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

[TSR]

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

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

Hypocrite much?
.

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

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

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

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

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

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

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

The facts ARE known, the 19 hijackers were the ones that caused the destruction of all 4 planes.
Do you suggest this is not true?

I do not deny that they were at least the root cause.

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Whether or not passengers stormed the cockpit, the terrorists are to blame for all of the planes crashing.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

What statement are you suggesting have I retracted? I haven't retracted anything.

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

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Do you deny the 4 planes were crashed by 19 terrorists?

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

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Nice try ,Truther.

Originally Posted by BigAl

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

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

Originally Posted by Bell

You're a no planer too?

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

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

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

With the exception of the last sentence of the first paragraph, then provided your assertions are factual (and I have no reason to doubt that they are), then yes, the question becomes valid in terms of challenging Jam. Has somebody presented the facts to Jam yet, as opposed to merely alluding to them?

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

No, all of which (except the first) are also, prima facie, plausible explanations. Let me ask you this, though: on what basis have you concluded that it didn't run out of fuel, for example?

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Oystein

Theory: Supported by some evidence, not refuted by any other.
Competing theories: No evidence.
Theory wins.

There's much circumstantial evidence that that theory is false, thereby invalidating your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

I'm sorry - what argument?

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

Acknowledged (except the 95% part!).

Originally Posted by Oystein

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

That it seems strange is sufficient to make it interesting to me. But your emphasis on "seems" suggests that you have information showing that it's not actually strange. Do you?

Originally Posted by Disbelief

Southwind is not a truther, and I feel that it is your responsibility to provide him information to back up a claim (even one we know is true). He never made a claim that 93 was shot down, he was simply asking what proof there was showing it was a crash and not a shootdown.

Thank you Disbelief. Good to see that somebody gets it! Thing is with many anti-Truthers, the basis of their positions in terms of the counter-evidence offered is often only marginally more compelling than that of the Truthers. Combine that with the oft emotive, impulsive, sweeping responses of many anti-Truthers and it's not surprising that some Truthers persist, like Jam, for example.

Originally Posted by Disbelief

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

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

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

Not sure what your point here is. Could you elaborate?

Originally Posted by jammonius

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

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

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

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

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

Hardly a fair comparison, given the public nature of 9/11.

Originally Posted by TSR

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

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

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

I think you might be missing the point. If you cannot name your source, and information to which you refer is not publicy available, then you're on very shaky ground offering those as evidence of a claim. Surely you can see that.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Which 'military shot it down?

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

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What did they shoot it down with?

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

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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

How do we know that?

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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

Political conundrum: deliberately shot down under Bush's instruction vs. deliberately crashed by the terrorists/passengers. Best explanation to feed the public? Go figure!

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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


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



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

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


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

You've been playing too many flight sims.

Quote:

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

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by BigAl

You've been playing too many flight sims.

Why do you think an A2A take down is impossible?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Bell

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

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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

The USAF, NORAD, is not missing any missile. No missile used.
The USAF, NORAD, did not shot at any airliners on 911, they are not missing any ammunition. Oops.
The FDR shows the pilot making the inputs to the aircraft continuously and with human inputs to crash flight 93.
ATC recordings, and the VDR confirm the terrorists was in the seat of flight 93, and the terrorists is recored making the inputs in the FDR, as already mentioned, flying the plane into the ground.
The VDR has the terrorists talking about the Passenger attack.
The VDR has the passengers attacking the terrorists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[INRM]

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

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Why do you think an A2A take down is impossible?

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

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

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

That's just the start.

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Proof?

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Proof?

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Please explain.

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

OK

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Again, please explain.

Originally Posted by beachnut

The VDR has the terrorists talking about the Passenger attack.

OK

Originally Posted by beachnut

The VDR has the passengers attacking the terrorists.

OK

Originally Posted by beachnut

FDR has all systems working on the aircraft, no damage from a missile ...

Proof that a missile will necessarily knock out the FDR?

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Proof?

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Exactly - much easier!

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Your opinion.

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Your opinion.

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Your opinion.

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

What "fact"? Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by beachnut

Do you need a copy?

No thanks - I have it.

Originally Posted by beachnut

Why did you fail to research your own question before exposing your lack of knowledge?

Please explain what, exactly, you mean by "research".

Originally Posted by beachnut

Terrorists flying 93 into the ground is common knowledge.

Based on what?

Originally Posted by beachnut

Can you prove they did not?

No, otherwise I wouldn't be here discussing it, I'd provide the proof to you.

Originally Posted by beachnut

I just proved they did, and if you check the FDR, and other evidence available (gee on-line) you can figure this out without quibbling.

With respect, you've proved nothing, yet.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by BigAl

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

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

How? Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by BigAl

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

Even when the pilot's a terrorist looking to crash the plane anyhow?!

Originally Posted by BigAl

That's just the start.

Phew - thank goodness!

Originally Posted by BigAl

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

Rhetorical, presumably. Your point?

[Titanic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Proof?


Proof?

.

prove there was a missle.

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

[BigAl]

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Please explain.

I guess you didn't really understand that FDR.

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

How? Please elaborate.

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

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Food for thought.- Study it for yourself.

Peace out.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

prove there was a missle.

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

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

Originally Posted by BigAl

I guess you didn't really understand that FDR.

I guess you're not capable of explaining it.

Originally Posted by BigAl

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

Ditto.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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


I guess you're not capable of explaining it.


Ditto.

So you are JAQing off here?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

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

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

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

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Food for thought.- Study it for yourself.

Peace out.

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by BigAl

So you are JAQing off here?

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

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

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

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

QED?!

Originally Posted by AJM8125

If you want more examples of high speed impacts, try Value Jet 592, American airlines flights 11 and 77, United Airlines 175.

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

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

With a SAM over water. Great benchmark!

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Proof?.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Proof?.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Please explain..

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

OK.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Again, please explain..

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

OK.

cool

Originally Posted by Southwind17

OK.

great

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Proof that a missile will necessarily knock out the FDR?.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Proof?.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Exactly - much easier!.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Your opinion..

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Your opinion..

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Your opinion..

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

What "fact"? Please elaborate..

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

No thanks - I have it..

Good you can use the FDR to end your search.

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Please explain what, exactly, you mean by "research"..

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Based on what?.

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

No, otherwise I wouldn't be here discussing it, I'd provide the proof to you. .

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

With respect, you've proved nothing, yet.

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

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

[Titanic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

QED?!


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


With a SAM over water. Great benchmark!


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

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

[Thunder]

Two words:

Holly wood.

[carlitos]

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

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

.
Not sure what your point here is. Could you elaborate?

I mean t h e m i l i t a r y g e t s i t s ... Aww heck, I mean exactly what I said. Weapons have controls. Paperwork. People notice when they are gone.

Originally Posted by Southwind17

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

Hardly a fair comparison, given the public nature of 9/11.

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

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

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

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



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

cool


great


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


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


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






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

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


Good you can use the FDR to end your search.


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

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

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

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

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

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

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

Troll much?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

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

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

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

Originally Posted by Thunder

Two words:
Holly wood.

The stuff incredulity and Hollywood are made of!

Originally Posted by carlitos

I mean t h e m i l i t a r y g e t s i t s ... Aww heck, I mean exactly what I said. Weapons have controls. Paperwork. People notice when they are gone.

Please tell me this isn't the cornerstone of your argument.

Originally Posted by carlitos

Let me get this straight. Because jammonius can't find records of a private transaction, the insurance payout on the airplane hull, that means something? If my car was crashed in something of a 'public nature,' you would expect to google up the payout from my insurance company to me? Really?

You're really likening the public interest over the insurance payout over Flight 93 to your hypothetical fender bender with old Mrs Groggins. No wonder you're easily satisfied!

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Troll much?

When all else fails ...!

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

That's not what Titanic said

Quote:

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

[Titanic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

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

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by BigAl

That's not what Titanic said

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

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

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

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

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

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

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

[Titanic Explorer]

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

[Titanic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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


!

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

[Titanic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

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

Really? Please enlighten me...

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

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

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