evidence against flight 93 shoot down

RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
No RedIbis, there is no joke at all about this. You really should have picked an ostrich as your user name, it fits you much better.
 
Bobert said:
Seems to be a reasonable and valid question.
You might want to let Red spaek (sic) from himself.
Click to expand...


I wasn't speaking for Red, and no, it's not a reasonable or valid question in the context of this discussion.

The reason it gets asked so often is because is there is no "right" answer - you're going to scoff at anything.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Evidence for you claims? You have none.
Why post hearsay and lies? Because it is all you have.
 
beachnut said:
Evidence for you claims? You have none.
Why post hearsay and lies? Because it is all you have.
Click to expand...


Your inability to provide evidence for your claim, makes you liar. You lack the knowledge and skill to debate this fact, because you are blind to truth and justice.

All you need is evidence, so you can stop using lies and hearsay to form your fantasy.

(c) 2008 - beachnut message generator 1.0 - all rights reserved
 
deep44 said:
Your inability to provide evidence for your claim, makes you liar. You lack the knowledge and skill to debate this fact, because you are blind to truth and justice.

All you need is evidence, so you can stop using lies and hearsay to form your fantasy.

(c) 2008 - beachnut message generator 1.0 - all rights reserved
Click to expand...
Cute. But 9/11 truth has zero evidence, you must be with them.

You can't refute on thing about 93! Zip.

The impact area of 93 is what a high speed impact looks like. You lack knowledge on that, I don't. If you pay taxes in the US, you paid for my training in aircraft accident investigation, my flight training and most my engineering degrees! Thank you. You should gain some education so you don't spew false information so freely on 9/11.

If only you had some evidence for your failed ideas. However you don't even try to present evidence, you fall back to spewing hearsay.

93VDR.jpg


Flight 93's VDR, you can't refute it with evidence, you will use hearsay. It was found in the crash area of Flight 93, you can't refute it with evidence, you will make up junk ideas.

You make up stuff, or repeat the false information of 9/11 truth ignoring reason and evidence. You can't refute that either.
 
Last edited:
deep44 said:
I wasn't speaking for Red, and no, it's not a reasonable or valid question in the context of this discussion.

The reason it gets asked so often is because is there is no "right" answer - you're going to scoff at anything.
Click to expand...
No I will probably only scoff at what you say.
BOO HOO HOO I am so sad that pointed out my misspelling
 
left "A" out

Bobert said:
No I will probably only scoff at what you say.
BOO HOO HOO I am so sad that pointed out my misspelling
Click to expand...

deep44 said:
Your inability to provide evidence for your claim, makes you liar(sic). You lack the knowledge and skill to debate this fact, because you are blind to truth and justice.

All you need is evidence, so you can stop using lies and hearsay to form your fantasy.

(c) 2008 - beachnut message generator 1.0 - all rights reserved
Click to expand...

Glass houses deep. Glass houses.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I'll refrain from crude comments about your username.
Click to expand...
Do whatever you like RedIbis. The fact is, there's really no reasoning with you because you are behaving like a cult member. Just as a creationist dismisses all the overwhelming evidence of evolution, you dismiss anything supporting the accepted course of events on 9/11.

I'll just continue posting the evidence you ignore (like you are now) so anyone looking at this thread can see you for what you really are.
 
leftysergeant said:
If it was down-range, what is your problem? That would indicate that it was stilkl attached to the aircraft when it hit the ground. If a missile knocked it off, it would be much farther away, in all likelihood, probably on a far different bearing.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, according to the article linked by RedIbis that fact was confirmed by coroner Wally Miner. The same Wally Miner RedIbis thinks was part of the team that faked/planted/lied about the human remains and DNA evidence.
 
beachnut said:
Cute. But 9/11 truth has zero evidence, you must be with them.

You can't refute on thing about 93! Zip.
Click to expand...


Show me the evidence to support your claim that the wind blew all this debris all over the place. Show me how a burning seat cushion can travel 2.5 miles from the crash site -- not a small piece of a seat cushion - a burning seat cushion.

Also, show me how human remains can travel over 2 miles away from the crash site.

Please - I would like nothing more than to believe that this plane just crashed into the ground, but I can't do that until someone can present a sound argument for how all that debris wound up miles away.
 
deep44 said:
Show me the evidence to support your claim that the wind blew all this debris all over the place. Show me how a burning seat cushion can travel 2.5 miles from the crash site -- not a small piece of a seat cushion - a burning seat cushion.

Also, show me how human remains can travel over 2 miles away from the crash site.

Please - I would like nothing more than to believe that this plane just crashed into the ground, but I can't do that until someone can present a sound argument for how all that debris wound up miles away.
Click to expand...

Who says it did?

You're real big on demanding evidence from others, but you never seem to provide any.

If you actually look, you'll find it supports us, not the other way around. Give it a try.
 
deep44 said:
Show me how a burning seat cushion can travel 2.5 miles from the crash site -- not a small piece of a seat cushion - a burning seat cushion.
Click to expand...

The aircraft still had foward momentum when it hit the ground. The empanage broke of and shattered. This probably sent some debris on an upward trajectory. The fireball probably added some thermal lift. The distance is not that great. That it was burning indicates that it was above ground when the fuel ignited Nothing odd here.

Also, show me how human remains can travel over 2 miles away from the crash site.
Click to expand...

Care to show us siome documentation of the types and size of the human remains found (in your opinion) too far from the site, along with the direction in which they would have travelled, relative to the path of the aircraft? If they were down-range of the crash site, there is nothing odd about small pieces travelling that far. Up-range is different and would be anomolous.
 
Evidence of a shoot down? It's evidence enough to me that the government didn't trumpet the fact that they successfully shot it down, given the current situation and what happened earlier that day.
 
deep44 said:
. Show me how a burning seat cushion can travel 2.5 miles from the crash site -- not a small piece of a seat cushion - a burning seat cushion.
Click to expand...
Show me the burning seat cushion. It was part of burnt seat cushion.

The fact is only small parts traveled miles from the impact point. The wind direction was exactly correct for the debris pattern. You could look up the wind direction.
 
R.Mackey said:
Who says it did?

You're real big on demanding evidence from others, but you never seem to provide any.

If you actually look, you'll find it supports us, not the other way around. Give it a try.
Click to expand...


I don't provide any evidence because I'm not making any claims. All I'm doing is calling you out on all of your unproven counter-claims.

Oh, and in response to "who says it did" - try reading your previous messages.
"Windborne debris, yes." - R. Mackey, earlier in this thread
​
 
leftysergeant said:
The aircraft still had foward momentum when it hit the ground. The empanage broke of and shattered. This probably sent some debris on an upward trajectory. The fireball probably added some thermal lift. The distance is not that great. That it was burning indicates that it was above ground when the fuel ignited Nothing odd here.



Care to show us siome documentation of the types and size of the human remains found (in your opinion) too far from the site, along with the direction in which they would have travelled, relative to the path of the aircraft? If they were down-range of the crash site, there is nothing odd about small pieces travelling that far. Up-range is different and would be anomolous.
Click to expand...
Human remains were NOT found 2.5 miles away. It was a false early report, as is the giant seat cushion. He is cherry picking early reports shown to be wrong.
(but he is really repeating hate news pieces blasting Bush and making up lies about 9/11, protected by saying it was in a news report; liars protecting themselves by cherry picking errors made in early reports)

He is over 6 years behind. 93 is a high speed aircraft impact, he should ask another aircraft accident investigator. I would think if Deep could calculate the kinetic energy of the impact, he would not be spreading hearsay and lies.

The burning seat cushion was on a roof near where 93 CRASHED, not at the MARINA. lol
Fleegle, Brant and a fellow marina worker, Tom Spinelli, jumped in a truck and rushed to the crash site.
Click to expand...
In the woods, they saw only a crater and tiny pieces of debris.

Fleegle said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there.
Click to expand...
Funny, anyone can debunk 9/11 truth.

He will not listen to us, he is full 9/11 truth spewing false information.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
The aircraft still had foward momentum when it hit the ground. The empanage broke of and shattered. This probably sent some debris on an upward trajectory. The fireball probably added some thermal lift. The distance is not that great. That it was burning indicates that it was above ground when the fuel ignited Nothing odd here.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your opinion, but I'm interested in facts. For example, show me a similar plane crash where human remains and debris wound up 2.5 miles away.

The reports of human remains are never very graphic, but one man reported seeing a rib bone wash ashore in the lake ~2 miles from the crash site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom