or claims whatsoever. I'm merely considering possibilities. You, however, have made a claim, namely that it is a fact that Flight 93 was deliberately crashed. I'd like to learn your basis for claiming that as factual, that's all, thereby proving that it wasn't shot down.

[Titanic Explorer]

Steady on now. I've made no claims whatsoever. I'm merely considering possibilities. You, however, have made a claim, namely that it is a fact that Flight 93 was deliberately crashed. I'd like to learn your basis for claiming that as factual, that's all, thereby proving that it wasn't shot down.

It's possible that the passengers were able to storm the cockpit...but the blame of the crash rests on the shoulders of the hijackers.
There is NO evidence that the plane was shot down. If there is, please enlighten me....

[Southwind17]

It's possible that the passengers were able to storm the cockpit...but the blame of the crash rests on the shoulders of the hijackers.
There is NO evidence that the plane was shot down. If there is, please enlighten me....
I'm sorry TE - you used the words "the facts are known". "It's possible" simply doesn't cut it (notwithstanding that your response goes no way to supporting your claim). What, exactly, are the facts upon which you rely, or are you now retracting that statement? I'm cool if you are, but if not then you really do need to back up your statement, lest you start to come across somewhat like Jam.

[Titanic Explorer]

I'm sorry TE - you used the words "the facts are known". "It's possible" simply doesn't cut it (notwithstanding that your response goes no way to supporting your claim). What, exactly, are the facts upon which you rely, or are you now retracting that statement? I'm cool if you are, but if not then you really do need to back up your statement, lest you start to come across somewhat like Jam.

The facts ARE known, the 19 hijackers were the ones that caused the destruction of all 4 planes.
Do you suggest this is not true? Whether or not passengers stormed the cockpit, the terrorists are to blame for all of the planes crashing.
What statement are you suggesting have I retracted? I haven't retracted anything.
Do you deny the 4 planes were crashed by 19 terrorists?

Nice try ,Truther.

[BigAl]

I'm sorry TE - you used the words "the facts are known". "It's possible" simply doesn't cut it (notwithstanding that your response goes no way to supporting your claim). What, exactly, are the facts upon which you rely, or are you now retracting that statement? I'm cool if you are, but if not then you really do need to back up your statement, lest you start to come across somewhat like Jam.


Here is a link to just a small part of the evidence we have that shows that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 as well as the death of Americans prior to 9/11 and since.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09


http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem
[14] KSM's indictment document

[Bell]

Oh no, it's not belief, it's sound rationale based on information "worthy of consideration"!

You're a no planer too?

[Oystein]

Because, as I wrote, there are numerous theoretical answers. Of course, if you have compelling evidence of their fate then those questions become valid in terms of challenging jam.

Ed Felt's mortal remains have been pulled from a dirt hole in Shanksville and been identified by DNA sample. From the same dirt hole, they pulled debris of a UA passenger plane. Flight UA93 has been tracked by radar until it was lost near Shanksville. Ed Felt made a phone call from that plane. Phone calls leave records that can be used to track down the geographical position of the caller - he was in flight over Pennsylvania. United Airlines released records and press releases, stating that Ed Felt was aboard flight 93, and that flight 93 crashed near Shanksville.

We all consider that "compelling evidence of his fate". So you agree that this question now becomes valid in terms of challenging jam?

[jammonius]

.
Wrong (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20010923/ISSUE01/10004865)

.

.
And you knew this to be wrong when you posted it, since it was posted in your 43 videos thread.
.

Hello TSR,

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding.

First, the link you provided results in a message about secure content and does not allow access to the actual content. Accordingly, your information source cannot be verified.

Second, I need to double check whether this is the quote that you claim proves hull insurance was paid:

Quote:
The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said.

Let me know if there's more or if the above is what you are relying on as proof of payment.

thanks

[Oystein]

No. Do you have proof it wasn't?

Do you have proof it wasn't pulled out ouf the sky by Godzilla? Collided with a helicopter? Lost power to its rudders? Ran out of fuel?

There is proof however that flight 93 was hijacked, and there is circumstantial evidence that passengers interfered with the hijackers, making the theory, that a struggle between hijackers and passengers led to the crash, very likely.
Theory: Supported by some evidence, not refuted by any other.
Competing theories: No evidence.
Theory wins.

[Oystein]

I'm in no way inferring anything "trutherish" here, but does it not seem extraordinary that Flight 93 was only around 20% full, and around half of the passengers plus the pilot and four of the cabin crew were assigned or re-assigned to the flight very close to the departure date (details here (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=edward_felt))?

I've never planned or booked on a flight and then switched the day before or on the day. Of course, That's not to say that people, including crew, don't sometimes do that, but it just seems odd that half a plane load of people including crew go and do it, and on such a significant flight. I don't know - I'm just asking. Maybe my own travel habits are untypical.

Highlighted the point where your "argument" stops being one.

If you can show that "around 20% full" is extraordinary for that route on a tuesday morning (by finding evidence that on more than 95% of all other tuesday mornings it is fuller, and if you can furthermore show that on that route, most passengers book a long time in advance and don't switch, then you might have something to ponder. Need not be significant, but could be interesting.

As things stand, what you say is not interesting, as it only seems strange to you.

[Disbelief]

The facts ARE known, the 19 hijackers were the ones that caused the destruction of all 4 planes.
Do you suggest this is not true? Whether or not passengers stormed the cockpit, the terrorists are to blame for all of the planes crashing.
What statement are you suggesting have I retracted? I haven't retracted anything.
Do you deny the 4 planes were crashed by 19 terrorists?

Nice try ,Truther.

Southwind is not a truther, and I feel that it is your responsibility to provide him information to back up a claim (even one we know is true). He never made a claim that 93 was shot down, he was simply asking what proof there was showing it was a crash and not a shootdown. For someone who is just learning about the CTists, this would be an obvious question to ask.

So for Southwind, I do not have the links at my disposal, but someone else should be able to provide it to you. There is the FDR which would have proven a shootdown, there is the debris pattern (even though CTists do not understand it), the crash itself (which they do not understand either) and radar tracking. There is more information as well, but I am not as well informed as most of the others here.

[carlitos]

So for Southwind, I do not have the links at my disposal, but someone else should be able to provide it to you. There is the FDR which would have proven a shootdown, there is the debris pattern (even though CTists do not understand it), the crash itself (which they do not understand either) and radar tracking.

Right. Not to mention that the military gets its panties in a bunch when you fire a live missile over CONUS. There would be paperwork.

[TSR]

First, the link you provided results in a message about secure content and does not allow access to the actual content. Accordingly, your information source cannot be verified.

.
Try this, then. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PXqTITYqHG0J:www.businessinsurance. com/article/20010923/ISSUE01/10004865+%22The+insured+value+of+the+hijacked+plan es+totals+$128.8+million,%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
.

Let me know if there's more or if the above is what you are relying on as proof of payment.

.
With which part of "The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said" are you having problems?
.

[jammonius]

.
Try this, then. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PXqTITYqHG0J:www.businessinsurance. com/article/20010923/ISSUE01/10004865+%22The+insured+value+of+the+hijacked+plan es+totals+$128.8+million,%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
.

Thanks. That is a newspaper article that is wide ranging, almost generic in scope. That is an extremely weak source and totally unreliable as evidence.


.
With which part of "The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said" are you having problems?
.

I am having problems with the HEARSAY part, the part that makes the claim too unreliable to be considered as valid evidence. That part is the part that ends with "...,sources said" confirming that the statement is hearsay, pure and simple. Furthermore, as hearsay goes, the example given is among the worst sort because the indirect sources to whom a statement is being attributed, aren't even identified.

Thank you for your clarifying post and your query. I am still open to the possibility of proof of insurance payout being possible to find, somewhere, somehow. I will also continue to lookl; and, perhaps you can do so as well. That, of course, is up to you. I don't rule out the possibility of being able to prove the claim.

However, as things stand at present, that claim is not proven in the least bit.

all the best

[carlitos]

I can't find Joe Biden's car insurance online anywhere. Therefore, God ate it.

[Elizabeth I]

I have said many, many times that I do not question people's beliefs. Have you seen a post where I have made that statement?

If not, hear this: I do not question people's beliefs or engage in posting concerning beliefs, including what "I believe." I do not engage in "belief" discussions because what people believe is far different from what people can substantiate on an a posteriori basis. I engage in dialogue on an aposteriori basis. That is to say, I limit my discussion to what is or is not worthy of consideration as proof or as refutation of claims.

Let me know if there's anything unclear in the above, and I will try to clarify.

The salient point that can lead to understanding is that: I do not engage in discussion based on "belief."

all the best
Wow. If you put some jokes with that tap-dance routine, you can take it on the road.

[TSR]

That is a newspaper article that is wide ranging, almost generic in scope. That is an extremely weak source and totally unreliable as evidence.

.
You mean like your Post article about "Top Secret America?"

Hypocrite much?
.

I am having problems with the HEARSAY part, the part that makes the claim too unreliable to be considered as valid evidence. That part is the part that ends with "...,sources said" confirming that the statement is hearsay, pure and simple. Furthermore, as hearsay goes, the example given is among the worst sort because the indirect sources to whom a statement is being attributed, aren't even identified.

.
If you think the sources are unreliable, please state clearly why.

"Deep Throat" was not identified either.It happens all the time that the press protects their sources -- there have even been court cases uphold their right to do so.

Such payments are not public information, any more than your auto insurance details including all of the factors that went into calculating your premium are. Guess that means you don't pay for that insurance, hmmmn?
.

[Captain_Swoop]

Not wishing to be accused of jumping to Jam's aid (as I wrote, I have no doubt that the planes crashed and that people were killed), but, in the interests of objectivity, and by way of example, what's your basis for stating as fact the deliberate crashing of Flight 93? In particular, how have you ruled out the possibility that it was shot down by the military (or does that count as deliberate crashing?)?

Which 'military shot it down?
What did they shoot it down with?

We know that it wasn't an aircraft that shot it down so that would leave a surface missile that just happened to be there at random on the day?

If it was shot down why cook up a conspiracy to hide it when aircraft had been scrambled into the air and were trying to get to New York to stop any more attacks by airliners piloted by terrorists?

[Southwind17]

The facts ARE known, the 19 hijackers were the ones that caused the destruction of all 4 planes.
Do you suggest this is not true?
I do not deny that they were at least the root cause.

Whether or not passengers stormed the cockpit, the terrorists are to blame for all of the planes crashing.
Couldn't agree more.

What statement are you suggesting have I retracted? I haven't retracted anything.
I'm not suggesting that you've retracted any statement. I merely questioned whether you're inclined to retract the statement that it's a fact that Flight 93 wasn't shot down, given that you seem to be having trouble directing me to such facts. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that it was shot down; it just seems to be a plausible possibility to me, in the absence of facts to the contrary, and some evidence that seems to support it, that's all.

Do you deny the 4 planes were crashed by 19 terrorists?
As I wrote above, I don't deny that they were at least the root cause. I have absolutely no doubt that they directly crashed Flights 11 and 175. They probably directly crashed Flight 77, but I have slight doubts. Flight 93 I have serious doubts about, but remain open-minded.

Nice try ,Truther.
:confused:

Here is a link to just a small part of the evidence we have that shows that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 as well as the death of Americans prior to 9/11 and since.
Thank you. But what does all that have to do with the question as to what, exactly, caused Flight 93 to fall out of the sky?

Oh no, it's not belief, it's sound rationale based on information "worthy of consideration"!
You're a no planer too?
I'm sorry. I thought the "" marks would suffice. Perhaps I should have also inserted a :rolleyes: for good measure. ;)

Ed Felt's mortal remains have been pulled from a dirt hole in Shanksville and been identified by DNA sample. From the same dirt hole, they pulled debris of a UA passenger plane. Flight UA93 has been tracked by radar until it was lost near Shanksville. Ed Felt made a phone call from that plane. Phone calls leave records that can be used to track down the geographical position of the caller - he was in flight over Pennsylvania. United Airlines released records and press releases, stating that Ed Felt was aboard flight 93, and that flight 93 crashed near Shanksville.

We all consider that "compelling evidence of his fate". So you agree that this question now becomes valid in terms of challenging jam?
With the exception of the last sentence of the first paragraph, then provided your assertions are factual (and I have no reason to doubt that they are), then yes, the question becomes valid in terms of challenging Jam. Has somebody presented the facts to Jam yet, as opposed to merely alluding to them?

Do you have proof it wasn't pulled out ouf the sky by Godzilla? Collided with a helicopter? Lost power to its rudders? Ran out of fuel?
No, all of which (except the first) are also, prima facie, plausible explanations. Let me ask you this, though: on what basis have you concluded that it didn't run out of fuel, for example?

There is proof however that flight 93 was hijacked, and there is circumstantial evidence that passengers interfered with the hijackers, making the theory, that a struggle between hijackers and passengers led to the crash, very likely.
Agreed.

Theory: Supported by some evidence, not refuted by any other.
Competing theories: No evidence.
Theory wins.
There's much circumstantial evidence that that theory is false, thereby invalidating your conclusion.

Highlighted the point where your "argument" stops being one.
I'm sorry - what argument?

If you can show that "around 20% full" is extraordinary for that route on a tuesday morning (by finding evidence that on more than 95% of all other tuesday mornings it is fuller, and if you can furthermore show that on that route, most passengers book a long time in advance and don't switch, then you might have something to ponder. Need not be significant, but could be interesting.
Acknowledged (except the 95% part!).

As things stand, what you say is not interesting, as it only seems strange to you.
That it seems strange is sufficient to make it interesting to me. But your emphasis on "seems" suggests that you have information showing that it's not actually strange. Do you?

Southwind is not a truther, and I feel that it is your responsibility to provide him information to back up a claim (even one we know is true). He never made a claim that 93 was shot down, he was simply asking what proof there was showing it was a crash and not a shootdown.
Thank you Disbelief. Good to see that somebody gets it! Thing is with many anti-Truthers, the basis of their positions in terms of the counter-evidence offered is often only marginally more compelling than that of the Truthers. Combine that with the oft emotive, impulsive, sweeping responses of many anti-Truthers and it's not surprising that some Truthers persist, like Jam, for example.

So for Southwind, I do not have the links at my disposal, but someone else should be able to provide it to you. There is the FDR which would have proven a shootdown, there is the debris pattern (even though CTists do not understand it), the crash itself (which they do not understand either) and radar tracking. There is more information as well, but I am not as well informed as most of the others here.
I've studied the FDR data (as part of a previous thread). Has anybody suitably qualified ever pointed to evidence in the FDR data that supports the cockpit-struggle theory as the direct cause of the crash? Your reference to CTists not understanding the debris pattern and "the crash itself" indicates that you believe that they offer evidence as to the direct cause of the crash. Are you able to expand on that?

Right. Not to mention that the military gets its panties in a bunch when you fire a live missile over CONUS. There would be paperwork.
Not sure what your point here is. Could you elaborate?

Thanks. That is a newspaper article that is wide ranging, almost generic in scope. That is an extremely weak source and totally unreliable as evidence.

I am having problems with the HEARSAY part, the part that makes the claim too unreliable to be considered as valid evidence. That part is the part that ends with "...,sources said" confirming that the statement is hearsay, pure and simple. Furthermore, as hearsay goes, the example given is among the worst sort because the indirect sources to whom a statement is being attributed, aren't even identified.

Thank you for your clarifying post and your query. I am still open to the possibility of proof of insurance payout being possible to find, somewhere, somehow. I will also continue to lookl; and, perhaps you can do so as well. That, of course, is up to you. I don't rule out the possibility of being able to prove the claim.

However, as things stand at present, that claim is not proven in the least bit.
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can't find Joe Biden's car insurance online anywhere. Therefore, God ate it.
Hardly a fair comparison, given the public nature of 9/11.

If you think the sources are unreliable, please state clearly why.

"Deep Throat" was not identified either.It happens all the time that the press protects their sources -- there have even been court cases uphold their right to do so.

Such payments are not public information, any more than your auto insurance details including all of the factors that went into calculating your premium are. Guess that means you don't pay for that insurance, hmmmn?
I think you might be missing the point. If you cannot name your source, and information to which you refer is not publicy available, then you're on very shaky ground offering those as evidence of a claim. Surely you can see that.

Which 'military shot it down?
If the military did shoot it down, then the US military, of course.

What did they shoot it down with?
If the US military did shoot it down, with an A2A missile, I would suppose.

We know that it wasn't an aircraft that shot it down so that would leave a surface missile that just happened to be there at random on the day?
How do we know that?

If it was shot down why cook up a conspiracy to hide it when aircraft had been scrambled into the air and were trying to get to New York to stop any more attacks by airliners piloted by terrorists?
Political conundrum: deliberately shot down under Bush's instruction vs. deliberately crashed by the terrorists/passengers. Best explanation to feed the public? Go figure!

[Bell]

I'm sorry. I thought the "" marks would suffice. Perhaps I should have also inserted a :rolleyes: for good measure. ;)

Fair enough. Sometimes it's hard to tell who believes in what conspiracy theory or not.

[BigAl]

I'm not suggesting that you've retracted any statement. I merely questioned whether you're inclined to retract the statement that it's a fact that Flight 93 wasn't shot down, given that you seem to be having trouble directing me to such facts. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that it was shot down; it just seems to be a plausible possibility to me, in the absence of facts to the contrary, and some evidence that seems to support it, that's all.


As I wrote above, I don't deny that they were at least the root cause. I have absolutely no doubt that they directly crashed Flights 11 and 175. They probably directly crashed Flight 77, but I have slight doubts. Flight 93 I have serious doubts about, but remain open-minded.



Thank you. But what does all that have to do with the question as to what, exactly, caused Flight 93 to fall out of the sky?

If the military did shoot it down, then the US military, of course.


If the US military did shoot it down, with an A2A missile, I would suppose.



You've been playing too many flight sims.




Some Flight 93 Evidence Updated 5/27/09
http://911links.webs.com/Flight93.htm

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[[7]
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
[19] Flight 93 Radar track
[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed

[Southwind17]

You've been playing too many flight sims.
Why do you think an A2A take down is impossible?

[Southwind17]

Fair enough. Sometimes it's hard to tell who believes in what conspiracy theory or not.
To be clear, I don't believe any CTs regarding 9/11. However, I'm not convinced yet that Flight 93 wasn't shot down.

[beachnut]

Not wishing to be accused of jumping to Jam's aid (as I wrote, I have no doubt that the planes crashed and that people were killed), but, in the interests of objectivity, and by way of example, what's your basis for stating as fact the deliberate crashing of Flight 93? In particular, how have you ruled out the possibility that it was shot down by the military (or does that count as deliberate crashing?)?
The USAF, NORAD, is not missing any missile. No missile used.
The USAF, NORAD, did not shot at any airliners on 911, they are not missing any ammunition. Oops.
The FDR shows the pilot making the inputs to the aircraft continuously and with human inputs to crash flight 93.
ATC recordings, and the VDR confirm the terrorists was in the seat of flight 93, and the terrorists is recored making the inputs in the FDR, as already mentioned, flying the plane into the ground.
The VDR has the terrorists talking about the Passenger attack.
The VDR has the passengers attacking the terrorists.

FDR has all systems working on the aircraft, no damage from a missile; data stops the last second it impacts the ground at 600 mph.

This is a fact; the terrorists flew the plane into the ground because the Passengers on flight 93 were attacking them.

The fact is, 93 was not shot down and the data is easy to find; but asking why it was not shot down is easier.

The president would have said it was shot down and taken responsibility.
The USAF would have said it was shot down and taken responsibility.
The pilot would have said he shot it down and taken responsibility.

Only a few military members (maybe one) are failures like 911 truth and capable of covering up and being big liars.

I assume you are not familiar with the fact Flight 93 FDR proves the plane was flown into the ground on purpose. Do you need a copy? Why did you fail to research your own question before exposing your lack of knowledge?

Terrorists flying 93 into the ground is common knowledge. Can you prove they did not? With the data and evidence available, you can proved the terrorists flew 93 into the ground.

[INRM]

Well the No-Planer school of thought is fundamentally flawed...

[BigAl]

Why do you think an A2A take down is impossible?

Not in a way that would make evidence consistent with what we have for flight 93.

The FDR and the crash site and the air-ground radio shows that the plane was intact when it hit the ground and the plane was driven into the ground by a pilot giving commands to the stick & rudder.

A hit by an air-air missile on a big commercial jet would probably give the pilot time to try to make an emergency landing.

That's just the start.

Was 93 the flight in which Arabic was heard spoken in the cockpit?

[Southwind17]

The USAF, NORAD, is not missing any missile. No missile used.
Proof?

The USAF, NORAD, did not shot at any airliners on 911, they are not missing any ammunition. Oops.
Proof?

The FDR shows the pilot making the inputs to the aircraft continuously and with human inputs to crash flight 93.
Please explain.

ATC recordings, and the VDR confirm the terrorists was in the seat of flight 93 ...
OK

... and the terrorists is recored making the inputs in the FDR, as already mentioned, flying the plane into the ground.
Again, please explain.

The VDR has the terrorists talking about the Passenger attack.
OK

The VDR has the passengers attacking the terrorists.
OK

FDR has all systems working on the aircraft, no damage from a missile ...
Proof that a missile will necessarily knock out the FDR?

This is a fact; the terrorists flew the plane into the ground because the Passengers on flight 93 were attacking them.
Proof?

The fact is, 93 was not shot down and the data is easy to find; but asking why it was not shot down is easier.
Exactly - much easier!

The president would have said it was shot down and taken responsibility.
Your opinion.

The USAF would have said it was shot down and taken responsibility.
Your opinion.

The pilot would have said he shot it down and taken responsibility.
Your opinion.

I assume you are not familiar with the fact Flight 93 FDR proves the plane was flown into the ground on purpose.
What "fact"? Please elaborate.

Do you need a copy?
No thanks - I have it.

Why did you fail to research your own question before exposing your lack of knowledge?
Please explain what, exactly, you mean by "research".

Terrorists flying 93 into the ground is common knowledge.
Based on what?

Can you prove they did not?
No, otherwise I wouldn't be here discussing it, I'd provide the proof to you.

I just proved they did, and if you check the FDR, and other evidence available (gee on-line) you can figure this out without quibbling.
With respect, you've proved nothing, yet.

[Southwind17]

Not in a way that would make evidence consistent with what we have for flight 93.

The FDR and the crash site and the air-ground radio shows that the plane was intact when it hit the ground and the plane was driven into the ground by a pilot giving commands to the stick & rudder.
How? Please elaborate.

A hit by an air-air missile on a big commercial jet would probably give the pilot time to try to make an emergency landing.
Even when the pilot's a terrorist looking to crash the plane anyhow?!

That's just the start.
Phew - thank goodness! :rolleyes:

Was 93 the flight in which Arabic was heard spoken in the cockpit?
Rhetorical, presumably. Your point?

[Titanic Explorer]

Proof?


Proof?

.


prove there was a missle.

Sorry, but you are floating a Truther meme.
If you are going to suggest the flight was shot down, the burden is on you to back the claim with evidence.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by beachnut
The FDR shows the pilot making the inputs to the aircraft continuously and with human inputs to crash flight 93.


Please explain.

I guess you didn't really understand that FDR.


I've studied the FDR data (as part of a previous thread). Has anybody suitably qualified ever pointed to evidence in the FDR data that supports the cockpit-struggle theory as the direct cause of the crash? Your reference to CTists not understanding the debris pattern and "the crash itself" indicates that you believe that they offer evidence as to the direct cause of the crash. Are you able to expand on that?

[BigAl]

How? Please elaborate.



Read the links I posted and pay attention to the genuine pilots here. (I'm not one of them.)

[AJM8125]

To be clear, I don't believe any CTs regarding 9/11. However, I'm not convinced yet that Flight 93 wasn't shot down.

A little secret of mine is I used to believe that too, which is one of the things that led me here.

One of things you learn from studying this incident is how crash dynamics differentiate between a shoot down and a high-speed impact. For instance KAL 007 (shot down by the Soviets) left a huge debris field over many square miles because the plane was coming apart as it descended. Flight 93 did no such thing, they came down intact. There was no indication that the plane was on fire, smoking or breaking up as noted by witnesses.

Its debris field originated from the impact crater and spread out over a much smaller radius, the largest piece of debris was found 1,200 feet away from the impact crater. IIRC paper debris carried on the wind and landed in lake about 1.5 miles away, CTists claim 8 miles, which is true if you drive to the lake which is dishonest at best, otherwise 1.5 miles as the crow flies.

Then there's PSA 1771, an airliner that was hijacked and deliberately crashed back in the 1980's. The aftermath is remarkably similar to flight 93.

QrT6joi4gco

Food for thought.- Study it for yourself.

Peace out.

[Southwind17]

prove there was a missle.

Sorry, but you are floating a Truther meme.
If you are going to suggest the flight was shot down, the burden is on you to back the claim with evidence.
Again, I've made no such suggestion, I'm simply open to the possibility. You, however, have made a claim as to fact. So, where does the burden of proof really lie?!

I guess you didn't really understand that FDR.
I guess you're not capable of explaining it.

Read the links I posted and pay attention to the genuine pilots here. (I'm not one of them.)
Ditto.

[BigAl]

Again, I've made no such suggestion, I'm simply open to the possibility. You, however, have made a claim as to fact. So, where does the burden of proof really lie?!


I guess you're not capable of explaining it.


Ditto.


So you are JAQing off here?

[Southwind17]

A little secret of mine is I used to believe that too, which is one of the things that led me here.

One of things you learn from studying this incident is how crash dynamics differentiate between a shoot down and a high-speed impact. For instance KAL 007 (shot down by the Soviets) left a huge debris field over many square miles because the plane was coming apart as it descended. Flight 93 did no such thing, they came down intact. There was no indication that the plane was on fire, smoking or breaking up as noted by witnesses.

Its debris field originated from the impact crater and spread out over a much smaller radius, the largest piece of debris was found 1,200 feet away from the impact crater. IIRC paper debris carried on the wind and landed in lake about 1.5 miles away, CTists claim 8 miles, which is true if you drive to the lake which is dishonest at best, otherwise 1.5 miles as the crow flies.

Then there's PSA 1771, an airliner that was hijacked and deliberately crashed back in the 1980's. The aftermath is remarkably similar to flight 93.

QrT6joi4gco

Food for thought.- Study it for yourself.

Peace out.
I agree - it's certainly food for thought - but reference to only one other incident of each of a shoot down and a crash is hardly compelling, don't you agree? From what I've read it was far more than just paper that was recovered from India Lake.

[Southwind17]

So you are JAQing off here?
No - I'm challenging things relied upon that are claimed as factual but for which no facts have been presented. This applies equally to CTists and non-CTists.

[AJM8125]

I agree - it's certainly food for thought - but reference to only one other incident of each of a shoot down and a crash is hardly compelling, don't you agree? From what I've read it was far more than just paper that was recovered from India Lake.

Airliners aren't routinely shot down or deliberately flown into the ground at high speeds. If you want more examples of high speed impacts, try Value Jet 592, American airlines flights 11 and 77, United Airlines 175.

Another example of a shoot down would be Iran Air 655, shot down by the US Navy.

Indian Lake - depends on where your getting your information from. I think I'm beginning to see where.

[Southwind17]

Airliners aren't routinely shot down or deliberately flown into the ground at high speeds.
QED?!

If you want more examples of high speed impacts, try Value Jet 592, American airlines flights 11 and 77, United Airlines 175.
Do you really consider that these are good references for analysing Flight 93 - aircraft flown into buildings and crash landing in a deep-water-swamp following an on-board fire?! In any event, what are you suggesting the differentiating factors between an aircraft shot down and a high-speed impact(!) necessarily are?

Another example of a shoot down would be Iran Air 655, shot down by the US Navy.
With a SAM over water. Great benchmark! :rolleyes:

Indian Lake - depends on where your getting your information from. I think I'm beginning to see where.
You see, this is what I mean. I open up the possibility of a not implausible scenario, by way only of example, and nobody seemingly can, or is seemingly prepared, to offer any factual basis for contesting it. All that is offered is mostly cross references to, at best, general circumstantial evidence, and now derogation. I really would have expected better, and have to wonder now why many non-CTists are so critical of CTists. But for the more outlandish theories that can generally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds of probability - arguably insanity, at worst - it seems the analytical skills and critical thinking of the two groups are generally equally wanting.

[beachnut]

Proof?. Yes; you can do your own FOIA and prove it to yourself. Take action. If I had your doubts this would have been done on 912; if I was you! I was on active duty on 911; we b missing no missile cause not a single shot was made at 93. Fact. To prove otherwise, you have to do it; you have the wild claim; you prove it.

Proof?. Yes! See above; do a FOIA. Why did you fail to do a FOIA on 912?

Please explain.. Get FDR and see. This is easy. (… I am an engineer and a pilot who has worked with FDR information since 1974; I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator and have experience investigating USAF crashes and mishaps.) Guess this could be hard for you.

OK. Wow, you can’t do the FDR, but you take this one which requires cross checking the FDR with ATC? Cool; this was not easy.


Again, please explain..
FDR show terrorist flying plane into ground.
Pilot makes input to stick (ie, control column and control wheel), FDR records input.
Plane moves due to pilot input; FDR records 6 degrees of freedom confirming the pilot input.
FDR is in the public domain due to FOIA. I looked, I cheated; terrorist flew plane into ground; it is recorded in the FDR. I am a pilot, I have an ATP; you need an ATP to fly the major airlines when you carry passengers. Pilot since 1973, have flown heavy Boeing jets as far back as 1976.

OK. cool


OK. great


Proof that a missile will necessarily knock out the FDR?. OH! The FDR stopped at ground impact, and movement was due to pilot inputs. The FDR records lots of system information. If a missile hits an engine, or parts of the plane, you would see on the FDR lost of systems. Systems are normal on the FDR up to ground impact. You are right, the missile would not necessarily knock out the FDR, and we could have proof of missile damage. If we lost the FDR earlier, it could be support of missile impact; but we have pilots inputs flying the plane right to the ground.


Proof?. Yes, it is proved the Passengers are attacking and the terrorist is flying the plane into the ground. You already OK’ed this one.


Exactly - much easier!. Easy to think shoot down; impossible to prove since 93 was not.


Your opinion..

Your opinion..

Your opinion.. These are facts; you just don’t trust my fellow USAF officers, the commander in chief, or the pilot who never shot down 93; lol.
But this is not important since 93 was not shot down. You can ignore your trust problem with the military and the presidents.

What "fact"? Please elaborate.. Take the FDR and prove it yourself. You can do it. Elaborate yourself. I would never wait 8 years if I thought 93 were shot down. My brother told me this on 912, I told him he was an idiot. I hate BS based on nothing.


No thanks - I have it.. Good you can use the FDR to end your search.


Please explain what, exactly, you mean by "research".. If I thought 93 was shot down I would do research. Get FDR, look at inputs; confirm aircraft movement. Oops, terrorists flew plane into ground. Unless a missile can move the stick to make plane go upside down; the exact input to plane in the attitude it is in can be researched. WORK, study, analysis. I will do a paper for you for 4k minimum fee, 1k an hour. But I will not do your work for you. Gave you an outline for free.

Based on what?. FDR, it is in the public domain, anyone can look. I call that common knowledge because you can figure it out yourself. I always expect everyone to be more capable than I.

No, otherwise I wouldn't be here discussing it, I'd provide the proof to you. . I would charge you for the proof. I already proved it to myself. I need the money.

With respect, you've proved nothing, yet. I proved it to myself. If you can’t figure it out then I will give you an analysis for 10k flat fee, or 4k min with 1k per hour. I have proved it, and outlined for free how to prove it. Prove me wrong. It is not an opinion, it is fact. But go ahead, make my day; prove 93 was shot down.

You never did a FOIA for missile records? 8 years?

[Titanic Explorer]

You see, this is what I mean. I open up the possibility of a not implausible scenario, by way only of example, and nobody seemingly can, or is seemingly prepared, to offer any factual basis for contesting it. All that is offered is mostly cross references to, at best, general circumstantial evidence, and now derogation. I really would have expected better, and have to wonder now why many non-CTists are so critical of CTists. But for the more outlandish theories that can generally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds of probability - arguably insanity, at worst - it seems the analytical skills and critical thinking of the two groups are generally equally wanting.


Using your logic, one might as well hold the theory that the plane was downed by UFOs or time travelers....If you are going to suggest the flight was shot down, you need to have evidence to give that theory any weight. Otherwise, you are just pulling theories out of the air...

[AJM8125]

QED?!


Do you really consider that these are good references for analysing Flight 93 - aircraft flown into buildings and crash landing in a deep-water-swamp following an on-board fire?! In any event, what are you suggesting the differentiating factors between an aircraft shot down and a high-speed impact(!) necessarily are?


With a SAM over water. Great benchmark! :rolleyes:


You see, this is what I mean. I open up the possibility of a not implausible scenario, by way only of example, and nobody seemingly can, or is seemingly prepared, to offer any factual basis for contesting it. All that is offered is mostly cross references to, at best, general circumstantial evidence, and now derogation. I really would have expected better, and have to wonder now why many non-CTists are so critical of CTists. But for the more outlandish theories that can generally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds of probability - arguably insanity, at worst - it seems the analytical skills and critical thinking of the two groups are generally equally wanting.

Good luck with your incredulity, that's gonna go far here.

[Thunder]

Two words:

Holly wood.

[carlitos]

beachnut, do you really get 1k per hour? My last consulting gig, I actually felt guilty about my hourly rate and it was less than half that. Good for you.


Right. Not to mention that the military gets its panties in a bunch when you fire a live missile over CONUS. There would be paperwork.
Not sure what your point here is. Could you elaborate?
I mean t h e m i l i t a r y g e t s i t s ... Aww heck, I mean exactly what I said. Weapons have controls. Paperwork. People notice when they are gone.


I can't find Joe Biden's car insurance online anywhere. Therefore, God ate it.
Hardly a fair comparison, given the public nature of 9/11.Let me get this straight. Because jammonius can't find records of a private transaction, the insurance payout on the airplane hull, that means something? If my car was crashed in something of a 'public nature,' you would expect to google up the payout from my insurance company to me? Really? Can you please go google the life insurance payouts to individual familes affected by the Ft. Hood shooting, or maybe the Virginia Tech shooting? Would the absence of this information in the public domain be evidence of anything at all? No.

[Southwind17]

Yes; you can do your own FOIA and prove it to yourself. Take action. If I had your doubts this would have been done on 912; if I was you! I was on active duty on 911; we b missing no missile cause not a single shot was made at 93. Fact. To prove otherwise, you have to do it; you have the wild claim; you prove it.

Yes! See above; do a FOIA. Why did you fail to do a FOIA on 912?

Get FDR and see. This is easy. (… I am an engineer and a pilot who has worked with FDR information since 1974; I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator and have experience investigating USAF crashes and mishaps.) Guess this could be hard for you.

Wow, you can’t do the FDR, but you take this one which requires cross checking the FDR with ATC? Cool; this was not easy.



FDR show terrorist flying plane into ground.
Pilot makes input to stick (ie, control column and control wheel), FDR records input.
Plane moves due to pilot input; FDR records 6 degrees of freedom confirming the pilot input.
FDR is in the public domain due to FOIA. I looked, I cheated; terrorist flew plane into ground; it is recorded in the FDR. I am a pilot, I have an ATP; you need an ATP to fly the major airlines when you carry passengers. Pilot since 1973, have flown heavy Boeing jets as far back as 1976.

cool


great


OH! The FDR stopped at ground impact, and movement was due to pilot inputs. The FDR records lots of system information. If a missile hits an engine, or parts of the plane, you would see on the FDR lost of systems. Systems are normal on the FDR up to ground impact. You are right, the missile would not necessarily knock out the FDR, and we could have proof of missile damage. If we lost the FDR earlier, it could be support of missile impact; but we have pilots inputs flying the plane right to the ground.


Yes, it is proved the Passengers are attacking and the terrorist is flying the plane into the ground. You already OK’ed this one.


Easy to think shoot down; impossible to prove since 93 was not.






These are facts; you just don’t trust my fellow USAF officers, the commander in chief, or the pilot who never shot down 93; lol.
But this is not important since 93 was not shot down. You can ignore your trust problem with the military and the presidents.

Take the FDR and prove it yourself. You can do it. Elaborate yourself. I would never wait 8 years if I thought 93 were shot down. My brother told me this on 912, I told him he was an idiot. I hate BS based on nothing.


Good you can use the FDR to end your search.


If I thought 93 was shot down I would do research. Get FDR, look at inputs; confirm aircraft movement. Oops, terrorists flew plane into ground. Unless a missile can move the stick to make plane go upside down; the exact input to plane in the attitude it is in can be researched. WORK, study, analysis. I will do a paper for you for 4k minimum fee, 1k an hour. But I will not do your work for you. Gave you an outline for free.

FDR, it is in the public domain, anyone can look. I call that common knowledge because you can figure it out yourself. I always expect everyone to be more capable than I.

I would charge you for the proof. I already proved it to myself. I need the money.

I proved it to myself. If you can’t figure it out then I will give you an analysis for 10k flat fee, or 4k min with 1k per hour. I have proved it, and outlined for free how to prove it. Prove me wrong. It is not an opinion, it is fact. But go ahead, make my day; prove 93 was shot down.

You never did a FOIA for missile records? 8 years?
And still no hard, compelling facts - just opinion - peppered with telling chunter. I should have thought that from all of that dedicated research and analysis you'd wipe the floor in a moment. I suppose you think this does wipe the floor, yes? You'll excuse me for not opening my cheque book just yet! :rolleyes:

[BigAl]

And still no hard, compelling facts - just opinion - peppered with telling chunter. I should have thought that from all of that dedicated research and analysis you'd wipe the floor in a moment. I suppose you think this does wipe the floor, yes? You'll excuse me for not opening my cheque book just yet! :rolleyes:

Troll much?

[Southwind17]

Using your logic, one might as well hold the theory that the plane was downed by UFOs or time travelers....If you are going to suggest the flight was shot down, you need to have evidence to give that theory any weight. Otherwise, you are just pulling theories out of the air...
So, you're now claiming that, to your mind, the likelihood of the shooting down of a civil airliner by the US military flown by terrorists towards the Whitehouse who have just flown two planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon is of equal likelihood as being shot down by UFOs or time travellers. I suppose we should start to theorise abouth this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655), then! :rolleyes:

Good luck with your incredulity, that's gonna go far here.
Two words:
Holly wood.
The stuff incredulity and Hollywood are made of! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)

I mean t h e m i l i t a r y g e t s i t s ... Aww heck, I mean exactly what I said. Weapons have controls. Paperwork. People notice when they are gone.
Please tell me this isn't the cornerstone of your argument.

Let me get this straight. Because jammonius can't find records of a private transaction, the insurance payout on the airplane hull, that means something? If my car was crashed in something of a 'public nature,' you would expect to google up the payout from my insurance company to me? Really?
You're really likening the public interest over the insurance payout over Flight 93 to your hypothetical fender bender with old Mrs Groggins. No wonder you're easily satisfied!

[Southwind17]

Troll much?
When all else fails ...! :rolleyes:

[BigAl]

So, you're now claiming that, to your mind, the likelihood of the shooting down of a civil airliner by the US military flown by terrorists towards the Whitehouse who have just flown two planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon is of equal likelihood as being shot down by UFOs or time travellers.

That's not what Titanic said

Using your logic, one might as well hold the theory that the plane was downed by UFOs or time travelers....If you are going to suggest the flight was shot down, you need to have evidence to give that theory any weight. Otherwise, you are just pulling theories out of the air...

[Titanic Explorer]

And still no hard, compelling facts - just opinion - peppered with telling chunter. I should have thought that from all of that dedicated research and analysis you'd wipe the floor in a moment. I suppose you think this does wipe the floor, yes? You'll excuse me for not opening my cheque book just yet! :rolleyes:



Sorry, but the burden is on those who claim there was a conspiracy to back their claims.

We know what happened on 9/11. 19 hijackers took over 4 planes, deliberatly crashing them, murdering all those on board. This is established fact, this is not theory or opinion.

I have seen no evidence of any plane being shot down on 9/11. If you are going to suggest it's a possibility, then you need evidence to back your claim. Likewise, if someone wants to claim that no planes crashed on 9/11, they need evidence.

[Southwind17]

That's not what Titanic said
Not literally, of course, but that's what's inferred.

[Southwind17]

Sorry, but the burden is on those who claim there was a conspiracy to back their claims
Marginally better response than your hastily retracted first attempt! I agree - should go without saying. You believe I've cried conspiracy?!

[A W Smith]

And still no hard, compelling facts - just opinion - peppered with telling chunter. I should have thought that from all of that dedicated research and analysis you'd wipe the floor in a moment. I suppose you think this does wipe the floor, yes? You'll excuse me for not opening my cheque book just yet! :rolleyes:


here ya go champ
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

scroll down to the charts and tell us which FDR parameter shows the effects of a shoot down with a missile, a shell, a bullet, or even a fricken rock for that matter. For a "shoot down" to have any effect on the performance of the aircraft, surely at least one parameter would have to change drastically. Be it fuel, flaps, cabin pressure, avionics, what have you, I see none.

[Titanic Explorer]

Do any truthers even bother to produce proof to back their claims?

[Titanic Explorer]

So, you're now claiming that, to your mind, the likelihood of the shooting down of a civil airliner by the US military flown by terrorists towards the Whitehouse who have just flown two planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon is of equal likelihood as being shot down by UFOs or time travellers. I suppose we should start to theorise abouth this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655), then! :rolleyes:


!

Perhaps I need to simplify things, as what I wrote clearly confused you. If you are going to put forth a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence, then your claim has zero credibility- it would be as if you were claiming UFOs or time travelers were behind the attacks , or that no planes crashed on 9/11. Absurd theories. . You are engaging in pure Truther BS tactics- You make an allegation, but you have no evidence. Then you assert you don't need evidence. Then you claim you are 'just asking questions'. Pure Truther BS.

[Titanic Explorer]

Not literally, of course, but that's what's inferred.

Really? Please enlighten me...

[The Platypus]

Do any truthers even bother to produce proof to back their claims?

I've yet to see it...All the ever seem to do is repetitively recite what they saw on some CT website or youtube video, usually acting like they came up with this nonsense all by themselves and thinking that we haven't seen 1000 other drones already recite the exact same nonsense.

[Titanic Explorer]

Marginally better response than your hastily retracted first attempt! I agree - should go without saying. You believe I've cried conspiracy?!

You are suggesting a plane was shot down- where is your evidence?

[Arisia]

Do any truthers even bother to produce proof to back their claims?

Do I have to produce proof that the answer to that is 'no'?

[Titanic Explorer]

Do I have to produce proof that the answer to that is 'no'?

Unless the 'no' is a hologram

[beachnut]

And still no hard, compelling facts - just opinion - peppered with telling chunter. I should have thought that from all of that dedicated research and analysis you'd wipe the floor in a moment. I suppose you think this does wipe the floor, yes? You'll excuse me for not opening my cheque book just yet! :rolleyes:
Calling an analysis you failed to check from the FDR an opinion is a failure on your part to take action and understand, or see for yourself. The FDR is not opinion, it is hard facts you are unable to digest due to what reason?

You call an analysis based on science, accident investigation, physics, flight knowledge opinion. Your failure.

FDR proves terrorists flew a perfect aircraft into the ground a second at a time. It is hard facts, you can quibble for the next 8 years and keep your failed doubt of 93 being shot down. Your 93 shoot down was proved wrong on 911; Why are you unable to figure out 911 after 8 years.

... wipe the BS off your own floor; you are the one with an idiotic lie after 8 years with the delusion it is an unanswered question; due to lack of action on your part. I have presented enough guidance for you to solve this issue yourself. A person as articulate as yourself can take my chunter and figure out 911. I am surprised you failed to resolve this issue after discovering you have the facts; the FDR, the information you confuse with being an opinion. Maybe your chunter is research.

Quibbling about this issue is self-critiquing.

[AJM8125]

The stuff incredulity and Hollywood are made of! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)

Well actually, no.

You were given examples of how aircraft behave when they hit the ground at high speeds vs being shot down.

Not what brought them down, as you tried to to change the subject to.

And not who brought them down, as you tried to change the subject to.

The fact of the matter is the high speed incident examples I gave differ greatly from those that were downed by missiles.

You wanna talk about Iran Air 655? Open a thread in the relevant forum. This is 9/11 CT.

[Southwind17]

here ya go champ
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

scroll down to the charts and tell us which FDR parameter shows the effects of a shoot down with a missile, a shell, a bullet, or even a fricken rock for that matter. For a "shoot down" to have any effect on the performance of the aircraft, surely at least one parameter would have to change drastically. Be it fuel, flaps, cabin pressure, avionics, what have you, I see none.
You can see the aircraft descending rapidly to the ground, though, right? Now, what data in the FDR shows the actual cause of such descent?

Perhaps I need to simplify things, as what I wrote clearly confused you. If you are going to put forth a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence, then your claim has zero credibility- it would be as if you were claiming UFOs or time travelers were behind the attacks , or that no planes crashed on 9/11. Absurd theories. . You are engaging in pure Truther BS tactics- You make an allegation, but you have no evidence. Then you assert you don't need evidence. Then you claim you are 'just asking questions'. Pure Truther BS.
I've done none of what you claim I have (further unsupported claims on your part). For a self-confessed anti-truther you really should pay more attention to detail. I've merely raised a possibility, by way of example. Possibilities derive their credulity from probability. You seem content to group all CTs (and indeed non-CT possibilities) together then disregard them for alleged lack of evidence. That's arguably a neat, if not lazy, way of contesting anything, but seriously flawed nonetheless.

Really? Please enlighten me...
See above. Go figure.

You are suggesting a plane was shot down- where is your evidence?
Raising possibility is not the same as suggesting. It's possible President Obama is a transvestite. I wouldn't even dream of suggesting that, though, based on current evidence, of course.

Calling an analysis you failed to check from the FDR an opinion is a failure on your part to take action and understand, or see for yourself. The FDR is not opinion, it is hard facts you are unable to digest due to what reason?
The FDR might well be hard facts, but interpretation of what those facts tell us regarding the root cause of the crash certainly isn't.

FDR proves terrorists flew a perfect aircraft into the ground a second at a time.
Case in point. The FDR doesn't prove anything about who was on board the plane, although it strongly indicates at least one pilot. I'm not suggesting that there were no terrorists on board - I'm sure there were - and that they even flew the plane at some point. See what I mean? You're assuming things from the FDR that are based on other, un-related information. That's not good analysis.

You were given examples of how aircraft behave when they hit the ground at high speeds vs being shot down.
Er ... hitting buildings and water, mostly. Regardless, where is the "behavioural" data in all that?

The fact of the matter is the high speed incident examples I gave differ greatly from those that were downed by missiles.
Ah ... "fact of the matter" again. Seriously, are you able to summarise such "great differences", explaining how you ascribe them to the crash cause? That would be really helpful.

You wanna talk about Iran Air 655? Open a thread in the relevant forum. This is 9/11 CT.
Hey - I'm not the one who introduced Iran Air 655 into the discussion - you did, in support of your anti-shoot down claim. Happy to have its alleged relevance retracted, though.

[A W Smith]

You can see the aircraft descending rapidly to the ground, though, right? Now, what data in the FDR shows the actual cause of such descent?



The control column inputs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf

[AJM8125]

Er ... hitting buildings and water, mostly. Regardless, where is the "behavioural" data in all that?

Whether they hit a building, water or the ground at high speed the result is the same. If you can't be bothered to look into that for yourself then that really isn't my problem.

Ah ... "fact of the matter" again. Seriously, are you able to summarise such "great differences", explaining how you ascribe them to the crash cause? That would be really helpful.

I gave a summary of it in my first reply to you. If you can't get your head around that then again, not my problem. Open a book.

Hey - I'm not the one who introduced Iran Air 655 into the discussion - you did, in support of your anti-shoot down claim. Happy to have its alleged relevance retracted, though.

You Wanted another example of a shoot down. You want to take that and derail this thread with it.

I suggest you open your own thread on the subject or go back to your porn thread, either way I can't be bothered with the likes of you.

[triforcharity]

I agree - it's certainly food for thought - but reference to only one other incident of each of a shoot down and a crash is hardly compelling, don't you agree? From what I've read it was far more than just paper that was recovered from India Lake.

Maybe foam seat cushion pieces. Other than that, I would need a cite and source.
Thanks.

[Southwind17]

The control column inputs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf
Is it necessarily the case that the behaviour of the plane is attributable to flight control inputs? In other words, is there necessarily and inevitably a cause and effect relationship between flight control inputs and behaviour at all times, particularly if extraneous damage occurs to the control systems? Is it possible that the flight control inputs were assumed to be the cause of the plane's behaviour simply because such inputs would ordinarily lead to such bahaviour? I don't know - I'm just asking.

[AJM8125]

- I'm just asking.

Tada!

[Titanic Explorer]

I'm just asking.

The Truther calling card..

[BigAl]

Not literally, of course, but that's what's inferred.

Wrong. Titanic invoked logic , you made a bogus use of probability (likelihood.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6194225#post6194225


You are not worth my time to type responses to your demands for more and more detail. Read the reference material at the top of the screen and if you have a specific question, ask and if there is anyone that doesn't have you of ignore, maybe you'll get answer.

Bye.

[A W Smith]

Go back to my original hyperlink. You will see the hydraulic pressures and the control surface movements if you zoom to 200% and "rotate" the graphs and charts clockwise. It is plane to see there is no damage to the aircraft. No smoke or fire detected anywhere in the aircraft even including the landing gear wheel wells. Nothing is amiss. There was no shoot down. This is a fact.

[beachnut]

Is it necessarily the case that the behaviour of the plane is attributable to flight control inputs? In other words, is there necessarily and inevitably a cause and effect relationship between flight control inputs and behaviour at all times, particularly if extraneous damage occurs to the control systems? Is it possible that the flight control inputs were assumed to be the cause of the plane's behaviour simply because such inputs would ordinarily lead to such bahaviour? I don't know - I'm just asking.

You said you have the FDR.
You have the inputs, you have the results of the inputs. They are in the FDR. With other data, it proves the terrorist flew the plane into the ground. Quibble away, it is self-critiquing.

If the aircraft was damaged, the inputs would not match the results you said you have; you have the inputs, and the result of the inputs that match. If you would check.


The FDR does prove the terrorist flew the plane; you fail to have the expertise to figure it out. You have to use CVR to help, and the ATC tapes to confirm. ... the FDR proves a terrorist flew 93 into the ground. You are still spewing lies from 911 truth, proved wrong years ago.

[Southwind17]

Whether they hit a building, water or the ground at high speed the result is the same. If you can't be bothered to look into that for yourself then that really isn't my problem.
By "result" I assume you mean overall. As to behaviour on impact, particularly for the purpose of identifying the cause of the crash, crashing horizontally into a building and vertically into the ground are hardly comparable.

I gave a summary of it in my first reply to you. If you can't get your head around that then again, not my problem. Open a book.
A text book, presumably?!

You Wanted another example of a shoot down. You want to take that and derail this thread with it.
I can only derail the thread with it if it's irrelevant, surely?!

I suggest you open your own thread on the subject or go back to your porn thread, either way I can't be bothered with the likes of you.
You mean you can't be bothered properly defending a challenge. That's OK - you only need to say so - I'm not seeking to force you.

Maybe foam seat cushion pieces. Other than that, I would need a cite and source.
Thanks.
There are countless citations and sources, including some citing body parts, and others placing an engine almost a mile from the crash site. How to establish the accuracy of the various sources, though? For example:
Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrap yard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."
What a joke! If it was only 50ft above him descending at 45 degrees he sure wouldn't be around to tell his tale! Basic trigonometry dictates that the crash site would be a mere 50ft from him, not around half a mile!

[AJM8125]

You mean you can't be bothered properly defending a challenge. That's OK - you only need to say so - I'm not seeking to force you.

I mean I won't be drawn into another truther's circular argument. There's no challenge in that.

[Southwind17]

I don't know - I'm just asking.
Tada!
The Truther calling card..
So it's wrong to question now is it? No wonder you're so wantonly dismissive!

Wrong. Titanic invoked logic , you made a bogus use of probability (likelihood.)
Logic? What logic?

You are not worth my time to type responses to your demands for more and more detail.
ER ... some facts, to be accurate, not more and more detail.

[Southwind17]

I mean I won't be drawn into another truther's circular argument. There's no challenge in that.
What circular argument?

[Titanic Explorer]

So it's wrong to question now is it? No wonder you're so wantonly dismissive!


Logic? What logic?


ER ... some facts, to be accurate, not more and more detail.


Truther troll.
Go away.

[Southwind17]

Go back to my original hyperlink. You will see the hydraulic pressures and the control surface movements if you zoom to 200% and "rotate" the graphs and charts clockwise. It is plane to see there is no damage to the aircraft. No smoke or fire detected anywhere in the aircraft even including the landing gear wheel wells. Nothing is amiss. There was no showdown. This is a fact.
The second paragraph on Page 2 of the report is interesting, and the attachments referred to. Is there an explanation for this? Impossible for me to say, but some of those parameters seem pretty important.

[Southwind17]

Truther troll.
Go away.
I think I know the tune to those infantile lyrics. Something like that for "Rain, rain, go away ... come again another day." Would that be right?

BTW - your avatar's so apt!

[Titanic Explorer]

I think I know the tune to those infantile lyrics. Something like that for "Rain, rain, go away ... come again another day." Would that be right?

BTW - your avatar's so apt!

You are either trollng or are just another idiot Truther with nothing but unfounded 9/11 conspiracies.
Do you have proof the plane was shot down over Shanksville? No, you don't.

[Titanic Explorer]

Logic? What logic?





This pretty much sums up your assertions.

[Southwind17]

You are either trollng or are just another idiot Truther with nothing but unfounded 9/11 conspiracies.
Do you have proof the plane was shot down over Shanksville? No, you don't.
Do you have proof it was deliberately crashed? No, you don't. We both simply have evidence. Your's is undoubtedly stronger than mine. Doesn't proove anything, though, although it does make your claim more likely. Coming right back to my starting point, though: is it a fact that the plane wasn't shot down? I don't think so.

[Southwind17]

This pretty much sums up your assertions.
What assertions?!

[AJM8125]

What circular argument?

Do you have proof it was deliberately crashed? No, you don't. We both simply have evidence. Your's is undoubtedly stronger than mine. Doesn't proove anything, though, although it does make your claim more likely. Coming right back to my starting point, though: is it a fact that the plane wasn't shot down? I don't think so.

Tadaaaa!

[TSR]

I don't think so.

.
No one really cares what you *think*.

What can you *prove*?

What specific aspects support the idea that the plane was shot down?
.

[Titanic Explorer]

Do you have proof it was deliberately crashed? No, you don't. We both simply have evidence. Your's is undoubtedly stronger than mine. Doesn't proove anything, though, although it does make your claim more likely. Coming right back to my starting point, though: is it a fact that the plane wasn't shot down? I don't think so.

The plane was hijacked. The hijackers are to blame for it crashing.
There is no denying that.

There is zero proof the flight was shot down.

[Southwind17]

What specific aspects support the idea that the plane was shot down?
There is zero proof the flight was shot down.
I think you mean "evidence", not "proof".

There are eye witness accounts and a debris field that appear to run counter to the official line, and that appear to support a mid-air explosion of sorts.

[Titanic Explorer]

There are eye witness accounts and a debris field that appear to run counter to the official line, and that appear to support a mid-air explosion of sorts.


And your Truther tinfoil hat is now firmly strapped on...

You Truthers lack the evidence, and you lack the proof to back your claims.
It's all wild theories you Truthers pull out of your collective anuses.
You need to be able to back a claim. Seriously- otherwise you are promoting myth ,rumor and gossip as fact.

When you can prove the flight was shot down, get back to us.

[TSR]

There are eye witness accounts and a debris field that appear to run counter to the official line, and that appear to support a mid-air explosion of sorts.
.
And yet, you do not actually *cite* these accounts, nor specify exactly how the debris field "runs counter" to the normative understanding of these events.



Funny, that.
.

[Southwind17]

.
And yet, you do not actually *cite* these accounts, nor specify exactly how the debris field "runs counter" to the normative understanding of these events.

Funny, that.
10 seconds Googling followed by 10 minutes reading should see to that. I'm sure you must have done that (please don't tell me you haven't), in which case I think you're being somewhat dishonest.

[Southwind17]

You need to be able to back a claim. Seriously- otherwise you are promoting myth ,rumor and gossip as fact.

When you can prove the flight was shot down, get back to us.
Do you even know what the words "fact" and "prove" actually mean? When you've researched them why not get back to us?!

[Titanic Explorer]

Do you even know what the words "fact" and "prove" actually mean? !

Obviously you don't.

[A W Smith]

Do you even know what the words "fact" and "prove" actually mean? When you've researched them why not get back to us?!

Why give more weight to the account of a startled employee of a junk yard than the actual flight data itself? Are you purposefully looking for any inconsistency in witness testimony to handwave off the flight data? And validate your shoot down conspiracy which has no factual support whatsoever?

[TSR]

10 seconds Googling followed by 10 minutes reading should see to that. I'm sure you must have done that (please don't tell me you haven't), in which case I think you're being somewhat dishonest.

.
I'm not making claims and then refusing to support them.

It's not *my* responsibility to research your claims, nor am I dishonest for expecting *you* to do your own foot work.

You have claimed that eyewitness statements are inconsistent with the normative understanding.

Please demonstrate that this is the case or retract.

You have claimed that the debris field is inconsistent with the normative understanding.

Please demonstrate that this is the case or retract.

And in any case refrain from casting aspersions on my honest for expect you to present your evidence.
.

[dafydd]

10 seconds Googling followed by 10 minutes reading should see to that. I'm sure you must have done that (please don't tell me you haven't), in which case I think you're being somewhat dishonest.

I believe that the plane was brought down by a laser beam fired off by the Romulan battle fleet.Prove me wrong.

[Southwind17]

Why give more weight to the account of a startled employee of a junk yard than the actual flight data itself?
I'm not ascribing weight to anything yet. There's simply lots of seemingly conflicting evidence. The "startled employee", as you describe him, is but one of many eye witnesses.

Are you purposefully looking for any inconsistency in witness testimony to handwave off the flight data? And validate your shoot down conspiracy which has no factual support whatsoever?
No, I'm seeking to reconcile them. BTW - I do not subscribe to any shoot down conspiracy.

.
I'm not making claims and then refusing to support them.
Neither am I.

It's not *my* responsibility to research your claims, nor am I dishonest for expecting *you* to do your own foot work.
If you demand I provide something that you can find yourself literally in 10 seconds then at best you're lazy; at worst dishonest.

You have claimed that eyewitness statements are inconsistent with the normative understanding.
Not sure what you mean by "normative understanding".

Please demonstrate that this is the case or retract.
Please explain what you mean by "normative understanding" first.

You have claimed that the debris field is inconsistent with the normative understanding.
Ditto.

Please demonstrate that this is the case or retract.
Ditto.

And in any case refrain from casting aspersions on my honest for expect you to present your evidence.
.
:confused:

I believe that the plane was brought down by a laser beam fired off by the Romulan battle fleet.Prove me wrong.
You believe that's a plausible explanation?

[uke2se]

You believe that's a plausible explanation?

Given the evidence available in this thread and in the official reports, it is equally plausible that a Romulan battleship was involved as that the plane was shot down. That is, not plausible at all.

[carlitos]

Please tell me this isn't the cornerstone of your argument.No, of course not.


You're really likening the public interest over the insurance payout over Flight 93 to your hypothetical fender bender with old Mrs Groggins. No wonder you're easily satisfied!
I don't think that a fender bender with old Mrs Groggins would be a public event, but then again... In many towns in America, such an event would make the newspapers. The accident report would be a public record.

Would the insurance payout be public record in such an instance?

Try yes or no this time, please.

Since you seem not to have researched this, Here are some threads that discuss the FDR data (http://www.google.com/custom?q=fdr+flight+93&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org).

ETA - Other than to shareholders for the airline, what possible "public interest" could there be in an insurance payout for a crashed airplane? Go get their annual report for 2001 and see if it's in there.

[excaza]

You believe that's a plausible explanation?

Prove it's wrong.

[BigAl]

So it's wrong to question now is it? No wonder you're so wantonly dismissive!



Asking questions is great. Ignoring the responses and changing the topic instead of asking relevant followup questions when needed for clarification or understanding, not so much.

[A W Smith]

I'm not ascribing weight to anything yet. There's simply lots of seemingly conflicting evidence. The "startled employee", as you describe him, is but one of many eye witnesses.



Why yes, yes you certainly are. You are unsatisfied with the conclusion that flight 93 was not shot down because of conflicting witness testimony. Do you really think that the FAA and FBI considered invalidating the FDR data because some guy on the ground thought the aircraft was 50 feet away from him? Or that there was wind blown debris reported over a mile away? The heavy debris you alluded to earlier was at a flood retention pond a few hundred yards away., Not in Indian lake. It DID NOT break up before impact with the ground and the flight data recorder proves that.

[TSR]

Neither am I.

.
Sure you are. You are claiming that the evidence leads you to be leave that there may have been a shoot down, because you claim that evidence is inconsistent with the normative understanding.

Your claim, your burden of proof.
.

If you demand I provide something that you can find yourself literally in 10 seconds then at best you're lazy; at worst dishonest.

.
Funn y that if it takes so little, you choose to whine about my asking for your evidence instead of actually *providing* that evidence.
.

Not sure what you mean by "normative understanding".

.
nor·ma·tive   [nawr-muh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective

reflecting the assumption of such a norm or favoring its establishment: a normative attitude (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normative)




un·der·stand·ing   [uhn-der-stan-ding] Show IPA
–noun

knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing with or handling something: an understanding of accounting practice.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/understanding)

What you erroneously call the "official line" -- erroneous because there is no ultimate authority tasked with authenticating historical fact -- anymore than there is an "official line" on the Battle of Gettysburg.
.

Please explain what you mean by "normative understanding" first.

.
Too many syllables?

Or just too lazy or dishonest to Google it?
.

Ditto.

.
I have made no such claim, liar.

This is especially dishonest since you claim about that you have made no such claims.
.

Ditto.

.
Not my claim, not my burden of proof.
.

:confused:

.
You have claimed repeatedly that I am dishonest because I do not research your claims for you.

That in itself is a lie, and an honourable person would either explain why they feel this is dishonest, or retract and apologize as I have done above.
.

[triforcharity]

There are countless citations and sources, including some citing body parts, and others placing an engine almost a mile from the crash site. How to establish the accuracy of the various sources, though? For example:

What a joke! If it was only 50ft above him descending at 45 degrees he sure wouldn't be around to tell his tale! Basic trigonometry dictates that the crash site would be a mere 50ft from him, not around half a mile!

So, this guy could tell the exact angle and height of the plan just by looking at it for a split second? No.

I asked about the stuff in Indian Lake. You posted....something else.

Good job!! Now, back to this stuff in Indian Lake.

Cite and source.

[dafydd]

You believe that's a plausible explanation?

No,I have no evidence,I'm just asking questions.Prove to me that the Romulan battle fleet did not shoot it down.You have no evidence that any planes were shot down.One all.

[Disbelief]

Southwind, I stuck up for you as a non-CTist, but I am confused by the burden of proof you are requesting. The FDR information was provided, along with an explanation of how it showed no shootdown. What kind of evidence are you looking for to conclusively prove (to you) that there was no shootdown?

[Bell]

Southwind, I stuck up for you as a non-CTist, but I am confused by the burden of proof you are requesting. The FDR information was provided, along with an explanation of how it showed no shootdown. What kind of evidence are you looking for to conclusively prove (to you) that there was no shootdown?

Shift of burden of proof there. Why should you proof his claim to be incorrect? If Southwind thinks it is plausible that UA93 was shot down, he should at least provide some evidence that furthers his theory. If not, then that's all it will ever be, a theory. Just as likely to have happened as that Romulan battleship shooting down UA93.

[Disbelief]

Shift of burden of proof there. Why should you proof his claim to be incorrect? If Southwind thinks it is plausible that UA93 was shot down, he should at least provide some evidence that furthers his theory. If not, then that's all it will ever be, a theory. Just as likely to have happened as that Romulan battleship shooting down UA93.

Understood, I am just curious as to his expectations. I also understand that people who are just learning about the conspiracy theories could have legitimate questions concerning the evidence against the shootdown. Asking someone now what their expectations are could help deal with future questions easier - if the person is truly here to learn and not a CTist in disguise.

[dafydd]

if the person is truly here to learn and not a CTist in disguise.

There's the rub.

[Captain_Swoop]

Which aicraft do you think might have shot 93 down?

We know how many armed fighters were in the air, where they were, when they were scrambled and where from.

They didn't shoot at anything.

[Disbelief]

if the person is truly here to learn and not a CTist in disguise.

There's the rub.

But if we approach every person who asks a question as a CTist, we are doing a disservice to those who truly have questions. I have spent plenty of time away from this forum, though the majority of my JREF posts are in here, so maybe my perspective has changed a little. If we give people the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, we can always change if they continue asking inane questions, demanding unrealistic precision of evidence or other nonsense.

[beachnut]

I think you mean "evidence", not "proof".

There are eye witness accounts and a debris field that appear to run counter to the official line, and that appear to support a mid-air explosion of sorts.
Prove it, source. Source the witnesses.
Debris field. Source it, and prove it.

Are you trained to take witness statements in aircraft crashes?
Do you know what a debris field looks like in a high speed impact?

The proof 93 never broke apart in flight is due to the fact all the debris starts at the impact point and moves on the flight path direction. You failed to check, so your present woo debunked on 911.

The debris pattern had objects that can float on the wind after the impact and fireball. Flight 93 never flew over the areas where debris came down. Guess which way the wind was blowing; guess where you can find the exact winds for each second of the flight? The debris found far from the impact zone floated on the wind. You brought woo again, and failed to check it out.

How do no-planers, the most insane claim about 911, explain away the people on the planes? You offer only tangential lies you entertain as possibilities and ask for proof. When given outlines how to prove it to yourself, you whine and call facts and evidence opinions, as you present moronic opinions as your facts and evidence. Did you spend too much time in porn vs art?

Did you make a FOIA for the missing missile in your delusional possibility of a shoot down? RADAR proves no shoot down; no sonic boom proves no shoot down from a missile. FDR proves no shoot down. Crash site proves no shoot down. Analysis of these areas would be based on facts and evidence. All you lack is the skill to use the facts and evidence to make the correct conclusion. It would help if you stopped weighing lies and idiotic claims as your evidence to make your doubts up. You hold on to the possibility of 93 being shot down; pure nonsense. Prove doubt exists based on evidence to hold your delusional claim as a possiblity.

What do no-planers do to make the Passengers go away? How insane to you have to be to be a no-plane nut? That answers the OP.

[dafydd]

But if we approach every person who asks a question as a CTist, we are doing a disservice to those who truly have questions. I have spent plenty of time away from this forum, though the majority of my JREF posts are in here, so maybe my perspective has changed a little. If we give people the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, we can always change if they continue asking inane questions, demanding unrealistic precision of evidence or other nonsense.

True,but it doesn't take long to separate the wheat from the chaff.In my experience here most of the ''only asking questions" brigade are truthers who rip the disguise off after a few posts.

[Titanic Explorer]

Given the evidence available in this thread and in the official reports, it is equally plausible that a Romulan battleship was involved as that the plane was shot down. That is, not plausible at all.

Don't you think a Cardassian warship is more likely?

[uke2se]

Don't you think a Cardassian warship is more likely?

I'd say it's equally likely.

[Greediguts]

I'd say it's equally likely.
Oh please, obviously it was a Star Destroyer! Did anyone check for a Star Destroyer? No? Heh. Proves my point.

[uke2se]

Oh please, obviously it was a Star Destroyer! Did anyone check for a Star Destroyer? No? Heh. Proves my point.

To be honest, my bet is still on the Crab People. They live underground, and would have shaken the towers into collapse with Directed Earthquake Weapons - or DEWs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-6D8QTHU_g&feature=related

The Crab People have been staying under ground since the Kindling Wars, and they are overdue for a reemergence. No doubt their long years of seclusion have filled their little hearts with hatred for the human race. As the US is the flag bearer of human civilization, the Crab People selected their targets to include financial and military bastions. Their Directed Earthquake Weapons were able to pinpoint the oscillation frequency of the twin towers and the South West side of the Pentagon, causing them to collapse. In preparation for this, they had planted a form of thermite in the towers, manufactured in great foundries close to the center of the Earth. To access the concrete core columns of the Twin Towers, the Crab People commandos used hatchlings, their lean and soft bodies managing to squeeze through ventilation ducts inaccessible to the adult Crab People.

WTC 7 was an accident. As the Crab People turned their Directed Earthquake Weapon off, it accidentally tuned into the oscillation frequency of building 7, causing a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint and onto a bunch of other buildings.

The planes were pilotless drones remotely operated by agents from CDED - Crab Department of Earth Domination. To acquire the required technology, the subterranean race turned to their long standing allies, the Jews. Mossad offered up the necessary technical solutions, also providing scape goats in the form of captured Muslims, taken from one of their concentration camps in the Sinai Desert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r3XIidd9z4&feature=related

As a final insult to the human race, the Crab People managed to infiltrate the US government, replacing several high officials - who's names I will not divulge for fear of reprisal - with Crab People in human disguise.

We are living in an evil world, dear readers and lurkers. A world soon to be dominated by Crab People. And Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wf8N0X74zU

[Titanic Explorer]

To be honest, my bet is still on the Crab People. They live underground, and would have shaken the towers into collapse with Directed Earthquake Weapons - or DEWs.
rl]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Mole People? Can you prove they didn't cause the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake?

[KingMerv00]

Mole people? Crab people? Cardassians? This is all code for Jews isn't it?

[EventHorizon]

don't you think a cardassian warship is more likely?

There...are...four...lights!!!!!

[Titanic Explorer]

There...are...four...lights!!!!!

No, there are five!

[uke2se]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Mole People? Can you prove they didn't cause the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake?

The Crab People have taken many forms, but it is well known that the 1906 SF Earthquake was caused by a Dark Matter implosion in Earth's Core. Why are you spreading such blatant lies and unsupported assertions? Do they pay you well for your disinfo?

[Bell]

The Crab People have taken many forms, but it is well known that the 1906 SF Earthquake was caused by a Dark Matter implosion in Earth's Core. Why are you spreading such blatant lies and unsupported assertions? Do they pay you well for your disinfo?

More important, would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132006)?

[Greediguts]

There...are...four...lights!!!!!

No, there are five!
Guys! Guys! It was a Star Destroyer! S-T-A-R D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-E-R! StarDestroyerStarDestroyerStarDestroyer!!!

[Titanic Explorer]

Guys! Guys! It was a Star Destroyer! S-T-A-R D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-E-R! StarDestroyerStarDestroyerStarDestroyer!!!

The sad reality is such a scenario is more likely than Jammy's tinfoil hat no-planer theories

[tsig]

Understood, I am just curious as to his expectations. I also understand that people who are just learning about the conspiracy theories could have legitimate questions concerning the evidence against the shootdown. Asking someone now what their expectations are could help deal with future questions easier - if the person is truly here to learn and not a CTist in disguise.

The FDR shows that when a control was moved the plane went in the direction it was expected to go and that all conditions were just as they're supposed to be. This shows the plane was undamaged.

This was explained to him and he ignored it.

Do you think he's acting in good faith?

[Southwind17]

Southwind, I stuck up for you as a non-CTist, but I am confused by the burden of proof you are requesting. The FDR information was provided, along with an explanation of how it showed no shootdown. What kind of evidence are you looking for to conclusively prove (to you) that there was no shootdown?
I'm not convinced that the FDR data necessarily precludes a shoot down. I'm waiting for somebody to categorically demonstrate cause and effect between flight input controls and FDR data. Allow me to emphasise that: between flight input controls and FDR data

Which aicraft do you think might have shot 93 down?
At least one military-style aircraft was reported in the vicinity by numerous eye witnesses.

We know how many armed fighters were in the air, where they were, when they were scrambled and where from.
How?

Prove it, source. Source the witnesses.
You're claiming there were no eye witnesses?

The proof 93 never broke apart in flight is due to the fact all the debris starts at the impact point and moves on the flight path direction.
"moves on the flight path direction"? What on earth does that mean? The plane plummetted almost vertically!

no sonic boom proves no shoot down from a missile.
Really? That simple?

FDR proves no shoot down.
Really? That simple?

Crash site proves no shoot down.
Really? That simple?

Analysis of these areas would be based on facts and evidence.
"Would be"? I thought you claimed you've done the research yourself.

What do no-planers do to make the Passengers go away? How insane to you have to be to be a no-plane nut? That answers the OP.I agree.

[Southwind17]

The FDR shows that when a control was moved the plane went in the direction it was expected to go and that all conditions were just as they're supposed to be. This shows the plane was undamaged.

This was explained to him and he ignored it.
No, I didn't ignore it. I'm questioning whether, assuming the plane was shot down, the FDR data following the hit is necessarily the result of flight input controls.

Do you think he's acting in good faith?
Why not ask me? I can assure you I am.

[beachnut]

The FDR shows that when a control was moved the plane went in the direction it was expected to go and that all conditions were just as they're supposed to be. This shows the plane was undamaged.

This was explained to him and he ignored it.

Do you think he's acting in good faith?
No. But he has defended the FDR against in 911 truth. Which aspect(s) of the FDR data do you believe is false? He has a propensity to avoid doing research before posting.
... - I'm not one for getting involved in 9/11 CT issues, partially because I'm a little late to the party, so to speak, and it would take me an enormous amount of research to get up to speed, which I don't really consider a good use of my time. ... Not indicative of acting in good faith.
Research? Oh…
He asked me what I meant by research.
... Please explain what, exactly, you mean by "research". ... Southwind17,
what you have not done.
Why? are 911 CT issues a waste of time (why the posts)? (see above)
Southwind17,
Got an idea 93 was shot down? When you get up to speed, go back to the 93 shot down thread and give an update. Wait; it is a waste of time; never mind. … it is self-critiquing?


What does shooting down 93 have to do with...

... All the people who boarded the 4 planes that crashed in 9/11 vanished that day. Body parts were identified from all 3 crash sites. If you don't think people were on the planes- where did those people go, and what is your evidence?
No evidence yet. Some quibbling about 93 being shot down, but that is based on hearsay, lies and delusions; like no-plane theories, which adds insanity to the lies and delusions.

[TSR]

.
Ummmm -- SW? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6195492&postcount=205)
.

[TSR]

I'm questioning whether, assuming the plane was shot down, the FDR data following the hit is necessarily the result of flight input controls.

.
And why would you assume this?

What "hit" do you see in the FDR data?

And yes, the FDR data is necessarily the result of the flight controls -- unless you can show they were altered.

By whom was that flight shot down? We know who was in the area and how they were armed, and what ammunition / ordinance they had when they returned.

Finally, what possible benefit would shooting this plane down and then pretending it didn't happen have?
.

[tsig]

No, I didn't ignore it. I'm questioning whether, assuming the plane was shot down, the FDR data following the hit is necessarily the result of flight input controls.


Why not ask me? I can assure you I am.

Yes it is unless you think that when the pilot pushed the yoke forward the plane just happened to go down.

You are ignoring the fact that all systems were functioning normally.

[A W Smith]

The hydraulic pressure shows that there was no loss of control from the stick, Pressure is consistent throughout the entire flight. Again, there is no smoke, no fire, no loss of cabin or fuel pressure, The aircraft did not break up. Can you show any FDR data whatsoever that shows a shoot down?

[Titanic Explorer]

No evidence yet. Some quibbling about 93 being shot down, but that is based on hearsay, lies and delusions; like no-plane theories, which adds insanity to the lies and delusions.



That pretty much sums up all of the paranoid theories of Truthers.

The no-planers are the true village idiots of the 'Truther community'.

[Southwind17]

.
Ummmm -- SW? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6195492&postcount=205)
.
What?

.
And why would you assume this?
Assume what, that the plane was shot down? How would you pose the question regarding cause and effect between flight input controls and FDR data? No doubt you'll reply: "I wouldn't".

What "hit" do you see in the FDR data?
So it's OK for you to make assumptions?! This question assumes that a "hit" would necessarily be apparent from the FDR data. The FDR data certainly shows that the plane plunged to the ground.

And yes, the FDR data is necessarily the result of the flight controls -- unless you can show they were altered.
How so?

By whom was that flight shot down? We know who was in the area and how they were armed, and what ammunition / ordinance they had when they returned.
How can you be sure?

Finally, what possible benefit would shooting this plane down and then pretending it didn't happen have?
.
You serious?

Yes it is unless you think that when the pilot pushed the yoke forward the plane just happened to go down.
So planes only go down when the pilot pushes the yolk forward?

You are ignoring the fact that all systems were functioning normally.
"The fact"? You're ignoring the fact that the FDR Report omitted to address many of the plane's systems.

The hydraulic pressure shows that there was no loss of control from the stick, Pressure is consistent throughout the entire flight.
So no loss of control from the stick necessarily means that nothing else could possibly bring down the plane?

Again, there is no smoke, no fire, no loss of cabin or fuel pressure, The aircraft did not break up. Can you show any FDR data whatsoever that shows a shoot down?
I think you're assuming that a take down necessarily follows your stereotypical form.

[tuc0]

So planes only go down when the pilot pushes the yolk forward?


Best typo ever? Or only second best? Just asking questions here.

[uke2se]

What?


Assume what, that the plane was shot down? How would you pose the question regarding cause and effect between flight input controls and FDR data? No doubt you'll reply: "I wouldn't".


So it's OK for you to make assumptions?! This question assumes that a "hit" would necessarily be apparent from the FDR data. The FDR data certainly shows that the plane plunged to the ground.


How so?


How can you be sure?


You serious?


So planes only go down when the pilot pushes the yolk forward?


"The fact"? You're ignoring the fact that the FDR Report omitted to address many of the plane's systems.


So no loss of control from the stick necessarily means that nothing else could possibly bring down the plane?


I think you're assuming that a take down necessarily follows your stereotypical form.

Seriously, this isn't hard to understand: The FDR monitors all systems in the plane. It shows that all systems were functioning and that there was no pressure drop or any sign of damage to the aircraft, and then it suddenly was no more. This is indicative of a crash, not a shoot down.

[Disbelief]

So, you went from this:

I'm not convinced that the FDR data necessarily precludes a shoot down. I'm waiting for somebody to categorically demonstrate cause and effect between flight input controls and FDR data. Allow me to emphasise that: between flight input controls and FDR data


To this:

So planes only go down when the pilot pushes the yolk forward?


"The fact"? You're ignoring the fact that the FDR Report omitted to address many of the plane's systems.


So no loss of control from the stick necessarily means that nothing else could possibly bring down the plane?


I think you're assuming that a take down necessarily follows your stereotypical form.

You are asking for a ridiculous amount of detail. There would HAVE to be a system failure for the plane to crash, and the FDR would show this. An inflight explosion would cause multiple failures/condition changes that would be tracked in the FDR. Please explain how a take down would cause a plane to crash but not affect any of the control systems. There is NO way around this.

I have defended your earlier questions, as I think that posters here should respond to queries in a polite manner, but you have been shown the information and are now asking for preposterous amounts of evidence. While I do not believe you are a CTist, I believe you are acting like one.

[Captain_Swoop]

At least one military-style aircraft was reported in the vicinity by numerous eye witnesses.


How?



What is a 'military style aircraft'?

What was the 'vicinity'?
When was it reported?

It is a matter of record how many Air Force fighters were in the air, what type they were, who was flying, where they came from, what they were armed with and where they were. These records are available if you want to look at them.
I would have thought thqat before embarking on this you would have done your research.

[excaza]

Please explain how a take down would cause a plane to crash but not affect any of the control systems. There is NO way around this.

Telekinesis?

[catsmate1]

I believe that the plane was brought down by a laser beam fired off by the Romulan battle fleet.Prove me wrong.
Don't Romulans use disruptors? Anyway a tractor beam would be far more plausible...........

[Captain_Swoop]

Don't Romulans use disruptors? Anyway a tractor beam would be far more plausible...........

How would a tractor fly? Or do you know something about John Deere that I don't?

[grmcdorman]

Southwind, I'm not sure what your problem is. The FDR records both the pilot inputs and the aircraft's motion and attitude. In combination with the CVR, we know what was going on in the cockpit, and what the aircraft was doing.

Neither provide any support for a shoot-down; on the contrary, both corroborate the generally accepted narrative and in fact rule any mythical shoot-down as a cause for the crash.

The FDR and CVR show that any such shoot-down attempt, had it occurred, did not decouple the pilot's inputs from the plane's responses, and did not affect the operation of the plane's systems, such as hydraulics. Therefore, there is no need to invoke a shoot-down attempt to explain the crash - and there is no other evidence of a shoot-down attempt.

[excaza]

and there is no other evidence of a shoot-down attempt.

fixed that for you :p

[Oystein]

How would a tractor fly? Or do you know something about John Deere that I don't?

Flying tractors might have been under development as early as 1999 by Caterpillar, one of the largest government and military contractors for supply of bulldozers.

Think about it!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Flight 93's FDR (Click the link):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf

Everything you want to know about Flight 93's FDR. It proves, without a doubt, that it wasn't "shot down". And besides, I know it wasn't because I live about 20 miles North of Shanksville.

Any diehard Truthers want to debate about Flight 93 being "shot down" with me? Any takers??

[Oystein]

No, I didn't ignore it. I'm questioning whether, assuming the plane was shot down, the FDR data following the hit is necessarily the result of flight input controls.
...

Everything has been said on that matter, but not yet by everyone. :D So let me give this (you) a try of my own:



FDR records both control inputs and movements of the plane.

In normal flight conditions, the movements of the plane are a non-random result of the control inputs (yoke, flaps, throttle, gears, ...), they are predictable to a large extent. This has to be so, or otherwise the "controls" wouldn't be called by that name, and pilots could not reliably fly a plane.

You can enter the control inputs into a flight simulator, and the computer would compute with considerable accuracy the expected plane movements.


When a plane is hit, say, by gunfire, a missile, a bird strike, a well-hurled stone, lightning, etc., two things can happen:
a) There is no damage to such an extent that pilots lose control of the plane. In other words: The controls still effect the plane movements that a simulator would predict. In this case, the plane will not crash. It will simply continue flying as before.
b) There is damage to such an extent that pilots lose control partially or fully. In other words, control inputs do not result any longer in the plane movements that a simulator would predict. In this case, the plane may or may not crash.


The way to find out if a plane was shot down or not, using the FDR data, is therefore simply this:


Take the recorded control inputs from the FDR
Feed these inputs into a flight simulator
Have the simulator precict plane movements
Compare resulting predicted plane movements with the real plane movements as also recorded by the FDR
If the simulator predicts that the recorded control inputs would result in the same movements as really happened, you can conclude that no significant outside force interferred with the flight - it was not shot down
If you recorded plane movements that differ significantly from prediction, then you got something to investigate. Could be a hit, say, by gunfire, a missile, a bird strike, a well-hurled stone, lightning, etc., or could be a bomb, or failing materials.



For flight 93, it turns out that the recorded control inputs would predictably lead to the recorded plane movements, which resultet in the plane hitting the ground where it did.

This is 100% proof that the plane crashed due to control inputs, and not due to external intervention. It was not shot down.

[beachnut]

... "The fact"? You're ignoring the fact that the FDR Report omitted to address many of the plane's systems.
... List them.