if flight 93 was shot down, why would the event be be covered up?

[dvictr]

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum. i believe that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists.

the title of this thread is misleading, i'm playing devils advocate by explaining that the gov would NEVER, admit to shooting down a civilian airliner. Even more so on the 911 in the emotional environment. it would have been a "PR nightmare" and emotionally wreck the families of the people on board.. my guess is that it was part of the larger plan to unite nation for war, and the ensuing psychological propaganda.

Todd Beamer was made into a hero, could you imagine telling his family "lets roll" was BS?

look at the video below from 2:00, odd that they spend an unusually long time discussing "what if, you had to shoot down a plane".. it appears the pilots are getting their 15 minutes of fame and end up letting out their conscious.

the link below is to the CBS interview on 60minutes with the Pilots, i cant post links

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc

[AJM8125]

Flight 93 wasn't shot down. What's your point?

[Björn Toulouse]

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum.


Obviously.

[triforcharity]

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum.

the title of this thread is misleading, i'm playing devils advocate by explaining that the gov would NEVER, admit to shooting down a civilian airliner. Even more so on the 911 in the emotional environment. it would have been a "PR nightmare" and emotionally wreck the families of the people on board.. my guess is that it was part of the larger plan to unite nation for war, and the ensuing psychological propaganda.

Todd Beamer was made into a hero, could you imagine telling his family "lets roll" was *********?

look at the video below from 2:00, odd that they spend an unusually long time discussing "what if, you had to shoot down a plane".. it appears the pilots are getting their 15 minutes of fame and end up letting out their conscious.

the link below is to the CBS interview on 60minutes with the Pilots, i cant post links

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc

Yeah, because the murder of ~2900 people in NYC was not enough......

Stupid Truthers......

[dvictr]

Flight 93 wasn't shot down. What's your point?

listen to yourself.. you want to pretend like youre a rational person..

SO on 9/11 you have the 2 towers, and the pentagon burning... "Ohh BTW there is this rogue flight 93 over PA"... the pilots went in there and did their jobs.. i dont blame them at all.

you think they were going there to escort the plane? they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

[AJM8125]

listen to yourself.. you want to pretend like youre a rational person..

SO on 9/11 you have the 2 towers, and the pentagon burning... "Ohh BTW there is this rogue flight 93 over PA"... the pilots went in there and did their jobs.. i dont blame them at all.

you think they were going there to escort the plane? they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

If that's your point, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

[Greediguts]

they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? How have you gone about researching flight 93?

[dvictr]

If that's your point, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .

doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heroes thats it.

[AJM8125]

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .

doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heros thats it.

What if I told you I have a purple dragon in my garage? It still doesn't make a case for purple dragons existing.

Here ya go dvictr:

http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=flight+93

That's about how many times we've been down this road before. All things UAL 93 can be found here and then some. Read up and then see if you still want to play "devil's advocate" with us.

PS - Most of us here don't believe in the devil. ;)

[dvictr]

Do you have any evidence for this claim? How have you gone about researching flight 93?

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

[AJM8125]

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

it was a great decision to make the passengers into heros

Do tell. Start with the word I've bolded.

[Greediguts]

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

So some details please....

At what altitude do you think the plane was hit? How much damage did the missile cause? When you looked at the crash site what exactly made it seem to you that the plane was shot down?

[Quad4_72]

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

None of this is evidence, ESPECIALLY not the bolded portion You are going to have to be much more concise. For example, what about the debris field? Do you have pictures, data, calculations for why it should have been different? And what specifically about a "seismic time discrepancy"? Please do elaborate.

[WhisperingEye]

How about your training in spelling ... it's "heroes"

[dvictr]

None of this is evidence, ESPECIALLY not the bolded portion You are going to have to be much more concise. For example, what about the debris field? Do you have pictures, data, calculations for why it should have been different? And what specifically about a "seismic time discrepancy"? Please do elaborate.

10:06 or 10:03 time of crash??.. regardless

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?

the interview with the pilots is enough for me..

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc

[TexasJack]

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?

Yes! The classic truther fallacy, proving a negative. How about you prove that it was. It's your claim, bring the evidence.

[Quad4_72]

10:06 or 10:03 time of crash??.. regardless

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?

the interview with the pilots is enough for me..

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc


Absolutely hilarious. You really can't make this stuff up. When asked for evidence for his claims, he realizes he is making stuff up and tries to turn it around. I really did laugh out loud though when I read that post.

What specifically in that video is evidence that UA93 was shot down? I watched the whole thing and didn't see any evidence.

[dvictr]

Yes! The classic truther fallacy, proving a negative. How about you prove that it was. It's your claim, bring the evidence.

i would like to know how many other truthers can be grouped as accepting "100% of the 911 commission report" but that flight 93 was shot down/ disabled AND THEN crashed..

the passenger hero story came out days later, nothing special had to be set up or manipulated.

[AJM8125]

It's "hero".

Thank you for editing.

[Quad4_72]

i would like to know how many other truthers can be grouped as accepting "100% of the 911 commission report" but that flight 93 was shot down/ disabled AND THEN crashed..

the passenger heroes story came out days later


You are making claims and not providing proof. This is a forum of skeptics. Please provide proof for your claims. Also, what psychology and public relations training do you have? How does that apply towards your belief that a missile shot down flight 93? More specifically, what theories are you talking about in psychology and how do they apply to your missile theory?

[TexasJack]

Classic! He provides a video that supports the fact that 93 wasn't shot down. Keep 'em coming, soon you'll provide all the evidence that 93 crashed.
OB8JE-54Xqc

[angrysoba]

So, OP. What you are essentially saying is this:

I'm going to invent a scenario and I want you to tell me why the invented scenario happened.

The bit about it all being a figment of your imagination is the main stumbling block.

[Bell]

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .

doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heroes thats it.

You believe 100% the official story, but you are still denying what the passengers onboard UA93 have done. In your view they are not the heroes that they really are. I find your view despicable.

[dafydd]

10:06 or 10:03 time of crash??.. regardless

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?

the interview with the pilots is enough for me..

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc

What evidence do you have that there are no leprechauns living in my garden?

[BigAl]

i would like to know how many other truthers can be grouped as accepting "100% of the 911 commission report" but that flight 93 was shot down/ disabled AND THEN crashed..

the passenger hero story came out days later, nothing special had to be set up or manipulated.

What's your point? The FDR and other evidence shows that an undamaged Flight 93 was flown into the ground by a hijacker pilot.

[excaza]

10:06 or 10:03 time of crash??.. regardless

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?

You can't be serious...

Do we really have to deal with new trolls every week?

[Oystein]

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .

doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heroes thats it.

What informs your "belief"?
This is a skeptics' forum. Beliefs are dealt with in the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum. Here, we are more interested in facts, evidence, reason and the like.

So far you have offered as reasons:
a) A video where the pilots tell you they did not shoot down any plane
b) Your assertion: "the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations."
c) Your opinion that flight 93 needed to be shot down

a) Is clearly contradicting your belief
b) Is not substantiated by any evidence, despite your falsely labelling the assertions as evidence. You need to do the following if you want us to start considering your claims:

In what way was the debris field "anomalous"? Provide sources. Then argue why such a debris field is indicative of a shoot-down vs. a crash after erratic inputs at the flight controls
What "time discrepancy"? Provide at least two sources to describe the timing of at least two events that you find at odds with each other. Then argue how this descrepancy is indicative of a shoot-down vs. a mere crash.
Describe your training, and what information you have in the relevant pertaining to the Shanksville event that may be construed as being authoritative on the issue.


c) Even the most urgent need is not proof for anything. I needed to get laid last night. Urgently. Unfortunately, this does not mean I did get laid.



In each case, be prepared that we will take you to issue. Most notably, we will doubt that your claim to have authoritative expertise that would trump ours, unless you make a very good case. Arguments from authority are a fallacy, if you invoke a false authority. Authority is false if one the follwing two conditions is not met: i) Person is not sufficiently trained in the field of knowledge in question ii) Person does not have sufficient information to form a solid expert opinion. I think we will find you severly lacking at least in the latter category.

If the plane had been shot down, there would potentially be several avenues to come by physical evidence that you haven't touched upon yet:

Debris of missiles
Eye witness reports
Civilian Air Traffic Control radar data (FAA)
Military radar data
Flight data recorder (FDR) reveals discrepancies between cockpit control inputs and resulting movements of the plane

Does none of that physical evidence exist? If so - why do you think that is so?


However, we do know that FDR data is consistent with a crash due to cockpit control inputs and inconsistence with any interference from outside, such as shoot-down. You'd have to explain that.
We also know that all radar data is consistent with a mere crash. It is known with certainty where the Langley fighters were: First south, then east, then north of D.C., finally Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over Washington. Never west of D.C., never near Shanksville. You'd have to explain that.
We also have the witness testimonies of the pilots and those of several people on the ground. While there is talk of a white mystery plane, you need to explain where the military would get a white fighter plane from.

[Horatius]

let me rephrase this.. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE.. that the plane was NOT shot down?



This:


The FDR and other evidence shows that an undamaged Flight 93 was flown into the ground by a hijacker pilot.


For your "shoot down" belief to be true, how many people would have to be lying? At a minimum, all the Air Force people who knew that they had shot down the plane, and now, all the NTSB people involved in recovering, and analysing the FDR. I'm sure we can come up with even more.

What evidence do you have to implicate all these people?

[911thology]

Anyone who is interested to get the GENUINE 9/11 news report where it is openly stated that the US Air Force jet fighter SHOT DOWN the 4th hijacked aircraft, could download this report here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

No 'debunking' of my 'theory' is accepted, because I do not claim anything. I only honestly reveal to you a download link to the genuine 911 video clip. Nothing more than that.

Best wishes for all 911-truthers.

[AJM8125]

Shot down with mini-nuke sidewinder, no doubt.

[Sabrina]

listen to yourself.. you want to pretend like youre a rational person..

SO on 9/11 you have the 2 towers, and the pentagon burning... "Ohh BTW there is this rogue flight 93 over PA"... the pilots went in there and did their jobs.. i dont blame them at all.

you think they were going there to escort the plane? they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

You're assuming that the planes that were launched were armed. IIRC, they didn't have the opportunity to arm any of the close air patrols over the US until later in the day.

Ammunition is kept VERY far away from the equipment that uses it for a good reason, you know; no sense in keeping all the HEAT rounds or missiles or rifle ammo with the equipment, because it can more easily be stolen or used fraudulently or used by a soldier who's snapped and gone off the deep end. Much better to keep it in a controlled location and limit the access to it until it's needed. So quite frankly, by the time 93 crashed, we had only gotten two patrols in the air, neither of which was armed. Got any rebuttal to that?

[tsig]

Anyone who is interested to get the GENUINE 9/11 news report where it is openly stated that the US Air Force jet fighter SHOT DOWN the 4th hijacked aircraft, could download this report here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

No 'debunking' of my 'theory' is accepted, because I do not claim anything. I only honestly reveal to you a download link to the genuine 911 video clip. Nothing more than that.

Best wishes for all 911-truthers.

I don't pay for links or download unknown files.

[Oystein]

You're assuming that the planes that were launched were armed. IIRC, they didn't have the opportunity to arm any of the close air patrols over the US until later in the day.

Ammunition is kept VERY far away from the equipment that uses it for a good reason, you know; no sense in keeping all the HEAT rounds or missiles or rifle ammo with the equipment, because it can more easily be stolen or used fraudulently or used by a soldier who's snapped and gone off the deep end. Much better to keep it in a controlled location and limit the access to it until it's needed. So quite frankly, by the time 93 crashed, we had only gotten two patrols in the air, neither of which was armed. Got any rebuttal to that?

Actually, you recall that incorrectly.

The alert birds that NORAD can call upon are armed. There were 7 alert sites with 2 such armed alert fighters each in the continental USA, 2 of them in the North-East sector: Otis ANGB on western Cape Cod in Massachusetts, and Langley AFB in Virginia. Both were scrambled shortly after the situation unfolded in New York. Langley sent up an additional third fighter that happened to be ready for take-off but was not armed with missiles, only with, I think, gun ammo. The video that has been posted a few times in this thread shows to of the three Langley pilots.

What you say there is true of pretty much all other fighters in the area. Specifically, the fighter wing at Andrews AFB, just miles from the Pentagon, could not quickly launch an armed response as it took them something on the order of 45 minutes to fetch arms from a remote bunker and attach them to planes.

[T.A.M.]

Has the op author provided a shred of evidence yet, or are will still the "govt is evil so they must have planned it" stage?

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

Actually, you recall that incorrectly.

The alert birds that NORAD can call upon are armed. There were 7 alert sites with 2 such armed alert fighters each in the continental USA, 2 of them in the North-East sector: Otis ANGB on western Cape Cod in Massachusetts, and Langley AFB in Virginia. Both were scrambled shortly after the situation unfolded in New York. Langley sent up an additional third fighter that happened to be ready for take-off but was not armed with missiles, only with, I think, gun ammo. The video that has been posted a few times in this thread shows to of the three Langley pilots.

What you say there is true of pretty much all other fighters in the area. Specifically, the fighter wing at Andrews AFB, just miles from the Pentagon, could not quickly launch an armed response as it took them something on the order of 45 minutes to fetch arms from a remote bunker and attach them to planes.

Ah, thank you; to follow up on that though, both patrols were sent either to New York or Washington; neither was sent to Pennsylvania. Which merely proves my point; any fighter jet that may have been sent to intercept UA93 was not armed with AAMs, since they would not have had time to locate more missiles and arm the jet(s) with them in time to shoot the plane down. So again, OP fails to prove his point.

[MRC_Hans]

listen to yourself.. you want to pretend like youre a rational person..

SO on 9/11 you have the 2 towers, and the pentagon burning... "Ohh BTW there is this rogue flight 93 over PA"... the pilots went in there and did their jobs.. i dont blame them at all.

you think they were going there to escort the plane? they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

Question is: Did they go there?

You are, of course, aware that ordnance (that is the ammo) for fighters is carefully accounted for (wouldn't want some jock to flog it to a biker group)? So where is the the account for the ammo/missiles used?

Hans

[911thology]

I don't pay for links or download unknown files.

There are three options to download the file - one on depositfiles, one on rapidshare and the third one - direct. If the first two appear 'not free' to you, the third one is definitely free. Therefore your excuse is invalid and you should figure out some other pretext not to download it. Say for example, that you bandwidth is too limited and you are too poor to pay for your home Internet connection. It would sound more realistic.

[T.A.M.]

Since we all know who you are, just upload it to youtube so everyone can watch it and not worry about viruses...not that it makes any difference. If you believe that all news reportsfrom that day are correct, thenyou have to believe that the washington monument was destroyed, and the capitol building was attacked.

Too much stupid...too little time.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

There are three options to download the file - one on depositfiles, one on rapidshare and the third one - direct. If the first two appear 'not free' to you, the third one is definitely free. Therefore your excuse is invalid and you should figure out some other pretext not to download it. Say for example, that you bandwidth is too limited and you are too poor to pay for your home Internet connection. It would sound more realistic.

Aparently the word "or" is lost on you.

Secondly, you might want to check that little smart mouth you got going there. You will end up with a ban you keep on like that.

Read the MA.

[catsmate1]

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum. i believe that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists.

the title of this thread is misleading, i'm playing devils advocate by explaining that the gov would NEVER, admit to shooting down a civilian airliner. Even more so on the 911 in the emotional environment. it would have been a "PR nightmare" and emotionally wreck the families of the people on board.. my guess is that it was part of the larger plan to unite nation for war, and the ensuing psychological propaganda.

Todd Beamer was made into a hero, could you imagine telling his family "lets roll" was BS?

look at the video below from 2:00, odd that they spend an unusually long time discussing "what if, you had to shoot down a plane".. it appears the pilots are getting their 15 minutes of fame and end up letting out their conscious.

the link below is to the CBS interview on 60minutes with the Pilots, i cant post links

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc

Garbage. Even the politicians of the Bush II administration weren't so stupid as to try and cover up something like this; far too many people would be involved. In addition to the interceptor crew, squadron and base senior officers, ground crew (who'd notice a missing missile), FAA staff who might see the interception on RADAR, witnesses on the ground, NTSB staff who'd see the debris pattern was wrong instantly (any any competent outsider who could do likewise), NTSB staff who extracted the FDR data.......................... It wouldn't work, and they'd know it wouldn't work.

Anyway who would they bother? Most people would accept a shoot-down as a regrettable necessity and an example of the US air defenses actually achieving something. Hell, they could easily spin this to their advantage, emphasising their ability to make tough decisions.

Replace the bolded words with whoever you believe to be responsible.


Anyone who is interested to get the GENUINE 9/11 news report where it is openly stated that the US Air Force jet fighter SHOT DOWN the 4th hijacked aircraft, could download this report here: <snip>


Please stop spamming this nonsensical garbage.


No 'debunking' of my 'theory' is accepted, because I do not claim anything. I only honestly reveal to you a download link to the genuine 911 video clip. Nothing more than that.Ou course not. After you "mini-nuke" rubbish was shredded you wouldn't dare enter into debate here.

BTW, Rapidshare suspends accounts for posting copyrighted material....

[911thology]

Aparently the word "or" is lost on you.

Secondly, you might want to check that little smart mouth you got going there. You will end up with a ban you keep on like that.

Read the MA.

OK I will try. But you see - it is very difficult not to be ironic when you need to reply to an actual irony. But it is not an insult in any case.

[njslim]

10:06 or 10:03 time of crash??.. regardless


So your evidence is that there are two different times given...

Looking around the house find that

electric clock reads 9:56

VCR clock reads 9:53

Computer 9:52

wrist watch 9:50

Just proved that 4 different time devices do not agree

Must be conspiracy in that .......


Also 910thology is all over ABOVE TOP SECRET with his nonsense

The loons there will just love it

[Horatius]

Aparently the word "or" is lost on you.




Are you really shocked that a truther would cherry-pick like this?

[911thology]

Are you really shocked that a truther would cherry-pick like this?
No it is because of a different reason. As a person quite seasoned in argument I know the main rules - if you have two points, you don't have to use them both at once - because in this case you give your opponent a chance to challenge weaker of the two points and so to avoid answering the stronger. When it comes to me I will always discard the weaker point and will use only the stronger point alone. It will give me more advantage in argument and will make the argument itself more logical and easy to understand for others. But that person who used two arguments separated by 'or' made this mistake. Instead of using only the stronger point alone (that I would not be able to challenge) he used them both. So he gave me the abovementioned advantage of challenging his weaker point and pretending not to notice the stronger point. And so I used it. Next time don't give me this advantage and you will have nothing to complain.

[Horatius]

No it is because of a different reason. As a person quite seasoned in argument I know the main rules - if you have two points, you don't have to use them both at once - because in this case you give your opponent a chance to challenge weaker of the two points and so to avoid answering the stronger. When it comes to me I will always discard the weaker point and will use only the stronger point alone. It will give me more advantage in argument and will make the argument itself more logical and easy to understand for others. But that person who used two arguments separated by 'or' made this mistake. Instead of using only the stronger point alone (that I would not be able to challenge) he used them both. So he gave me the abovementioned advantage of challenging his weaker point and pretending not to notice the stronger point. And so I used it. Next time don't give me this advantage and you will have nothing to complain.



Thank you for this unexpectedly honest look into your dishonest debating style.

This I'm actually shocked about.

[Disbelief]

Anyway who would they bother? Most people would accept a shoot-down as a regrettable necessity and an example of the US air defenses actually achieving something. Hell, they could easily spin this to their advantage, emphasising their ability to make tough decisions.


This. If they had shot the plane down, there would be no need to cover anything up and fabricate a story. They could have easily spun it that they now had the situation under control and America could be defended when required.

[dvictr]

What informs your "belief"?
This is a skeptics' forum. Beliefs are dealt with in the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum. Here, we are more interested in facts, evidence, reason and the like.


Before I found this forum I considered myself a skeptic but after reading threads around here it appears some of should be called gullible. Do members here swallow EVERYTHING that comes out of the political economy/ government.

I am a professional economist and fundamentally believe all events/actions in this world are driven by financial motives. Perhaps you are familiar with praxeology?

It is a free market economist's obligation to be skeptical of all things government based on various theories such as regulatory capture, SBC syndrome, price fixing.. In addition to historical evidence for precedents in governmental coverups including event in United States history.

I don't claim "the gov. is evil" but rather driven by special interest/lobbying groups who effectively control policy but more importantly have the ability to spend other peoples money on other people otherwise know as power.

youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

I could continue and explain how this relates to 911 but this post will stop here

[Bell]

Before I found this forum I considered myself a skeptic but after reading threads around here it appears some of you are actually gullible. do members here swallow EVERYTHING that comes out of the political economy/ government.

Anything that I accept as true are those I have never personally analyzed or tested through experimentation informs my belief.

I am a professional economist and fundamentally believe all events/actions in this world are driven by financial motives. Perhaps you are familiar with praxeology?

It is a free market economist's obligation to be skeptical of all things government based on various theories such as regulatory capture, SBC syndrome, price fixing.. In addition to historical evidence for precedents in governmental coverups including event in United States history.

I don't claim "the gov. is evil" but rather driven by special interest/lobbying groups who effectively control policy but more importantly have the ability to spend other peoples money on other people otherwise know as power.

youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

I could continue and explain how this relates to 911 but this post will stop here

holograms
silent nano thermite
??????
profit!!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Before I found this forum I considered myself a skeptic but after reading threads around here it appears some of should be called gullible. Do members here swallow EVERYTHING that comes out of the political economy/ government.

I am a professional economist and fundamentally believe all events/actions in this world are driven by financial motives. Perhaps you are familiar with praxeology?

It is a free market economist's obligation to be skeptical of all things government based on various theories such as regulatory capture, SBC syndrome, price fixing.. In addition to historical evidence for precedents in governmental coverups including event in United States history.

I don't claim "the gov. is evil" but rather driven by special interest/lobbying groups who effectively control policy but more importantly have the ability to spend other peoples money on other people otherwise know as power.

youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

I could continue and explain how this relates to 911 but this post will stop here

You said "swallow"! :eek:

[Quad4_72]

Before I found this forum I considered myself a skeptic but after reading threads around here it appears some of should be called gullible. Do members here swallow EVERYTHING that comes out of the political economy/ government.

I am a professional economist and fundamentally believe all events/actions in this world are driven by financial motives. Perhaps you are familiar with praxeology?

It is a free market economist's obligation to be skeptical of all things government based on various theories such as regulatory capture, SBC syndrome, price fixing.. In addition to historical evidence for precedents in governmental coverups including event in United States history.

I don't claim "the gov. is evil" but rather driven by special interest/lobbying groups who effectively control policy but more importantly have the ability to spend other peoples money on other people otherwise know as power.

youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

I could continue and explain how this relates to 911 but this post will stop here

You were asked for evidence of your claims, and instead you provide absolute drivel and nonsense. Please post your specific evidence for your proof that UA93 was shot down by a missile.

[djlunacee]

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .

doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heroes thats it.

For further reference, it is not possible to believe 100% of the "official" story, and believe that 93 was shot down, let us go ahead and establish that to begin with.

Now, what evidence do you have to refute, radar? FDR? The transcripts from the flight's black box?

[djlunacee]

Anyone who is interested to get the GENUINE 9/11 news report where it is openly stated that the US Air Force jet fighter SHOT DOWN the 4th hijacked aircraft, could download this report here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

No 'debunking' of my 'theory' is accepted, because I do not claim anything. I only honestly reveal to you a download link to the genuine 911 video clip. Nothing more than that.

Best wishes for all 911-truthers.

Well, well, well! Dmitri, how the hell are you? Your theory needs no debunking, its stupidity is second to only one. But I digress, please enlighten us, was it shot down with a stolen Russian missile? Or was it a remotely launched 150 kiloton nuclear warhead? How do you explain the FDR? The tracking of the flight on radar? You can't, because 93 was not shot down, and there is zero evidence to support this statement.

[djlunacee]

There are three options to download the file - one on depositfiles, one on rapidshare and the third one - direct. If the first two appear 'not free' to you, the third one is definitely free. Therefore your excuse is invalid and you should figure out some other pretext not to download it. Say for example, that you bandwidth is too limited and you are too poor to pay for your home Internet connection. It would sound more realistic.

Uncalled for Dmitri, by the way, have you finished writing your tell all book yet?
Provide PHYSICAL evidence that 93 was shot down.

[JimBenArm]

So, there are military pilots who followed orders to shoot down the plane, yet will not come forward. There are senior officers who know about this, yet they will not come forward.
Do you realize just how insulting this is to the people here who served in the military? Of course you don't. Nor do you care. After all, we're not really people, we're just automatons who do the bidding of our overlords, not actual thinking, feeling beings with a conscience or anything. Why, we'll do anything they tell us to! And never, ever spill the beans! Ever!

I demand an apology from you for this insulting drivel, along with a complete retraction. Until you get someone on the record admitting to this, this is an absolute affront to the honor and integrity of the entire US military, and you, sir, are an ass. And I have one you can kiss.

[dvictr]

For further reference, it is not possible to believe 100% of the "official" story, and believe that 93 was shot down, let us go ahead and establish that to begin with.

Now, what evidence do you have to refute, radar? FDR? The transcripts from the flight's black box?

what i meant to say is that the idea that a cover up of flight 93 being shot down is the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies.. i am skeptical of many of the findings and the objectivity of the 911 commission.

i work with probabilities/statistics.. and based on all the hard facts and evidence presented to me debunking all other conspiracy theories.. flight 93 being "forced to crash" by the USAF is the most possible

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He can't prove that Flight 93 was "shot down" because:

1: The fighters were heading East out into the Atlantic. They couldn't help it, it was an old Cold War scenerio.

&

2: There are no jet fighters near Shanksville to shoot it down. Johnstown Airport has Apache Helicopters & they can't reach a top speed of 500 mph like Flt. 93 did.

Conclussion:

Can't prove the "shoot down" theory!

[dvictr]

So, there are military pilots who followed orders to shoot down the plane, yet will not come forward. There are senior officers who know about this, yet they will not come forward.

I demand an apology from you for this insulting drivel, along with a complete retraction.

come forward to what!?!? they followed lawful orders and out of respect to the families and the passengers of flight 93 have let them rest in peace.. "stepping forward" now would emotionally destroy alot of people.

[dtugg]

I am shocked to see this new twoofer moron has yet to produce any evidence whatsoever.

[dvictr]

He can't prove that Flight 93 was "shot down" because:

1: The fighters were heading East out into the Atlantic. They couldn't help it, it was an old Cold War scenerio.

&

2: There are no jet fighters near Shanksville to shoot it down. Johnstown Airport has Apache Helicopters & they can't reach a top speed of 500 mph like Flt. 93 did.

what is your proof regarding the whereabouts of all military aircraft on 911?

this thread is about speculation as to why the event would be covered up for public relations/ legal ramifications as i believe.

[JimBenArm]

come forward to what!?!? they followed lawful orders and out of respect to the families and the passengers of flight 93 have let them rest in peace.. "stepping forward" now would emotionally destroy alot of people.

If this had happened, believe me, someone would come forward. Your scenario is beyond stupid, and if you had any knowledge of the military, you would know this. However, keep insulting the honesty and integrity of my (obviously not your) military. It fits with all the other drivel you've posted.

I notice there isn't an apology or retraction. Not that I really expected one. Integrity is lost on truthers.

[T.A.M.]

what i meant to say is that the idea that a cover up of flight 93 being shot down is the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies.. i am skeptical of many of the findings and the objectivity of the 911 commission.

i work with probabilities/statistics.. and based on all the hard facts and evidence presented to me debunking all other conspiracy theories.. flight 93 being "forced to crash" by the USAF is the most possible

Without evidence your probabilities and statistics are useless. Bring the facts, or simply admit your distrust of govt has swayed you despite a lack of evidence. It is a weakness many share...you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

TAM:)

[dvictr]

I am shocked to see this new twoofer moron has yet to produce any evidence whatsoever.

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

[Bell]

what i meant to say is that the idea that a cover up of flight 93 being shot down is the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies.. i am skeptical of many of the findings and the objectivity of the 911 commission.

i work with probabilities/statistics.. and based on all the hard facts and evidence presented to me debunking all other conspiracy theories.. flight 93 being "forced to crash" by the USAF is the most possible

What hard facts?
What evidence?

[dtugg]

i am a social scientist and am work with theories everyday.

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

Not unless you have some evidence. Where is it?

[Bell]

i am a social scientist and am work with theories everyday.

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

Yes, a theory, nothing more. A figment of your imagination.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

what is your proof regarding the whereabouts of all military aircraft on 911?

Are you that dumb not to know that we have had our military at the ready for an attack coming from Russia when we were in the Cold War with them?

First protocol was to get the fighters into the air & into the Atlantic in case there were enemy bombers coming. Which the fighters on 9/11 did just that!

Jeez, you know nothing about the Cold War do you?

[T.A.M.]

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

With zero evidence...next theory.

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

It's only valid if you have evidence. But alas, you have none which means that it's not valid. It's more like INSANE!

[dvictr]

If this had happened, believe me, someone would come forward. Your scenario is beyond stupid, and if you had any knowledge of the military, you would know this. However, keep insulting the honesty and integrity of my (obviously not your) military. It fits with all the other drivel you've posted.

I notice there isn't an apology or retraction. Not that I really expected one. Integrity is lost on truthers.

you speak very highly of this "honesty and integrity"

[dvictr]

It's only valid if you have evidence. But alas, you have none which means that it's not valid. It's more like INSANE!

if i had evidence then it would be fact..

[Bell]

if i had evidence then it would be fact..

So you are just sprouting BS based on nothing then? Thanks for admitting.

[dvictr]

So you are just sprouting BS based on nothing then? Thanks for admitting.

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!

[dtugg]

if i had evidence then it would be fact..

Not necesarily, depends on the evidence. If you had some, rational people would at least consider what you're saying and weigh it against the "official story". But as you have no evidence whatsoever, and you've just basically admitted such, there is no reason rational people should listen to you.

[beachnut]

OB8JE-54Xqc
The video says Flight 93 was taken down due to Passengers attacking the terrorists.

The FDR confirms, along with audio, that the terrorists crashed the plane on purpose since the Passengers were beating the snot out of them. Terrorists are chicken.


flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.
It is a moronic delusion, not a theory.

The FDR proves Flight 93 was flown into the ground all systems working; flown by the terrorists. Your valid theory is a delusion based on hearsay, and lies.

[dtugg]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!


If your aunt had balls would she really be you uncle?

[TexasJack]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!

Oh, please move this to the fiction bin then.

[Bell]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!

Since there is absolutely no evidence that United 93 was shot down there is no need to speculate what ifs and why nots.

[AJM8125]

Yes, dvictr, we don't do speculation here. Don't feel bad, I learned the hard way too.

[A W Smith]

No it is because of a different reason. As a person quite seasoned in argument I know the main rules - if you have two points, you don't have to use them both at once - because in this case you give your opponent a chance to challenge weaker of the two points and so to avoid answering the stronger. When it comes to me I will always discard the weaker point and will use only the stronger point alone. It will give me more advantage in argument and will make the argument itself more logical and easy to understand for others. But that person who used two arguments separated by 'or' made this mistake. Instead of using only the stronger point alone (that I would not be able to challenge) he used them both. So he gave me the abovementioned advantage of challenging his weaker point and pretending not to notice the stronger point. And so I used it. Next time don't give me this advantage and you will have nothing to complain.

Except for the fact that you have no "stronger point" whatsoever. As a professional coward you won't even begin to state your case. Boris and Natasha made better points than you ever will. hHUiCYAE2DY

[triforcharity]

Are you really shocked that a truther would cherry-pick like this?

No. In fact, if there were a cherry picking competition, the Truthers would win hands down every time. Even over politicians and the media too.

[A W Smith]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!


Oh no the US would NEVER admit to shooting down a civilian airliner :rolleyes:

aqd9zoZm1nM

[JimBenArm]

you speak very highly of this "honesty and integrity"

I realize this is a completely foreign concept to you, since you deal in finance, but there are those of us who served in the military who consider honesty and integrity to be of utmost importance when dealing with others.

You know, we take an oath. Most of us took it seriously. I realize it's just words to you, but it's more than that to us. If you had ever gotten off your backside and put your heiny on the line for something greater than yourself, you might, might be able to understand, but considering your performance here, I highly doubt it. After all, it requires personal sacrifice, dignity, an ability to reason, and a functional cortex.

So, go ahead. Spout your vile nonsense. Show yourself to be devoid of "honor and integrity". Especially since you needed to put them in scare quotes, to show what you think of those concepts.

In the words of the prophet Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"

[djlunacee]

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

Based on what?

[T.A.M.]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!

Then you should go over to one of the 9/11 truth forums where they take pride in speculating on such things. Here we tend to tear such things apart, especially when there is no evidence to back up such things.

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

I realize this is a completely foreign concept to you, since you deal in finance, but there are those of us who served in the military who consider honesty and integrity to be of utmost importance when dealing with others.

You know, we take an oath. Most of us took it seriously. I realize it's just words to you, but it's more than that to us. If you had ever gotten off your backside and put your heiny on the line for something greater than yourself, you might, might be able to understand, but considering your performance here, I highly doubt it. After all, it requires personal sacrifice, dignity, an ability to reason, and a functional cortex.

So, go ahead. Spout your vile nonsense. Show yourself to be devoid of "honor and integrity". Especially since you needed to put them in scare quotes, to show what you think of those concepts.

In the words of the prophet Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"

Jim is right.

I don't know if you're aware of this, dvictr, but the military stresses honor and integrity in all soldiers. That's not to say that a member of the military is perfect and will always tell the truth and act with honor; we are human after all. But the vast majority of military members are taught to stress several values, among them honesty and integrity (for the Army, there's also loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, and personal courage, for a total of seven). The plain fact of the matter is, there would be no legitimate reason for the pilots in question to hide that they had shot down the aircraft IF THEY HAD DONE IT, because they would have been acting rightly in defense of the nation. What would be the purpose? The passengers on the plane would still have been lionized for what essentially amounts to a form of martyrship if the plane had been shot down, because they would have given their lives to help protect this country in that scenario. Your theory is blown out of the water though when you take into account the FACT that the two air patrols that we had available at that time were sent to New York and Washington DC, respectively; not to Pennsylvania, where 93 crashed. There were no fighter jets anywhere near Pennsylvania when 93 crashed. And I can say that with certainty because of another little thing the military stresses called "accountability", where we are aware at all times of the whereabouts of our soldiers and equipment and their status. Your "theory" is ludicrous and has ZERO evidence to back it up. Probabilities and statistics matter little in the face of that little fact, because even they have to have evidence to back themselves up.

[Horatius]

come forward to what!?!? they followed lawful orders and out of respect to the families and the passengers of flight 93 have let them rest in peace.. "stepping forward" now would emotionally destroy alot of people.



The military's inability to do anything about the attacks is probably the single biggest legitimate complaint about the events of 9/11,


So, your hypothesis is that, despite all the public outcry over this inability to defend the US, they would choose to keep quiet about the one time in four they actually had an effect?

[Oystein]

...there would be no legitimate reason for the pilots in question to hide that they had shot down the aircraft IF THEY HAD DONE IT, because they would have been acting rightly in defense of the nation. What would be the purpose? The passengers on the plane would still have been lionized for what essentially amounts to a form of martyrship if the plane had been shot down, because they would have given their lives to help protect this country in that scenario...

May I beg to differ?

1. It is an unresolved question if the order to shoot down a civilian airplane would have been, or could ever be, "right" in the sense that it is legal. Of course, the military as a branch of government is strictly bound by law, constitution and what i legally "right". A closer look at the issue might reveal that in fact if the pilots had been given the order to shoot down the plane, they might not have been under any obligation to follow that order, as it would have been illegal. At best, they could be excused for following the order, because indeed it is hard to make such a complex decision within minutes while racing through the sky

2. Had the plane been shot down, then most definitely the passengers would NOT have "given" their lives! It would have been brutally taken from them! We'd never know if they would have consented to being killed. In fact, we don't know if any or all passengers consented to being killed when some og them "rolled" and struggled with the highjackers.


A couple of years ago, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled exactly in the spirit that I just outlined: The State can never, under any circumstances, decide to actively kill any innocent humans, not even to safe other innocent humans from probably death. Such an action would reduce humans to mere objects of State action, thus denying them their human dignity. Article 1 of the German constitution provides that the dignity of the human being is untouchable and must be protected by every agency of the State.
I know I can't extend that argument to US law. But it makes moral sense to me.

[Oystein]

The military's inability to do anything about the attacks is probably the single biggest legitimate complaint about the events of 9/11, ...

And I think it is probably the most illegitimate claim, as it presupposes the legitimacy of an act of war against one's own civilian population that is quite likely just illegal.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.


Umm... at what point did They™ know for sure that Flight 93 was targeting Washington, D.C.? How fast could they have gotten fighters to intercept?

Keep in mind that the plane was hijacked around 9:28 AM and crashed at 10:03 AM. That's a mere 35 minutes for ATC to identify Flight 93 as having been hijacked, communicate the fact to the military/government, and for the government to send an intercept.

Not possible.

[Sabrina]

May I beg to differ?

1. It is an unresolved question if the order to shoot down a civilian airplane would have been, or could ever be, "right" in the sense that it is legal. Of course, the military as a branch of government is strictly bound by law, constitution and what i legally "right". A closer look at the issue might reveal that in fact if the pilots had been given the order to shoot down the plane, they might not have been under any obligation to follow that order, as it would have been illegal. At best, they could be excused for following the order, because indeed it is hard to make such a complex decision within minutes while racing through the sky

2. Had the plane been shot down, then most definitely the passengers would NOT have "given" their lives! It would have been brutally taken from them! We'd never know if they would have consented to being killed. In fact, we don't know if any or all passengers consented to being killed when some og them "rolled" and struggled with the highjackers.

A couple of years ago, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled exactly in the spirit that I just outlined: The State can never, under any circumstances, decide to actively kill any innocent humans, not even to safe other innocent humans from probably death. Such an action would reduce humans to mere objects of State action, thus denying them their human dignity. Article 1 of the German constitution provides that the dignity of the human being is untouchable and must be protected by every agency of the State.
I know I can't extend that argument to US law. But it makes moral sense to me.

By that logic, you can't ever say that a member of the military gives their lives (which is the terminology generally used, BTW) when they're brutally shot at or blown up or whatever other gruesome means of death the enemy can come up with happens. And yet we say it. Do you think the fact that I have given an oath to protect this country means I have consented to die? Heck no! By taking that oath, I have merely consented to putting all my efforts toward ensuring that this country continues to maintain the freedoms put in place by the founding fathers in the Constitution. But I will do everything in my power to ensure that I do not die in such an attempt.

As to your first point; I agree that issuing such an order is questionable, without reservation. But I'm also aware that sometimes you have to weigh the greater good against something that is morally and physically repugnant to you. Like we say in the Army, sometimes you have to choose the hard right over the easy wrong. HAD the military been placed in such a situation, I can guarantee you that they would NOT have taken it lightly. There would have been agonizing over the decision, and probably only when there appeared to be absolutely no other choice would the order have been given. There would have been numerous investigations after the fact, and some people might have lost a career potentially, or they would have second-guessed the order and thought of other potential actions they could have or should have taken instead. It's entirely possible the pilot in question would have had to leave the military and would spend the rest of his/her life torn up over the fact that they had to kill American civilians. We can't ever know because we were thankfully not put in that position. As to the legality of such an action; well, IANAL, but I am in the military, and I believe that justification for such an action can in fact be argued. We are tasked to defend against all enemies, foreign AND domestic, and while you cannot classify the innocent passengers on that plane as enemies, the hijackers were, and as any military member can tell you, there will always be civilian casualties in a battle; it's virtually impossible to avoid. Shooting down the plane would have been a legitimate defense of this country given the circumstances. I'm not saying it would have been easy; far from it, it would likely be the most difficult decision anyone involved would have had to make. They would have tried everything they could think of and only have resorted to deadly force as a last resort. But again, we thankfully were not put in that position, since we had no fighters near Pennsylvania that day.

[MRC_Hans]

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.Just to make the details clear:

It is a thesis or scenario. It valid as such because it is falsifiable.
To rate as a teory, falsification must, so far, have failed and it must have evidence making it plausible.

Since the FDR shows that flight 93 was intact and under control till the moment of impact, the thesis is falsified.

Some people might find interest in discussing the 'what if' scenario of whether the government would have admitted it if flight 93 had been shot down, as a matter of intellectual exercise, but you did't present it as such.

Hans

[Horatius]

And I think it is probably the most illegitimate claim, as it presupposes the legitimacy of an act of war against one's own civilian population that is quite likely just illegal.



Yes, but that's an argument over morality, which is largely subjective. Honest people can honestly disagree on this point. My issue is that the US military did come under a lot of criticism for what was perceived by many Americans as a failure on 9/11, and as such, this notion that they would cover up their one successful intervention is somewhat inane.

That you disagree with those Americans on this being a "failure" or not is beside the point.

[Quad4_72]

If you ask me, like most twoofers who post here, divctr's credibility as any sort of "authority" comes into question. As usual, the big indicator is grammar. His lack of basic grammar skills leads us to believe he probably does not possess anything more then a high school education, if that. His "Finance skills" translate to "Cashier at the local McDonalds". His "Public Relations skills" translate to "Team manager of the football team, AKA Towel Boy". His "Psychology skills" translate to "Watching Little Miss Sunshine 12 times".

One thing I can guarantee though, is that we are not going to see a single shred of evidence from him in this thread.

[Oystein]

By that logic, you can't ever say that a member of the military gives their lives (which is the terminology generally used, BTW) when they're brutally shot at or blown up or whatever other gruesome means of death the enemy can come up with happens. And yet we say it.

Oh yes you can say that! Silly! Everybody knows that it is the job and the duty of soldiers to go to place where the enemy might intend to kill them, if so ordered. By enlisting, you consent to being put in the line of deadly fire, when called to. While you do not plan or want to die, you surely must be ready to die!

Do you think the fact that I have given an oath to protect this country means I have consented to die? Heck no! By taking that oath, I have merely consented to putting all my efforts toward ensuring that this country continues to maintain the freedoms put in place by the founding fathers in the Constitution. But I will do everything in my power to ensure that I do not die in such an attempt.

You have consented to be put in the line of deadly fire, is so ordered
You have consented to kill, if so ordered
You are given the best training and the equipment to enable you to prevent being killed. The passengers of flight 93 would not have been given such means and choices.

As to your first point; I agree that issuing such an order is questionable, without reservation. But I'm also aware that sometimes you have to weigh the greater good against something that is morally and physically repugnant to you. Like we say in the Army, sometimes you have to choose the hard right over the easy wrong. HAD the military been placed in such a situation, I can guarantee you that they would NOT have taken it lightly. There would have been agonizing over the decision, and probably only when there appeared to be absolutely no other choice would the order have been given. There would have been numerous investigations after the fact, and some people might have lost a career potentially, or they would have second-guessed the order and thought of other potential actions they could have or should have taken instead. It's entirely possible the pilot in question would have had to leave the military and would spend the rest of his/her life torn up over the fact that they had to kill American civilians. We can't ever know because we were thankfully not put in that position.

Don't worry, i am with you with all that, and would not have condemned anybody for a hypothetical quick decision to order shoot down. It took me some years after 9/11 and some emotional distance to come to the opinion that a shootdown would have been more wrong than right, and respect opinions to the contrary.

As to the legality of such an action; well, IANAL, but I am in the military, and I believe that justification for such an action can in fact be argued. We are tasked to defend against all enemies, foreign AND domestic

Ok, assuming this is true for the USA, there lies a difference in legal framework. Here, domestic crime is strictly handled by te police.

, and while you cannot classify the innocent passengers on that plane as enemies, the hijackers were, and as any military member can tell you, there will always be civilian casualties in a battle; it's virtually impossible to avoid. Shooting down the plane would have been a legitimate defense of this country given the circumstances.

No. Under International Law, such as is codified in treaties like the Geneva Convention, which the USA is a party of and which by virtue of the US Constitution and ratification by Congress has become the Supreme Law of the Land, it is strictly illegal to target civilians. That is what you necessarily do when you shoot down a civilian airliner, even if it is controlled by foreign enemy combattants.

I'm not saying it would have been easy; far from it, it would likely be the most difficult decision anyone involved would have had to make. They would have tried everything they could think of and only have resorted to deadly force as a last resort. But again, we thankfully were not put in that position, since we had no fighters near Pennsylvania that day.

Yes. Good thing that the terrorists did not succeed in forcing anyone else into disgrace. The shame is solely theirs.

[Oystein]

Yes, but that's an argument over morality, which is largely subjective. Honest people can honestly disagree on this point.

Absolutely, yes.

My issue is that the US military did come under a lot of criticism for what was perceived by many Americans as a failure on 9/11, and as such, this notion that they would cover up their one successful intervention is somewhat inane.

Yes. This is an issue of Truthers wanting to have it both ways. I am with you defending against such warped reasoning.

That you disagree with those Americans on this being a "failure" or not is beside the point.

Ok. Point taken. Seemed to me like you thought that not shooting down the plane could be legitimately criticized, or that it could have been legitimately shot down. Just raised my objection there.
(Not just Americans think this was a failure. My countryman, bio, had a thread where he argued that the failure to to shoot down is a smoking gun, but he never responded to my question if he, a German, thinks that it would at all have been the right thing to do, given that our laws and courts very clearly say it is not)

[Brainster]

It would be covered up to give the Troofers yet another thing to obsess over and start pointless threads on JREF.

[dtugg]

No. Under International Law, such as is codified in treaties like the Geneva Convention, which the USA is a party of and which by virtue of the US Constitution and ratification by Congress has become the Supreme Law of the Land, it is strictly illegal to target civilians. That is what you necessarily do when you shoot down a civilian airliner, even if it is controlled by foreign enemy combattants.

Assuming this happened (which every rational person knows it didn't), they were targeting enemies of the USA. The civilians would have just been incidental casualties. You may disagree but that is definitely how it would have went down. And even if that was the "incorrect" interpretation who the hell would have challenged them on it? The UN? lol.

[Sabrina]

One thing I don't think truthers understand is what is called "deadly force" and the circumstances under which people in positions of authority (i.e. military or police members) are authorized to use such.

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force in which a person uses, causing or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. The use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force)

When dvictr over here talks about probabilities and statistics, he/she needs to take that into account. It is FAR more likely that the pilots, if they HAD intercepted 93, would have been ordered to disable the plane to the point that it would have been forced to land (although that doesn't necessarily mean the hijackers wouldn't have crashed it anyway, considering how bad all of them seem to have been at the takeoffs and landings in their pilot training; or they might have done it deliberately just to take SOME Americans out). The idea that the US Government could blithely order the deaths of some innocent civilians without repercussions has no basis in reality that I am aware of.

[R.Mackey]

If you ask me, like most twoofers who post here, divctr's credibility as any sort of "authority" comes into question. As usual, the big indicator is grammar. His lack of basic grammar skills leads us to believe he probably does not possess anything more then a high school education, if that. His "Finance skills" translate to "Cashier at the local McDonalds". His "Public Relations skills" translate to "Team manager of the football team, AKA Towel Boy". His "Psychology skills" translate to "Watching Little Miss Sunshine 12 times".

Blunt, but fair. To be more precise, whenever a Truther starts babbling about probabilities and statistics, it's a dead giveaway that he knows nothing about probabilities and statistics. Instead, it's just an Argument to Incredulity recast as an attempted Argument to Probability.

Some of us actually do know a great deal about probabilities and statistics. No probabilistic argument worth typing has ever appeared here, from the hand of any Truther.

[TruthersLie]

listen to yourself.. you want to pretend like youre a rational person..

SO on 9/11 you have the 2 towers, and the pentagon burning... "Ohh BTW there is this rogue flight 93 over PA"... the pilots went in there and did their jobs.. i dont blame them at all.

you think they were going there to escort the plane? they shot it down and made Todd Beamer and the other passengers into heros... honorable and credible but not the truth.

a few points to consider.
1. those f16's never were in position to intercept flight 93. If they weren't in position to intercept flight 93... how could they shoot it down? (the radar tracks from their aircraft are known, as is the radar track for flight 93)

2. Since those f 16's COULDN"T shoot down flight 93, which unknown aircraft did then? Provide proof to support your conclusions.

3. The FDR's, pilots cockpit recorder do not support your claim that the aircraft was shotdown.

4. The debris pattern does not resemble any "shotdown" aircraft. But it does look a great deal like other high speed aircraft crashes (most notably psa 1771... look it up.)

[TruthersLie]

what if i told you i believe 100% the "official" story in 911 commission report, plus the minor detail that the plane was shot down before reaching the Capital/WH and THEN crashed .


If you said that I"d probably say that IMHO you are lying out of your ass... but who knows you may be an honest truther.


doesn't change much, very plausible.. gives the gov face/ and makes the victims into heroes thats it.

The victims were going to be hero's no matter what. IN fact I could easily see the US government spinning having to shoot down an aircraft piloted by terrorists and make it a much more emotional and more of an incentive to "get them bastards."

[TruthersLie]

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

GREAT.

Please tell me how flight 93 is different from PSA 1771? Hmmm

[TruthersLie]

What evidence do you have that there are no leprechauns living in my garden?

Mothra ate them.... I have proof.

[alienentity]

Anyone who is interested to get the GENUINE 9/11 news report where it is openly stated that the US Air Force jet fighter SHOT DOWN the 4th hijacked aircraft, could download this report here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

No 'debunking' of my 'theory' is accepted, because I do not claim anything. I only honestly reveal to you a download link to the genuine 911 video clip. Nothing more than that.

Best wishes for all 911-truthers.

News Flash: You don't get to decide whether your 'evidence' gets debunked or not.
Even God herself cannot escape criticism - didn't you watch Bill Maher's film 'Religulous'?

[alienentity]

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum. i believe that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists.

the title of this thread is misleading, i'm playing devils advocate by explaining that the gov would NEVER....

Sure, if you are willing to believe something which has no real evidence to back it up, knock yourself out.
Skeptics are by nature not as gullible as you are; they require a lot more proof in order to accept the probability of something, or to accept something as a fact.

All you've got are regurgitations of the same materials which have been swindling naive people for years. You're just another one to drink the koolaid - congratulations. At least you made it to this forum, so perhaps you want to reverse out of the rabbit hole.

Hopefully you'll learn something before your next semester starts:cool:

[TruthersLie]

what i meant to say is that the idea that a cover up of flight 93 being shot down is the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies.. i am skeptical of many of the findings and the objectivity of the 911 commission.

Ah... so in the span of like 5 to 7 posts you go from ... "I believe 100% of the "official" theory except for flight 93" to outing yourself. So my original statement that it was ******** is accurate. Thanks.


i work with probabilities/statistics.. and based on all the hard facts and evidence presented to me debunking all other conspiracy theories.. flight 93 being "forced to crash" by the USAF is the most possible

ah... now we get into probabilities... <snort> <snicker><lol>

woo hoo!!!!

[TruthersLie]

flight 93 being shot down and covered up is a valid theory.

No it is not.

Flight 93 being shot down is a hypothesis. And one that you refuse to test. It isn't at the level of being a theory. (yet you claim to be a professional economist, but you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?)

so you have the hypothesis that flight 93 was shotdown. Now it is up to you to provide the evidence necessary to move that hypothesis to a theory stage. YOu have failed to do so. Your "feeling" and "hunches" that it happened is not evidence. It is called an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance. (you might want to look those up when you look up the difference between a hypothesis and a theory)

[Sabretooth]

... i work with probabilities/statistics.. and based on all the hard facts and evidence presented to me debunking all other conspiracy theories.. flight 93 being "forced to crash" by the USAF is the most possible ...
... it's a valid theory ...
... the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public ...

From the beginning of this post, you implied that it was a possibility that military pilots shot down UAL93. You have yet to supply any real rational and/or facts as to why you believe this to be true. Everyone here has given you a boatload of evidence that your "theory" is so full of holes that your boat wouldn't float in outer space, let alone the water.

Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that the OP was nothing more than a "what if" situation.

Which is it? A theory or a "just wondering"?

This is a direct question and I'd very much appreciate a direct answer: Why do you believe 93 was shot down and what evidence brought you to this conclusion?

[TruthersLie]

If you ask me, like most twoofers who post here, divctr's credibility as any sort of "authority" comes into question. As usual, the big indicator is grammar. His lack of basic grammar skills leads us to believe he probably does not possess anything more then a high school education, if that. His "Finance skills" translate to "Cashier at the local McDonalds". His "Public Relations skills" translate to "Team manager of the football team, AKA Towel Boy". His "Psychology skills" translate to "Watching Little Miss Sunshine 12 times".

One thing I can guarantee though, is that we are not going to see a single shred of evidence from him in this thread.

Quad.

While I think that divctr is a twoof moron, I must disagree with you on this point.

I possess 2 masters degrees, 3 bachelors degrees and quite a bit of advanced education outside my degrees. My writing is HERE has quite a few grammatical errors and often numerous spelling errors. My only defense is that when I am writing responses in forums (like this one) I am typing fast, and not putting in my due dilegence and paying attention to finer grammatical or spelling issues.

Now I seriously doubt the qualifications that he posted earlier (becaues the vast majority of truthers always seem to lie about their education and qualifiction levels. (If I had a quarter for every truther "engineer" I have debated on youtube or other places, I wouldn't have to pay for dinner for a year)).

[TruthersLie]

wow.. was it that hard..

the idea of this thread was to speculate IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public..

thats is my question!!!

I'm sorry that is NOT your question posted in the OP.

i am a 911 truther, new to this forum. i believe that 4 planes were hijacked by terrorists.

the title of this thread is misleading, i'm playing devils advocate by explaining that the gov would NEVER, admit to shooting down a civilian airliner. Even more so on the 911 in the emotional environment. it would have been a "PR nightmare" and emotionally wreck the families of the people on board.. my guess is that it was part of the larger plan to unite nation for war, and the ensuing psychological propaganda.

Todd Beamer was made into a hero, could you imagine telling his family "lets roll" was BS?

look at the video below from 2:00, odd that they spend an unusually long time discussing "what if, you had to shoot down a plane".. it appears the pilots are getting their 15 minutes of fame and end up letting out their conscious.

the link below is to the CBS interview on 60minutes with the Pilots, i cant post links

youtube.com/watch?v=OB8JE-54Xqc
There is NO question here. It is a statement of fact.

Now your piss poor writing makes it impossible to see ANY QUESTION in your STATEMENT. (which calls into question your level of education again.)

Now then. If you were trying to spin a hypothesis and ask WHY WOULD THEY DO IT, then write better questions.

HERe is your chance to CLARIFY what you INTENDED to write in your OP. Feel free.

[Bell]

From the beginning of this post, you implied that it was a possibility that military pilots shot down UAL93. You have yet to supply any real rational and/or facts as to why you believe this to be true. Everyone here has given you a boatload of evidence that your "theory" is so full of holes that your boat wouldn't float in outer space, let alone the water.

Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that the OP was nothing more than a "what if" situation.

Which is it? A theory or a "just wondering"?

This is a direct question and I'd very much appreciate a direct answer: Why do you believe 93 was shot down and what evidence brought you to this conclusion?

Welcome to the boards, Sabretooth :)

[Quad4_72]

Quad.

While I think that divctr is a twoof moron, I must disagree with you on this point.

I possess 2 masters degrees, 3 bachelors degrees and quite a bit of advanced education outside my degrees. My writing is HERE has quite a few grammatical errors and often numerous spelling errors. My only defense is that when I am writing responses in forums (like this one) I am typing fast, and not putting in my due dilegence and paying attention to finer grammatical or spelling issues.

Now I seriously doubt the qualifications that he posted earlier (becaues the vast majority of truthers always seem to lie about their education and qualifiction levels. (If I had a quarter for every truther "engineer" I have debated on youtube or other places, I wouldn't have to pay for dinner for a year)).

Yes I probably should have specified that bad grammar is only an indicator, and not true in all circumstances. You must admit though, it is a trend we see in most twoofers. And there is a huge difference in typing fast and having typos, and in blatantly misspelling simple words.

[Sabretooth]

Welcome to the boards, Sabretooth :)

Thank you very much :) Been lurking as a guest for a while...figured I'd take the plunge :p

[Quad4_72]

Blunt, but fair. To be more precise, whenever a Truther starts babbling about probabilities and statistics, it's a dead giveaway that he knows nothing about probabilities and statistics. Instead, it's just an Argument to Incredulity recast as an attempted Argument to Probability.

Some of us actually do know a great deal about probabilities and statistics. No probabilistic argument worth typing has ever appeared here, from the hand of any Truther.

Ah yes, the good old probability argument. I think we ran into a probability nutter a few weeks ago if I recall correctly. He claimed that since no building has ever collapsed from fire then it must not be possible. Meaning that the probability of it happening was so low that it couldn't collapse. Sounds like we might have another one of those on our hands. Nothing new to see here.

[Quad4_72]

From the beginning of this post, you implied that it was a possibility that military pilots shot down UAL93. You have yet to supply any real rational and/or facts as to why you believe this to be true. Everyone here has given you a boatload of evidence that your "theory" is so full of holes that your boat wouldn't float in outer space, let alone the water.

Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that the OP was nothing more than a "what if" situation.

Which is it? A theory or a "just wondering"?

This is a direct question and I'd very much appreciate a direct answer: Why do you believe 93 was shot down and what evidence brought you to this conclusion?

WELCOME. If you enjoy arguing with people who are likely to be mentally ill, you have came to the right place. Enjoy!

[JimBenArm]

WELCOME. If you enjoy arguing with people who are likely to be mentally ill, you have came to the right place. Enjoy!

Hey, nobody argues with me except the voices in my head!

[TexasJack]

I'm always wary of the guy who marches in and has to declare his background, thinking it's going to bolster his credibility. This one is particularly funny since he has training, which I admit is original, rather than stating he is degreed or works in a particular field. So he ups the ante and says he is a professional economist. He promptly writes a post which looks like a text message from my 13 year old son.

He then comes in, all high and mighty, declares 93 was shot down. When asked to provide evidence to back his claim, and knowing he can't, he immediately switches to "it was all speculation the whole time" angle.

[Sabretooth]

WELCOME. If you enjoy arguing with people who are likely to be mentally ill, you have came to the right place. Enjoy!

It's a small miracle that people like this can tie their shoes daily...but it's kinda like a train wreck, you can't help but stare and wonder :D

[JimBenArm]

It's a small miracle that people like this can tie their shoes daily...but it's kinda like a train wreck, you can't help but stare and wonder :D

Quit looking at me!

And welcome!

[TruthersLie]

Yes I probably should have specified that bad grammar is only an indicator, and not true in all circumstances. You must admit though, it is a trend we see in most twoofers. And there is a huge difference in typing fast and having typos, and in blatantly misspelling simple words.

I do agree with that.

and looking back over the thread we see that either
a. the OP can't form a coherent question in the OP

or

b. he makes a ******** claim, gets owned on it and then tries to backtrack and say "I'm JAQ'ing off here."

[TruthersLie]

Hey, nobody argues with me except the voices in my head!

Yeah, but that is normal.

You don't have to worry until those voices win the arguments...

:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

...
in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

The debris field of Flight 93 is exactly the debris field of a plane going 600 mph impacting the ground at 40 degree nose down upside-down would be. Your anomaly is only lack of knowledge, know as ignorance.

Please show proof of a seismic time discrepancy.

Your evidence is your training?

You have proved why 911 truth has delusions; ignorance.

[JimBenArm]

Yeah, but that is normal.

You don't have to worry until those voices win the arguments...

:rolleyes:

Oh, boy. I'm in trouble.

No you're not!

Quiet, you! We're having a discussion!

Discussion? More like a tantrum!

I'm telling! Mom!

[Bell]

Quit looking at me!

And welcome!

You're a wreck for sure.

[JimBenArm]

I hate Bell because he keeps looking at me!

Oh, this isn't Community?

[Bell]

Right, is this thread now officially derailed?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-emergency-lol-cat.jpg

[911thology]

Uncalled for Dmitri, by the way, have you finished writing your tell all book yet?
Provide PHYSICAL evidence that 93 was shot down.
I guess I am as 'uncalled' as you are. At least I am a member of this Forum for quite a long time. I rarely post, but I used to read threads continuously even before making my very first post regarding my own video. I guess you are much ‘younger’ than me here. And I don't think that you are the one appointed here to exercise 'calls' in the sense you mentioned it.

To answer the first of your questions: yes, I finished my book long time ago and as far as I can recollect you got a personal invitation from me (via YouTube messaging system) to download its copy and it appears to me that you even acknowledged that letter of mine - so you question sounds a little bit ‘strange’ to me.

Answering the second question/demand of yours – I have no obligation to ‘provide PHYSICAL’ evidence to you. The maximum I could help you – I could provide a download link to a video clip that I have recently discovered. I can’t do more than that. Moreover, this discovery of the video clip with the news about the ‘4th passenger aircraft shot down’ (they don’t even specify if it was 93 or 77 or other, so I don’t know which one they mean) has absolutely nothing to do with my version on nuclear demolition of the WTC. Because the nuclear demolition of the WTC and my personal knowledge of it is one thing. But my accidental discovery of that video clip with news about the flight shot down is another thing – totally unrelated to the first. I hope you are logical enough to realize this obvious fact.

In any case I would like to inform every one that there is a new evidence just discovered and uploaded for everyone’s use. This time it is in English - two military officers give their testimonies and they even name the actual pilot who shot down the Flight 93 - his rank, name, surname and military unit are specified. You can get it here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

It was just added 30 minutes ago. All video files, audio files and transcripts are inside the archive. Size of the zip archive is about 50 Mb.

Enjoy this new evidence.

[carlitos]

Downloading 50 meg zip file from guy named "Dmitri." This is a parody, right?

[Oystein]

Downloading 50 meg zip file from guy named "Dmitri." This is a parody, right?

Would you feel more comfortable if his name was Joe? Why?

[911thology]

Well, well, well! Dmitri, how the hell are you? Your theory needs no debunking, its stupidity is second to only one. But I digress, please enlighten us, was it shot down with a stolen Russian missile? Or was it a remotely launched 150 kiloton nuclear warhead? How do you explain the FDR? The tracking of the flight on radar? You can't, because 93 was not shot down, and there is zero evidence to support this statement.
I am OK, and still not in Hell, thanks to God. Yes, my 'theory' does not need any debunking, especially here, in this thread, because for debunking of my theory there is another thread. You can do it there. To answer your actual questions. You request to 'enlighten' you if the Flight 93 was shot down with a stolen Russian missile. Answer: I was not a witness to this fact, but from the point of elementary logic I don't think so. I think the Americans have missiles of their own for such reason. To answer your second question - no, I don't think it was a 150 kiloton nuclear warhead, because I think the Americans do not use nuclear warheads for air-defense purposes. It does not sound realistic to me, especially considering the actual yield you mentioned (150 kiloton it is a little bit too much for atmospheric explosion - just about 8 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb). To answer your third question - I would like to sincerely apologize to you, but I don't know what is FDR (I am a Russian, after all and I don't know many English words and especially abbreviations). So, I can't answer. Sorry. The tracking of the flight on radar - I don't understand the actual question. The last part is not a question, but an assertion, so there is nothing to answer.

[911thology]

Except for the fact that you have no "stronger point" whatsoever. As a professional coward you won't even begin to state your case. Boris and Natasha made better points than you ever will. hHUiCYAE2DY
Would you mind to provide more explanations to the concept of the 'professional coward' mentioned in the above quote? I tried my best to comprehend its meaning, but it still escapes me. Is it possible to have a salary or some other kind of income by exercising this type of professional activity or what? Any suggestions are welcome.

[A W Smith]

Would you mind to provide more explanations to the concept of the 'professional coward' mentioned in the above quote? I tried my best to comprehend its meaning, but it still escapes me. Is it possible to have a salary or some other kind of income by exercising this type of professional activity or what? Any suggestions are welcome.


You anticipate deriving income from selling a book filled with lies , yes? Because you cant handle the truth.

[911thology]

By the way. I sincerely apologize for off-topic, but using this opportunity I would like to invite everyone to visit this new web site:
http://www.what-is-ground-zero.com/what-is-ground-zero.html
where all major dictionaries describing 'ground zero' before 2001 are published. Hope many will find this site interesting enough.

[911thology]

You anticipate deriving income from selling a book filled with lies , yes? Because you cant handle the truth.
So, would you mind, then, to describe your personal attitude towards selling of other books on 9/11? For example, books by David Ray Griffin? Or the Report of the 9/11 Commission? Are they too 'professional cowards'? Or you suggest that they are rightfully making their money because they are selling the very truth ('selling' in this sense has direct meaning - 'exchanging the truth for the green papers with dead presidents')? Would you mind to clarify you personal position in this regard?

[excaza]

You anticipate deriving income from selling a book filled with lies , yes?
Would you mind to clarify you personal position in this regard?

Not sure how that could be more clear.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Can you spot the contradictions?

I guess I am as 'uncalled' as you are. At least I am a member of this Forum for quite a long time. I rarely post, but I used to read threads continuously even before making my very first post regarding my own video. I guess you are much ‘younger’ than me here. And I don't think that you are the one appointed here to exercise 'calls' in the sense you mentioned it.

To answer the first of your questions: yes, I finished my book long time ago and as far as I can recollect you got a personal invitation from me (via YouTube messaging system) to download its copy and it appears to me that you even acknowledged that letter of mine - so you question sounds a little bit ‘strange’ to me.

Answering the second question/demand of yours – I have no obligation to ‘provide PHYSICAL’ evidence to you. The maximum I could help you – I could provide a download link to a video clip that I have recently discovered. I can’t do more than that. Moreover, this discovery of the video clip with the news about the ‘4th passenger aircraft shot down’ (they don’t even specify if it was 93 or 77 or other, so I don’t know which one they mean) has absolutely nothing to do with my version on nuclear demolition of the WTC. Because the nuclear demolition of the WTC and my personal knowledge of it is one thing. But my accidental discovery of that video clip with news about the flight shot down is another thing – totally unrelated to the first. I hope you are logical enough to realize this obvious fact.

In any case I would like to inform every one that there is a new evidence just discovered and uploaded for everyone’s use. This time it is in English - two military officers give their testimonies and they even name the actual pilot who shot down the Flight 93 - his rank, name, surname and military unit are specified. You can get it here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

It was just added 30 minutes ago. All video files, audio files and transcripts are inside the archive. Size of the zip archive is about 50 Mb.

Enjoy this new evidence.

You have contridictions like you've got holes in your theories.

[djlunacee]

I guess I am as 'uncalled' as you are. At least I am a member of this Forum for quite a long time. I rarely post, but I used to read threads continuously even before making my very first post regarding my own video. I guess you are much ‘younger’ than me here. And I don't think that you are the one appointed here to exercise 'calls' in the sense you mentioned it.

To answer the first of your questions: yes, I finished my book long time ago and as far as I can recollect you got a personal invitation from me (via YouTube messaging system) to download its copy and it appears to me that you even acknowledged that letter of mine - so you question sounds a little bit ‘strange’ to me.

Answering the second question/demand of yours – I have no obligation to ‘provide PHYSICAL’ evidence to you. The maximum I could help you – I could provide a download link to a video clip that I have recently discovered. I can’t do more than that. Moreover, this discovery of the video clip with the news about the ‘4th passenger aircraft shot down’ (they don’t even specify if it was 93 or 77 or other, so I don’t know which one they mean) has absolutely nothing to do with my version on nuclear demolition of the WTC. Because the nuclear demolition of the WTC and my personal knowledge of it is one thing. But my accidental discovery of that video clip with news about the flight shot down is another thing – totally unrelated to the first. I hope you are logical enough to realize this obvious fact.

In any case I would like to inform every one that there is a new evidence just discovered and uploaded for everyone’s use. This time it is in English - two military officers give their testimonies and they even name the actual pilot who shot down the Flight 93 - his rank, name, surname and military unit are specified. You can get it here:

http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com/911_flight_93_shot_down.htm

It was just added 30 minutes ago. All video files, audio files and transcripts are inside the archive. Size of the zip archive is about 50 Mb.

Enjoy this new evidence.

Yes Dmitri, I read that um, well, how can I put this, work of fiction.

What does tenure on a forum board have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. I was just asking since after seeing your website, you have nuclear bombs going off all over the world, Bali, Oklahoma City, etc...
I am trying to stay on topic here, so in any case, contrary to your belief that you do not have to provide evidence, backs up what A.W. said, is a sign of cowardice. Why don't you just admit it, you do not have any, simply because there is none.

To answer your third question - I would like to sincerely apologize to you, but I don't know what is FDR (I am a Russian, after all and I don't know many English words and especially abbreviations). So, I can't answer. Sorry. The tracking of the flight on radar - I don't understand the actual question. The last part is not a question, but an assertion, so there is nothing to answer.

FDR- Flight Data Recorder- shows the plane intact until the point of impact for flight 93, sheesh you can write a book, but you can't run a google search to figure out what an FDR is?? Some research!

[beachnut]

So, would you mind, then, to describe your personal attitude towards selling of other books on 9/11? For example, books by David Ray Griffin? Or the Report of the 9/11 Commission? Are they too 'professional cowards'? Or you suggest that they are rightfully making their money because they are selling the very truth ('selling' in this sense has direct meaning - 'exchanging the truth for the green papers with dead presidents')? Would you mind to clarify you personal position in this regard?
You sell books based on your delusions about 911; just like DRG. Do you sell lies like DRG? Start a new thread.

Topic is 93, you failed to stay on topic due to your theory on 93? Having a theory on 93 is like having a theory 2+2=17, you failed to use evidence to form your theory, I mean delusion in this case.

Your ideas on 93 are nonsense, you are right nothing to debunk.

[carlitos]

Downloading 50 meg zip file from guy named "Dmitri." This is a parody, right?

Would you feel more comfortable if his name was Joe? Why?

Maybe it's just me. Try this link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=russian+hackers).

[911thology]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down, would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93? Why it fell down? (considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?) I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.

[Horatius]

By the way. I sincerely apologize for off-topic, but using this opportunity I would like to invite everyone to visit this new web site:
http://www.what-is-ground-zero.com/what-is-ground-zero.html
where all major dictionaries describing 'ground zero' before 2001 are published. Hope many will find this site interesting enough.



Dictionaries aren't everything. (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-gro3.htm)


More recently, the term has taken on various other associations: it became a jargon term for the focus of any momentous or damaging event, such as the epicentre of an earthquake or the place at which a tornado touches down.

Especially in the past decade, it has been frequently been confused or conflated with back to square one:

“It just so happened we raised the exact amount of money to meet the purchase price,” O’Toole says. “Now we’re back to ground zero, and we have to start over again.”Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 14 Dec. 2008.


It has also been used in a figurative sense for the focal point of some event or situation, the starting point of some endeavour or the kernel of a developing situation:

Darting through six decades, capturing his passions on film, Avedon has had a knack for locating himself at ground zero of American culture.Newsweek, Sep. 1993.


Instead of making cuts based on the current school year’s budget, Sina said, the system will start from “ground zero” and build based on what each school needs.Washington Post, 21 Jan. 2010.


ETA:

http://www.amazon.com/When-Dinosaurs-Ruled-Ground-Zero/dp/B00004T3BA/ref=sr_1_15?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1281469148&sr=1-15

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down, would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93? Why it fell down? (considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?) I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.

Why do you need to know what happened to Flt. 93? Isn't it obvious that families who were watching the events unfold in NYC & Washington, D.C. called their loved ones on the flight, same thing with the passengers who were onboard 93 who called & said about their plane being hijacked?

The passengers heard about the events & they took action to try & take over the plane from the terrorists. The terrorists simply had another plan in case they weren't in control of the situation. And they flew Flt. 93 into the ground.

How hard is it to accept that is exactly what happened to Flight 93? Because that's what happened to the plane & the people.

[carlitos]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive

No. Neither spiteful, nor aggressive. A little bored, waiting for some reports to run in another window.

against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down,What what what?


would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93?
Hijacked, flown by terrorists, crashed in Shanksville, PA.

Why it fell down?
Either intentional grounding by terrorists or maybe the passengers grabbed the controls. I haven't looked into it very closely, to be honest. There is a movie about it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/); maybe you could rent it and fill me in?

(considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?)
That is untrue. After you read this information (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive), you will see. No big downloading required!

I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.
No problemo! :)

[Sabretooth]

I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.

1. no evidence of a missile and/or cannon round damage to UAL93.
2. no evidence of a primary explosion on UAL93 [which would have been seen and/or heard over a significant radius of impact, of which no such cases were reported].
3. no evidence of UAL93 debris outside of the crash zone.
4. no evidence of a military fighter jet in or near the Western PA area.
5. impact crater and debris dispersal of UAL93 is consistent with a jet that has hit the ground at high speed.
6. documented witnesses that saw UAL93 rollover on to its back and then nose-dive into the ground.
7. witnesses do not describe UAL93 as having been damaged or trailing smoke prior to impacting the ground.
8. Flight data and cabin recordings do not imply any damage to UAL93 prior to impacting the ground.

Now, may I have your "reasonable" version, please?

[Bell]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down, would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93? Why it fell down? (considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?) I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.

Funny that none of those hijackers, who you claim are still alive, have come forward and demanded a retraction from the US government about them being involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[alienentity]

1. no evidence of a missile and/or cannon round damage to UAL93.
2. no evidence of a primary explosion on UAL93 [which would have been seen and/or heard over a significant radius of impact, of which no such cases were reported].
3. no evidence of UAL93 debris outside of the crash zone.
4. no evidence of a military fighter jet in or near the Western PA area.
5. impact crater and debris dispersal of UAL93 is consistent with a jet that has hit the ground at high speed.
6. documented witnesses that saw UAL93 rollover on to its back and then nose-dive into the ground.
7. witnesses do not describe UAL93 as having been damaged or trailing smoke prior to impacting the ground.
8. Flight data and cabin recordings do not imply any damage to UAL93 prior to impacting the ground.

Now, may I have your "reasonable" version, please?

Nicely done and congrats on ending your lurker status here.

I'd like to add this link to the Wiki page on flt 93. Lots of materials about the phone calls made from the flight by both passengers and flight crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

[BigAl]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down, would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93?

4 or 5 Arab Islamists hijacked the plane and after a struggle with the passengers, flew it into the ground at near-Mach-1 speed.

Follow this link to see just a small portion of the evidence.


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

[SOdhner]

the idea that a cover up of flight 93 being shot down is the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies.

Am I the only one here that agrees with that statement? I mean, yeah, it's not really saying much for something to be the most plausible of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but in the land of the blind...

It passes the test of being a little bit plausible in a general way: shooting the plane down wouldn't have been an outrageous decision under the circumstances, and I can picture someone not wanting to admit they blew up a bunch of Americans even if it was arguably the right thing to do.

Most of the obnoxious theories I read in this subforum can't even get that far.

Then we get to the part where we take a closer look and it falls totally apart like the others. Still, I don't think it's outrageous to say it is "the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies" just like I might refer to someone as "the least creepy clown" or "the most sane truther" or something.

IF they actually shot the plane down, would they have come out and acknowledged it or made up some ******** story to feed the public.

Well, we can't ever know for sure since they didn't shoot it down... but I would guess that at least one person would have wanted to cover it up and then, thinking about the logistics of it, they would have changed their mind.

[Oystein]

Maybe it's just me. Try this link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=russian+hackers).

Call me weird, but if I were a Russian hacker and wanted to fool Americans into stepping in my trap, I'd call myself Joe. :p

[funk de fino]

Its very rational/logical..

-a plane is about to attack Washinghton DC, 3 have already been hijacked and used as missiles>>>> OBVIOUSLY it needs to be shot down.

in addition to the above scenario.. my evidence is the anomalies at the crash site such as the debris field, noted "seismic time discrepancy", and my training in psychology and public relations.

My training and experience with Aircraft and FDR prove you wrong.

[funk de fino]

Well, we can't ever know for sure since they didn't shoot it down... but I would guess that at least one person would have wanted to cover it up and then, thinking about the logistics of it, they would have changed their mind.

Yes, we can. The witness and the evidence all point to the official story being true. Try looking at the FDR, the CVR and the witness statements.

[funk de fino]

Why it fell down? (considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?)

This is a lie.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Then we get to the part where we take a closer look and it falls totally apart like the others. Still, I don't think it's outrageous to say it is "the most plausible of all 911 conspiracies" just like I might refer to someone as "the least creepy clown" or "the most sane truther" or something.


Or "the most survivable form of cancer".

[twinstead]

Like Godwin's law, anybody who repeats the 'hijackers are alive' crap automatically loses the thread. It shows they lack the most rudimentary investigative skills.

We'll call it "moron's law".

[dafydd]

Downloading 50 meg zip file from guy named "Dmitri." This is a parody, right?

I am starting to suspect that this a piece of elaborate trollery.

[dafydd]

So, if everyone here is so spiteful and aggressive against a suggestion that Flight 93 might have been shot down, would you mind then, to define your own position - what exactly happened with the Flight 93? Why it fell down? (considering that 'hijackers' that supposed to have hijacked it were later found alive an kicking in Saudi Arabia and in some other Arab states?) I would love to change my silly opinion and agree with sound opinion of yours if I only hear some reasoanble version of what actually happened with 93.

Mmmm,there is a flaw there.There were no hijackers found alive in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else.Maybe be you have evidence that they were? I mean real evidence,not a link to some truther dingbat.

[catsmate1]

I'm always wary of the guy who marches in and has to declare his background, thinking it's going to bolster his credibility. This one is particularly funny since he has training, which I admit is original, rather than stating he is degreed or works in a particular field. So he ups the ante and says he is a professional economist. He promptly writes a post which looks like a text message from my 13 year old son.

He then comes in, all high and mighty, declares 93 was shot down. When asked to provide evidence to back his claim, and knowing he can't, he immediately switches to "it was all speculation the whole time" angle.
You should check out some of the nonsense he's posted about economics, he's a Paulite.

[SOdhner]

Well, we can't ever know for sure since they didn't shoot it down... but I would guess that at least one person would have wanted to cover it up and then, thinking about the logistics of it, they would have changed their mind.Yes, we can. The witness and the evidence all point to the official story being true. Try looking at the FDR, the CVR and the witness statements.

I'm not sure if you quoted the wrong person or misread my post, but I think one of those two things just happened.

[carlitos]

I am starting to suspect that this a piece of elaborate trollery.

In Soviet Union, Troll ban you.

[911thology]

That is untrue. After you read this information (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive), you will see. No big downloading required!

No problemo! :)

OK, thanks. I will look into that source very seriously (though I would like to apologize in advance - I may find it convincing or I may not, because I do not believe any and every thing published, and especially if it is comes from official sources - you know, am an anti-social and cynical boy and the government of any country is the last instance I would believe).

[Oystein]

OK, thanks. I will look into that source very seriously (though I would like to apologize in advance - I may find it convincing or I may not, because I do not believe any and every thing published, and especially if it is comes from official sources - you know, am an anti-social and cynical boy and the government of any country is the last instance I would believe).

Will you believe it if it comes from an unemployed, anonymous dude on the internet who should better get laid instead of wasting all day at his computer?

In that case I could write a blog entry somewhere, just for you :)

[Sabretooth]

1. no evidence of a missile and/or cannon round damage to UAL93.
2. no evidence of a primary explosion on UAL93 [which would have been seen and/or heard over a significant radius of impact, of which no such cases were reported].
3. no evidence of UAL93 debris outside of the crash zone.
4. no evidence of a military fighter jet in or near the Western PA area.
5. impact crater and debris dispersal of UAL93 is consistent with a jet that has hit the ground at high speed.
6. documented witnesses that saw UAL93 rollover on to its back and then nose-dive into the ground.
7. witnesses do not describe UAL93 as having been damaged or trailing smoke prior to impacting the ground.
8. Flight data and cabin recordings do not imply any damage to UAL93 prior to impacting the ground.

Now, may I have your "reasonable" version, please?

BTW, I'm still waiting for your reasonable version. I show you mine, you show me yours...isn't that how it has worked since Pre-K?

[T.A.M.]

I'm not sure if you quoted the wrong person or misread my post, but I think one of those two things just happened.

I think you might be misreading dvictr. When he says "of all the conspiracy theories" he is including the official account that we all knowto be the truth, in amongst the "conspiracy theories".

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

OK, thanks. I will look into that source very seriously (though I would like to apologize in advance - I may find it convincing or I may not, because I do not believe any and every thing published, and especially if it is comes from official sources - you know, am an anti-social and cynical boy and the government of any country is the last instance I would believe).

You realize how completely idiotic and retarded that sounds right? So let me guess here. If they evidence the government found was in favor of your pre determined biased beliefs you would accept it, and if the evidence was against those beliefs you would reject it and say the government made that evidence up. Does that sound about right?

[SOdhner]

I think you might be misreading dvictr. When he says "of all the conspiracy theories" he is including the official account that we all knowto be the truth, in amongst the "conspiracy theories".

1. The thing that you quoted was in reference to something else.

But...

2. Yes, if that is the case it is no longer the most plausible. It is an INCREDIBLY distant second.

[TexasJack]

1. The thing that you quoted was in reference to something else.

But...

2. Yes, if that is the case it is no longer the most plausible. It is an INCREDIBLY distant second.

I'm sure he misread your post, I understood your post.

As for dvictr, he seems to have abandoned this thread because it really isn't crazy enough for him. He has started other threads on zombies and Kenneth Lay is alive. He has much more important concerns over there. He has also achieved in a couple of days quite of bit of education. He has gone from some training in psychology, to a masters in quantitative economics. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6213345#post6213345

[dafydd]

I'm sure he misread your post, I understood your post.

As for dvictr, he seems to have abandoned this thread because it really isn't crazy enough for him. He has started other threads on zombies and Kenneth Lay is alive. He has much more important concerns over there. He has also achieved in a couple of days quite of bit of education. He has gone from some training in psychology, to a masters in quantitative economics. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6213345#post6213345

He works at McDonalds,in other words?

[JimBenArm]

He works at McDonalds,in other words?

Probably the one that wouldn't give that woman the chicken nuggets.

[bill smith]

Aparently the word "or" is lost on you.

Secondly, you might want to check that little smart mouth you got going there. You will end up with a ban you keep on like that.

Read the MA.

You can take your finger off the 'report' button now Tri. Interesting stuff isn't it though ?

So they were about to shoot down flight 93 but the passengers just beat them to it .

[Horatius]

So they were about to shoot down flight 93 but the passengers just beat them to it .



Pretty much, except for the "about" part. You're actually getting closer to reality here. Keep it up!

[leftysergeant]

I haven't time to call up the Mineta tape right now, but I think the interceptors were about eight miles from the intercept point when they last calculated it. Flt 93 was probably already harrassing moles at that point.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I went to the crash site on Saturday with some friends on our motorcycles, alot of people were there but they were silent. Not a Truther in sight, thank God those retards don't show up there.

I dare a Truther to come to Flight 93's crash site next month & say loudly that it was "shot down". See how fast the NPS sercurity will call the cops & escort them off the property, that's if they do it before the angry mob gets them.

It's 1 thing to be an arrogant a*****e & have a loud mouth on the anniversary of 9/11 & chanting "9/11 was an Inside Job" & it's another to be silent & pay respects to those who died. Truthers will never pay their respects to the people who died, they want to tarnish their memory with irrational & irrelevent conspiracy theories.

[dvictr]

I dare a Truther to come to Flight 93's crash site next month & say loudly that it was "shot down". See how fast the NPS sercurity will call the cops & escort them off the property, that's if they do it before the angry mob gets them.


what a huge violation of free speech, especially since the $60m project is partially funded by the tax payers.

i have changed my attention from the plane being shot down by a missile, it is more likely that some Israeli technology is capable of disabling the electronics remotely of an aircraft sending it into a nose dive.. would be consistent with all the "evidence" the 9/11 truth-deniers claim

[Redtail]

what a huge violation of free speech, especially since the $60m project is partially funded by the tax payers.

i have changed my attention from the plane being shot down by a missile, it is more likely that some Israeli technology is capable of disabling the electronics remotely of an aircraft sending it into a nose dive.. would be consistent with all the "evidence" the 9/11 truth-deniers claim

How is it a violation of free speech?

[dvictr]

How is it a violation of free speech?

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.

[ElMondoHummus]

"Israeli technology"??

Poe. This guy's a Poe. Has to be.

[Sabretooth]

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.

Sure. You can claim whatever you like. Eventually, though, you're going to have to show proof that doesn't come from utube

[dvictr]

i have changed my attention from the plane being shot down by a missile, it is more likely that some Israeli technology is capable of disabling the electronics remotely of an aircraft sending it into a nose dive.. would be consistent with all the "evidence" the 9/11 truth-deniers claim

i think we need a split thread regarding this new conspiracy spreading through the internet, the technology while classified in 2001 is now commercially viable.

[Sabretooth]

i think we need a split thread regarding this new conspiracy spreading through the internet, the technology while classified in 2001 is now commercially viable.

baahahahahahaha!

[Bell]

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.

Suuure... if you take at least on piece of evidence with you...



Oh... wait...

[dvictr]

For many years it has been obvious that the after 3 Boeing airliners crashed into buildings across the atlantic seaboard on 9?11, the order to shoot down flight 93 was the rational decision.

Eventually covered up due to liability issues and public relations control the story fabricated about heroic passengers was certainly a honorable legacy. The video while crude and disguised below shows a commercial prototype of Isreali military technology fitted onto F16s as early as 1998 for the Bosnian-Kosovo operation capable of disabling enemy aircraft from miles away. James Tatoian CEO and president of Eureka Technology worked for the C|A and as consultant to the |DF/|M|.

The EMP or PHEMPS was used by F16s on 911 to electronically send flight 93 into a high speed nosedive and leave no evidence of a missile.

http://eurekaaerospace.com/content/high-power-electromagnetic-system-stopping-vehicles

mod - please embed this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT5EJYY_6HQ

[Sam.I.Am]

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.

Knock yourself out. It happens here all of the time. All kinds of crazy claims are made from street corners, in bars, in churches and just about everywhere else you can think of. It doesn't make them true nor is there any guarantee of you being ridiculed or worse depending upon the claim and/or the location. Words have meaning and sometimes those words can have consequences too.

I can make up or swallow whatever woo I want to. I can walk into my place of employment and say that Obama is not an American citizen but is instead a Manchurian Candidate sent here by the lizard people on planet X to keep their close approach under wraps until 2012. I probably won't be getting a raise anytime soon or I might get fired buy hey, at least I got the word out. Unfortunately for me the word I got out was "SamIAM has finally lost it. Better call for the guys with giant butterfly nets and a padded wagon".

[dtugg]

Evidence?

Nevermind, we all know you have got nothing.

[dvictr]

check the radar evidence of the F16 scrambled to intercept, they where in range.. what evidence do you want, the order was given, the jets scrambled and the EMP was launched.

but it doesnt matter because rumor has it that Israel has the technology mounted to satellites capable of disabling any vehicle in the world. what evidence do you have for a struggle and the passengers bringing the plane down. some voice over black box recordings, missing final few minutes potentially proof of the EMP?

[The Charnel Expanse]

lol

[dtugg]

check the radar evidence of the F16 scrambled to intercept, they where in range.. what evidence do you want, the order was given, the jets scrambled and the EMP was launched.

but it doesnt matter because rumor has it that Israel has the technology mounted to satellites capable of disabling any vehicle in the world. what evidence do you have for a struggle and the passengers bringing the plane down. some voice over black box recordings, missing final few minutes potentially proof of the EMP?

That's what I thought. Nothing, moron.

[djlunacee]

Great!!!! now please explain how the CVR recorded after being shot with this EMP?????

I'll call it, FAIL.

[dvictr]

That's what I thought. Nothing, moron.

the one hundredth of a second discrepancy is clearly evidence of the EMP going through the electronics system, considering the flight data recorded is more heavily shielded and located at the nose, consistent with a long range pulse.

The last entry on the voice recorder was made at 10:03:09
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

The last piece of flight data was recorded at 10:03:10
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

[dvictr]

Great!!!! now please explain how the CVR recorded after being shot with this EMP?????

I'll call it, FAIL.

study the theory carefully, the plane was not shot down.. the special EMP pulse HPEMPS- forced the plane into a high speed dive(overdrive)- electronics disabled but engines mechanically jammed

[dtugg]

the one hundredth of a second discrepancy is clearly evidence of the EMP going through the electronics system, considering the flight data recorded is more heavily shielded and located at the nose, consistent with a long range pulse.

The last entry on the voice recorder was made at 10:03:09
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

The last piece of flight data was recorded at 10:03:10
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

No way you're this stupid.

[djlunacee]

study the theory carefully, the plane was not shot down.. the special EMP pulse HPEMPS- forced the plane into a high speed dive(overdrive)- electronics disabled but engines mechanically jammed

which is it? did the electronics go out or did the engines mechanically jam?

[dvictr]

which is it? did the electronics go out or did the engines mechanically jam?

both, including the hydraulic hinged flaps

[djlunacee]

Could you also please post your evidence about this technology being used, as early as 1998? The Company page you linked, has language that leads me to believe that the technology is still development.

[Sam.I.Am]

Well then, seeing as you must know the flight control systems of that model of jetliner perhaps you can answer a simple question for me. Ready? Here it is:

When an electromechanical system fails due to an electrical fault, in which position does it fail in?

[djlunacee]

both, including the hydraulic hinged flaps

then please explain how the CVR still recorded, if the electronics were disabled.

[Furcifer]

Ha, F16's. Sucker, the EMP was mounted on a unicorn. Much faster.

[SezMe]

This crap is so frickin' old. I'd like to see a truther start yet another inane thread and have NOBODY respond. Just let it sit there and fester.

[dvictr]

This crap is so frickin' old. I'd like to see a truther start yet another inane thread and have NOBODY respond. Just let it sit there and fester.

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?

[JimBenArm]

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?

You're getting paid to sit in your cubicle and be shrill. Who do you work for? IBM? BVD? NFL? MLB? GE Card Services?

[dtugg]

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?

The pay is unbelievably good. I probably make more in a year than you will in your whole life. Just kidding. Or maybe I am just kidding about kidding. Or maybe I am kidding about kidding about kidding. Who knows?

[Furcifer]

This crap is so frickin' old. I'd like to see a truther start yet another inane thread and have NOBODY respond. Just let it sit there and fester.

This will be the last one by this member I post in.

[Zep]

Massive fail.

considering the flight data recorded is more heavily shielded and located at the nose

Contrary to the "black box" reference, the exterior of the FDR is coated with heat-resistant bright Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_orange) paint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint) for high visibility in wreckage, and the unit is usually mounted in the aircraft's empennage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empennage) (tail section), where it is more likely to survive a severe crash.

[TruthersLie]

what a huge violation of free speech, especially since the $60m project is partially funded by the tax payers.


Apparently you don't understand what the "freedom of speech" actually includes. Or how what 911 Chewie was discussing isn't a "freedom of speech" issue.


i have changed my attention from the plane being shot down by a missile, it is more likely that some Israeli technology is capable of disabling the electronics remotely of an aircraft sending it into a nose dive.. would be consistent with all the "evidence" the 9/11 truth-deniers claim
[/quote]

Awesome... a jewspiracy....

[TruthersLie]

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.

It would help if you understood what the "freedom of speech" is about and how it works.

You can go to any public place and spew pretty much whatever you want (within limits that include no obscentiy, not advocating any illegal acts, nor shouting "fire in a crowded theater.")

Like most truthers you have some really piss poor reading for comprehension skills...

[TruthersLie]

Ha, F16's. Sucker, the EMP was mounted on a unicorn. Much faster.

No.

MOTHRA has EMP blasts out of it's ass!!!!!

MOTHRA.

Enough of this unicorn crap. MOTHRA did it.

[The Platypus]

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?

Noone has to be paid to shill, you drones do a good job of making yourselves look crazy all on your own, with programmed responses like the one you just regurgitated.

[TruthersLie]

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?

I work for all of the ABOVE. In fact we are so super secret we are just called the alphabet.

In fact we are so powerful we know where you are, who you are, where you are posting from. In fact we even know what you had for lunch. (you really ate that? OMG. ick)

You need more tin foil. Everyone you know is one of our agents. Your friends are on our payroll. Your family... EVERYONE.

[fess]

check the radar evidence of the F16 scrambled to intercept, they where in range.. what evidence do you want, the order was given, the jets scrambled and the EMP was launched.

Ok, I'll bite. Just where were these magical F-16's scrambled from? And where in this aircraft is the EMP weapon mounted?

[SezMe]

youre sitting in youre little cubicle getting paid to shill.. who do you work for?? CIA? NSA? pentagon? Xe Services?
Boss: Tell that idiot dvictr to get a life.
SezMe: Yes, sir, Mr. President.

[triforcharity]

the one hundredth of a second discrepancy is clearly evidence of the EMP going through the electronics system, considering the flight data recorded is more heavily shielded and located at the nose, consistent with a long range pulse.


Wait, are you saying that the FDR is located in the nose? I don't think so....

[triforcharity]

You're getting paid to sit in your cubicle and be shrill. Who do you work for? IBM? BVD? NFL? MLB? GE Card Services?

HEY HEY HEY!! Leave the MLB and NFL out of this!

/ot

[Zep]

Wait, are you saying that the FDR is located in the nose? I don't think so....
I just told him that. See above.

[Captain_Swoop]

Why isn't the F16 disabled by the EMP?
Where did the EMP fly from?
How many aircraft are sat on ready status with this secret EMP rather than missiles?
If they could do this 10 years ago why isn't it deployed instead of missiles now?

I can't believe I am replying to this but it's hard to tell what is a serious thread and what is a parody.

[Zep]

And why didn't the EMP affect every other sodding electrical device in the vicinity?

[Captain_Swoop]

Does it work like the one in the Matrix Movies?

[Cuddles]

Threads merged. Please do not start multiple threads on the same topic.

[Corsair 115]

No.

MOTHRA has EMP blasts out of it's ass!!!!!

MOTHRA.

Enough of this unicorn crap. MOTHRA did it.


No way, dude! It was a Nemacyst fired from the back end of a Seeder!

[CompusMentus]

And why didn't the EMP affect every other sodding electrical device in the vicinity?


Because it was a Directional Ultraelectromagnetic Pulse weapon or DUMP. Which is odd as that seems to describe just where this thread is going.

Compus

[TruthersLie]

And why didn't the EMP affect every other sodding electrical device in the vicinity?

It must have.. they were in podunk pennslyvania... no one would notice

[CompusMentus]

Threads merged. Please do not start multiple threads on the same topic.


Successfully forecast by moi. How much is a single to Florida? I wanna spend Randi's million in big style.

Compus

[A W Smith]

check the radar evidence of the F16 scrambled to intercept, they where in range.. what evidence do you want, the order was given, the jets scrambled and the EMP was launched.

but it doesnt matter because rumor has it that Israel has the technology mounted to satellites capable of disabling any vehicle in the world. what evidence do you have for a struggle and the passengers bringing the plane down. some voice over black box recordings, missing final few minutes potentially proof of the EMP?


Except the Boeing 757 is not fly by wire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
it is mechanical. EMP's effect electronics and nothing else. Besides from the fact that the FDR shows the aircraft was quite literally steered into the ground purposely at the control column. Which we covered in another thread. But perhaps you hadn't been born yet to read it. By your posts you appear to be a child.

[ElMondoHummus]

Enough. This is a drive-by truthering; the poster doesn't know what he's talking about.

The FDR shows controlled inputs. Not some big screech from an EMP (and as A W Smith pointed out, the 757 isn't a FBW craft anyway).

The CVR clearly establishes the terrorists in the cockpit.

The ATC data does not show any fighter in the area. Ask John Farmer about this; he's studied it extensively.

Shanksville/Flight 93 trutherism is as empty as it gets. It may not be as spectacularly stupid as beam weaponry or no-planer stuff, but it's still firmly in the "uninformed to the point of ignorance" category.

[dvictr]

Why isn't the F16 disabled by the EMP?
Where did the EMP fly from?
How many aircraft are sat on ready status with this secret EMP rather than missiles?
If they could do this 10 years ago why isn't it deployed instead of missiles now?

I can't believe I am replying to this but it's hard to tell what is a serious thread and what is a parody.

Contracts with the likes of Lockheed Martin and its lobbying money and donations to Israel call for "disposable" weaponry, they are holding back on a "cure" to keep the revenue streams high

[dvictr]

Enough. This is a drive-by truthering; the poster doesn't know what he's talking about.

The FDR shows controlled inputs. Not some big screech from an EMP (and as A W Smith pointed out, the 757 isn't a FBW craft anyway).

The CVR clearly establishes the terrorists in the cockpit.

The ATC data does not show any fighter in the area. Ask John Farmer about this; he's studied it extensively.

Shanksville/Flight 93 trutherism is as empty as it gets. It may not be as spectacularly stupid as beam weaponry or no-planer stuff, but it's still firmly in the "uninformed to the point of ignorance" category.

the inputs were controlled, the HPEMPS - "advanced EMP" was able to overdrive the electronic control sending a signal from F16 potentially 100s of miles away!

yes, the hijackers were ALONE in the cockpit without any intrusion from Todd Beamer when it crashed

[DGM]

I am free to visit a public? site and claim the official description of events is wrong.
You are (in this country) free to say whatever you wish, However this does not include the right to offend. If your actions can be shown to offend others to the point that public safety is threatened, you can (and will) be removed.

Hope this helps you understand "freedom of speech".

[ElMondoHummus]

the inputs were controlled, the HPEMPS - "advanced EMP" was able to overdrive the electronic control sending a signal from F16 potentially 100s of miles away!

yes, the hijackers were ALONE in the cockpit without any intrusion from Todd Beamer when it crashed

Zero supporting arguments. Zero confirmation from sources. 100% contradiction to what is known and established. Grade: Zero.

Bald assertions with no supporting evidence is bad. Read:
http://www.galeschools.com/research_tools/src/build_arguement.htm

[dvictr]

Zero supporting arguments. Zero confirmation from sources. 100% contradiction to what is known and established. Grade: Zero.

Bald assertions with no supporting evidence is bad. Read:
http://www.galeschools.com/research_tools/src/build_arguement.htm

the 911 commission admits that there is no evidence to suggest Todd Beamer and the SuperFriends had breached the cockpit..

the HMPEMS is able to electronically control the steering and mechanics of the airplane remotely

[ElMondoHummus]

the 911 commission admits that there is no evidence to suggest Todd Beamer and the SuperFriends had breached the cockpit..

the HMPEMS is able to electronically control the steering and mechanics of the airplane remotely

That's not evidence, that's assertion. Evidence.

[Sabrina]

As far as I know, no one claimed that Todd Beamer and his crew ever entered the cockpit; only that they were attempting to do so when the plane was abruptly sent earthward. The CVR is sketchy regarding that point, as all it recorded was a bunch of incomprehensible shouts that could have been the hijackers or the people outside of the door trying to batter it down. It's been suggested by some that the hijackers were attempting to throw the passengers off balance with that maneuver, although why they never attempted to level off is not known. Point is, it's entirely possible that Beamer and the rest never actually breached the cockpit, but they definitely made the attempt, thereby forcing the hand of the hijackers.

[ElMondoHummus]

What Sabrina's pointing out is quite true. What dvictr has posted is a red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html), which is something irrelevant to any positive evidence that electromagnetic pulses can indeed affect an aircraft's controls in the manner he suggests.

Red herrings are not positive evidence.

[ellindsey]

the HMPEMS is able to electronically control the steering and mechanics of the airplane remotely

So, this magic superweapon can physically move cables and hydraulic valve stems from a distance? That's not EMP, that's telekinesis.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

yes, the hijackers were ALONE in the cockpit without any intrusion from Todd Beamer when it crashed

Were you there when Todd Beamer became a hero? No, you weren't!

the 911 commission admits that there is no evidence to suggest Todd Beamer and the SuperFriends had breached the cockpit.

Phone records tell the 9/11 Families otherwise, same thing with Bill Wright & his passenger, who was flying his plane about 3 miles from Flight 93 & saw it flying erratically. Again, you weren't there so you have no say!

[dafydd]

So, this magic superweapon can physically move cables and hydraulic valve stems from a distance? That's not EMP, that's telekinesis.

Anything is possible in Trutherland.They do things differently there.

[dvictr]

Bill Wright & his passen

mr gullible using an eye witness as evidence, :rolleyes:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

mr gullible using an eye witness as evidence, :rolleyes:

Dvictr, atleast this witness seen Flight 93 before it flew into the ground:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/966339/detail.html

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.

Wright was flying over Youngwood for about 20 minutes before Flight 93 crashed in Stonycreek Township.

"We figured there was a hijacking in progress, and we were seeing it happening, but that's all we knew," Wright said.

Wright got another clue when he and his passenger saw the path that the plane was taking.

SNIP

"(It) went behind us. (We) lost sight for a while and when it came back (the passenger) said, 'It's turning toward us. Now it's turning away. Now turning back toward us.' So it was rocking its wings.

"It would bank hard left, bank hard right and then back to hard left. We saw it bank three or four times before we got away from it."

Wright said that may have been when several passengers were fighting back against the terrorists.

"The story of the plane being taken over, that fits," Wright said.

So what's that about Flight 93 being "shot down" when it wasn't????

[JimBenArm]

Red herrings are not positive evidence.

But they are tasty on a Zionist Hero Sandwich! Just add some cheese slices, a little lettuce, some mustard and mayo! Maybe some sliced tomato and pickles, too.

[leftysergeant]

the HMPEMS is able to electronically control the steering and mechanics of the airplane remotely

Prove it.

(Bloody twoofers are always bringing in arguments based on weapons that cannot possibly exist, then blaming our lack of imagination when we dismiss them.)

[TexasJack]

But they are tasty on a Zionist Hero Sandwich! Just add some cheese slices, a little lettuce, some mustard and mayo! Maybe some sliced tomato and pickles, too.

It's great to see you posting here again, I missed your humor and was getting tired of reading just plain old idiocy from our truther friends.

[ElMondoHummus]

mr gullible using an eye witness as evidence, :rolleyes:

Still no evidence, huh? Ok, remedial lessons time:

Building an Argument


Introduction: State your thesis.
Narration: Think of this as "quick background."

Provide context or background information that lays the foundation for your argument.

Stating Your Thesis: Confirmation: Lay out the evidence that supports the position you wish to defend.

Assemble all the supporting evidence.
Present and defend each point in turn. Quote experts, cite facts, define criteria, analyze data, provide examples.

Handling the Opposition:
... you should quote experts, cite facts, analyze trends, give examples, and, in short, work just as hard in this section as you did when laying out your supporting evidence.

State the opposing argument fairly and thoroughly.
It is not sufficient to spend two pages confirming your thesis, and then pretend to introduce an opposing argument by writing, "Some people hold a different opinion; however, those people are stupid/racist/sexist/anarchists/left-wingers/right-wingers/fence-sitters/brainwashed."
For each opposing point you raise, you must either refute or concede.

Refutation: You present enough additional evidence to counter the opposing claim.
Concession: You admit that the opposing claim is valid; however, you demonstrate how it is possible to accept it without rejecting your whole argument.


Summation: Not a simple repetition, but an amplification.

In the oral Greek culture, the summation was the message that the speaker wanted to linger in the listener's mind once the speech was over.

... you show that your thesis, as you originally proposed it, is really the best solution to the problem.



Taken from: http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/argument/building.html (http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/argument/building.html)

You're not even past step 1 here. You need to, at minimum, advance to step 3. Start advancing.

[ElMondoHummus]

But they are tasty on a Zionist Hero Sandwich! Just add some cheese slices, a little lettuce, some mustard and mayo! Maybe some sliced tomato and pickles, too.

:lolsign:

So, does the fact it's a "RED" herring make it a communist zionist hero sanwich?? :D

[JimBenArm]

It's great to see you posting here again, I missed your humor and was getting tired of reading just plain old idiocy from our truther friends.

Aww, thanks! :o

[ElMondoHummus]

It's great to see you posting here again, I missed your humor and was getting tired of reading just plain old idiocy from our truther friends.

Yeah, great, enable AJM8125's and my stalker, why don't'cha? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/grumble.gif

[JimBenArm]

Yeah, great, enable AJM8125's and my stalker, why don't'cha? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/grumble.gif

Aw, you missed me too!;)

[ElMondoHummus]

Aw, you missed me too!;)

That's only because my aim sucks; wait until I learn to work this here weapon! :D


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/super-soaker-50.jpg

[ElMondoHummus]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but: Why did dvictr disappear when we asked him for evidence, hmmm? Gee, I wonder... :rolleyes:

[JimBenArm]

He's out digging it up, I'm sure. It's got to be there somewhere. After all, the manure pile is so big, it could hold anything!

[dvictr]

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvu08Y9XJ0U

more evidence of the EMP technology

[ElMondoHummus]

He's out digging it up, I'm sure. It's got to be there somewhere. After all, the manure pile is so big, it could hold anything!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvu08Y9XJ0U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvu08Y9XJ0U)

Good God, Jim, were you ever right! :boggled:

------

Ok, dvictr, you've established that EMP exists. Which is something we've known since what, the '60's? But that's not what I was asking for. You show nothing that supports your fantasy proposal :rolleyes: that EMP was used by a fighter to steer FL93 into the ground, like you claimed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6235943#post6235943). All you did was link to Discovery Channel's FutureWeapon's episode discussing EMP weaponry. And that link disproves your contention because the vid clearly discusses EMP that's geared at destroying electronics, not gaining remote control.

So, strike one. Two more and you're out. Give us evidence not that a physical phenomenon exists and can be used to destroy electronics, but that the physical phenomenon was used to control FL93 in order to steer it into the ground.

And I'm talking evidence. Not assertions.

[AJM8125]

Yeah, great, enable AJM8125's and my stalker, why don't'cha? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/grumble.gif

Who's stalking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pQVIvNwp6Y) who?

[dtugg]

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvu08Y9XJ0U

more evidence of the EMP technology

All that proves is that emp exists. Everybody already knows that, idiot. You need to prove an emp weapon was used on 9/11. Good luck, twoofer.

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk