• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

evidence against flight 93 shoot down

twinstead

Penultimate Amazing
twinstead
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
12,374
It appears I am terrible at searching this forum--my apologies. That said, my new neighbor insists flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville. From what I can tell, the eye witness and other evidence is actually contrary to a shoot down, but hell, maybe I'm missing something.

Can anybody point me to some information concerning any evidence of a 'shoot down'?
 
seeing that article is repeating the sad claim that debris was found 8 miles away (which is false because reporters were following the ROAD which was 8 miles - not following the path the wind was traveling) - we can assume that the "rest" of the article is not factually sound

The report on Shanksville makes no mention of a full engine being found over a mile away; they FOUND engine parts, light weight, that was flung from the crater at such a hard impact, withing several thousand feet of the crash site.

An article from 2002. Red. when many of the teams were still investigating and putting together their findings.
 
Arus808 said:
seeing that article is repeating the sad claim that debris was found 8 miles away (which is false because reporters were following the ROAD which was 8 miles - not following the path the wind was traveling) - we can assume that the "rest" of the article is not factually sound

The report on Shanksville makes no mention of a full engine being found over a mile away; they FOUND engine parts, light weight, that was flung from the crater at such a hard impact, withing several thousand feet of the crash site.

An article from 2002. Red. when many of the teams were still investigating and putting together their findings.
Click to expand...

Is that the best you can do? For one thing, this was not the only media outlet that reported debris as far as 8 miles away. Check this transcript from CNN only two days later:

Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course. But there were some cell phone callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane apparently announced at one point, he had -- there was a bomb on board the plane.
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis, I'm confused. In one thread you're saying that there was no plane at Shanksville...now you're saying it was shot down?

Was there a plane at Shanksville or not? The least you could do is be consistent.
 
RedIbis said:
Is that the best you can do? For one thing, this was not the only media outlet that reported debris as far as 8 miles away. Check this transcript from CNN only two days later:
Click to expand...


What "kind" of debris was found 6 miles away as mentioned in the "rush" transcript? And where was the engine part found in relation to the direction that Flight 93 was traveling? Seems like it would be interesting to find an overhead view of the crash site and the engine part and then calculate the distance.
 
twinstead said:
It appears I am terrible at searching this forum--my apologies. That said, my new neighbor insists flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville. From what I can tell, the eye witness and other evidence is actually contrary to a shoot down, but hell, maybe I'm missing something.

Can anybody point me to some information concerning any evidence of a 'shoot down'?
Click to expand...
Probably one of the best pieces is that the FDR showed that all systems were operating normally right up to the point of impact. Engine pressure ratios, cabin pressure, flight controls all reported normal readings until the recording stops at ground level.

Here is one source for a copy:
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2597628857.html

EDIT: Better source: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BNZNOOKH
 
Last edited:
Pan Am flight 103 broke up at altitude (31,000 feet) and scattered debris over 80 miles

if a similar thing happened to flight 93 why was debris only over 8 miles?
 
RedIbis said:
How about the 1000lb engine section that was found over a mile away? Was that blown over in the wind?
Click to expand...

So what do you make of this, REd?

Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Click to expand...
Source

300 yards if only 0.17 mile. Downhill is, well, downhill- the direction things tend to roll.

The FDR data show both engines running until impact. That's not consistent with a midair breakup.
 
RedIbis said:
Is that the best you can do? For one thing, this was not the only media outlet that reported debris as far as 8 miles away. Check this transcript from CNN only two days later:
Click to expand...

Windborne debris, yes.

And coming from a common origin.

Not evidence of a shootdown.

Nor was there a plane in position to shoot it down in the first place. And if it was shot down, then the FDR must have been planted, ergo the debris fields have been tampered with anyway. This "evidence" is, therefore, not even self-consistent.

We've argued Flight 93 to death. I see no reason to re-argue it on the strength of personal incredulity.
 
Last edited:
Did RedIbis really just quote a CNN transcript from September 13, 2001 to support whatever retarded claim he doesn't have the stones to just come right out and make?

Maybe CNN, like the firefighters at WTC7, knew The Truth early on but eventually "changed their minds", right Red?
 
ktesibios said:
The FDR data show both engines running until impact. That's not consistent with a midair breakup.
Click to expand...

The FDR shows ALL SYSTEMS operating normally. No loss of pressurization or any other indication of any kind of missile (IR or Radar) or bullets from a cannon.

The RADES data shows no aircraft in the vicinity.

Of course, to troofers this is all FAKED. Yes, that ever increasing conspiracy would require the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the first responders, the recovery folks to include both local law enforcement and the FBI, perhaps others I've failed to mention.

Indeed, it is an impossibly vast conspiracy that any rational individual could easily discount.
 
Remember:

When news reports and/or eyewitness accounts support a conspiracy theory claim, they are 100% complete and laser-accurate. When they contradict a conspiracy theory claim, they are mistaken at best or intrinsically IN ON IT at worst.

CT Law 101, folks.

ETA: Note that it's perfectly acceptable for both circumstances to take place even in the same account or report. The conspirators ALWAYS leave infinite numbers of thinly-veiled admissions, piles of smoking guns, and outright confessions (pull it), while going to astonishing lengths to fake this and hoax that and cover up the other.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why the government would hide this. It would make them look just a little bit less incompetent...
 
twinstead said:
It appears I am terrible at searching this forum--my apologies. That said, my new neighbor insists flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville. From what I can tell, the eye witness and other evidence is actually contrary to a shoot down, but hell, maybe I'm missing something.

Can anybody point me to some information concerning any evidence of a 'shoot down'?
Click to expand...

Didnt Dom/TC publish a peer reviewed paper citing evidence of a shoot down?
:D
 
1337m4n said:
RedIbis, I'm confused. In one thread you're saying that there was no plane at Shanksville...now you're saying it was shot down?

Was there a plane at Shanksville or not? The least you could do is be consistent.
Click to expand...
That's OK, RedIbis is confused also. But don't expect him to actually think about what you said and reply in an intellectually honest fashion. RedIbis just doesn't roll that way.
 
Bobert said:
Didnt Dom/TC publish a peer reviewed paper citing evidence of a shoot down?
:D
Click to expand...
TC's latest claim is that the passengers did indeed force down United 93, which was supposed to hit WTC 7.

At least that's what I gather from his youtube page. But of course, truthers change their claims as often as they defecate... and it's not much different actually.
 
1337m4n said:
RedIbis, I'm confused. In one thread you're saying that there was no plane at Shanksville...now you're saying it was shot down?

Was there a plane at Shanksville or not? The least you could do is be consistent.
Click to expand...

I said there was no plane in the ditch.
 
RedIbis said:
I said there was no plane in the ditch.
Click to expand...
There are parts of 93 and passengers in the ditch! It is exactly what a high speed impact looks like, and you can't refute that with evidence. All you have is hearsay, false information, and lies.
 
beachnut said:
There are parts of 93 and passengers in the ditch! It is exactly what a high speed impact looks like, and you can't refute that with evidence. All you have is hearsay, false information, and lies.
Click to expand...

I can refute it with photographs which has been done many times before. What you need to do is show me a photograph of these bodies in the ditch. The only part in the ditch was released four years after the fact and it looks like someone just rolled onto a backhoe bucket. Some evidence.
 
RedIbis said:
How about the 1000lb engine section that was found over a mile away? Was that blown over in the wind?
Click to expand...

The story from 2002 was corrected at a later date, Red:

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling...
Click to expand...
Source: http://911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html, itself taken from http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7#roving.

The bottom line is that the story you linked is inaccurate regarding the "2000 yards" (approx. 1.1 miles) claim. The Independent's author says the source is Wally Miller, the county coroner, but I'm at a loss as to
  1. Why he'd be the confirming source, given that his responsibilities were centered on the human remains and not the aircraft debris and
  2. Why Miller's statement would overrule the statement (above) made at a later date by Jeff Reinbold. Miller may have indeed said it, but I'm more willing to accept a direct quote from an individual than an alleged confirmation of a single point in a paragraph where many were discussed, as well as accept a direct quote from someone who's job it is to know details like that as opposed to an alleged confirmation from someone who's duties didn't involve the debris to begin with.
If anyone can clarify Miller's stance on this, I'd welcome the information. I'm not trying to say that he's providing wrong information; rather, I'm skeptical about the accuracy of John Carlin's claim that Miller truly confirmed that as one of the laundry list of things Carlin attributes to being confirmed by him.
 
RedIbis said:
I can refute it with photographs which has been done many times before. What you need to do is show me a photograph of these bodies in the ditch. The only part in the ditch was released four years after the fact and it looks like someone just rolled onto a backhoe bucket. Some evidence.
Click to expand...

Why so you can claim that those photos are fake?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I haven't a clue, but I do know that it's not in that ditch.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's because in the other thread you cowardly flew away as soon as the evidence was presented which destroys your pathetic sick fantasy? Remember these RedIbis? Will you run away again, or will you man up and address the evidence? Of course, we all know what you will do, don't we?

1337m4n said:
db_P200060-11.jpg


db_P200061-11.jpg


db_P200062-11.jpg


db_P200065-11.jpg


db_P200069-11.jpg


db_EPA11.jpg


db_EPA51.jpg



Prediction: RedIbis will completely ignore this post.
Click to expand...
 
Bobert said:
Really?
You dont have a clue yet you do know what is not in the ditch?
The games you truthers play.
Click to expand...

What is so hard to understand? If the claim is that Flight 93 crashed in that ditch, it shouldn't be so hard to prove it. I'm not much interested in other theories.
 
WildCat said:
Maybe that's because in the other thread you cowardly flew away as soon as the evidence was presented which destroys your pathetic sick fantasy? Remember these RedIbis? Will you run away again, or will you man up and address the evidence? Of course, we all know what you will do, don't we?
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it. I am well familiar with the Mossaui trial photos (presented four years after the fact) and the half filled container of scrap.

Is this the 95% of the plane that was supposedly recovered? In all due respect, it's a joke to believe that is nearly 100 tons of Flight 93.
 
WildCat said:
No kidding! Nor any shred of intellectual honesty either.
Click to expand...

Funny how you snipped my sentence to a few words and then whine about intellectual honesty.

I'm going to pay particular attention to your posts and pick apart your shallow logic, just for the sport of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom