evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[leftysergeant]

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.

Actually, Rummy appeared to be under the impression that it had been shot down. He knew that planes had been dispatched to do so.

It was quite a stroke for his ego to think that he had managed to get something right. It would have made him look more heroic than Todd Beamer, and would have actually increased the feeling of helplessness, as individuals, that a tyrant would need to instill in the public to push thropugh more draconian laws. If individuals could, as Dylan Avery seems to think he could, fight back, why would we need to launch massive military operations against nebulous targets at great expense to the public and great profit to the military-industrial complex?

If it had been shot down, Rummy would still be proclaiming himself a hero in having overseen the operation that prevented an even worse loss of life and would not now be considered the least effective putz ever to serve as Sec Def. He would have milked it for all he was worth. He would have constantly reminded us of how much we needed a decision-maker like himself to defend us. Cowards make better slaves. Heroes know they can fend for themselves.

A cover-up of a shoot-down is counter to the suspected purpose of any supposed inside job done to generate undeserved amiration and trust.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

With all do respect redibis, it's intellectual dishonesty to ascertain that anything recognizable would remain when something as large as a plane hits the ground at high velocity and a steep angle.

Water is far from solid but hitting water at the same velocity and angle as that plane hit the ground would equate to hitting concrete at 600 miles per hour, the plane will get shredded to ribbons. I don't expect the plane to be in any recognizable shape let alone the people who were on board. I don't know what your expectations are in such a scenario... I've already shown you the valujet 592 everglades crash site in a previous thread that demonstrates this. They found fragments of people, not bodies, FRAGMENTS, PIECES, they couldn't even ID all of the passengers in the end..

 

[deep]

Water is far from solid but hitting water at the same velocity and angle as that plane hit the ground would equate to hitting concrete at 600 miles per hour, the plane will get shredded to ribbons. I don't expect the plane to be in any recognizable shape let alone the people who were on board. I don't know what your expectations are in such a scenario... I've already shown you the valujet 592 everglades crash site in a previous thread that demonstrates this. They found fragments of people, not bodies, FRAGMENTS, PIECES, they couldn't even ID all of the passengers in the end..

You can't be serious. The remains of the plane were underwater! Of course they weren't visible. They also had a large portion of the wreckage sink down into the mud, if memory serves.

Tell me, how far away were those human remains? Anything over a mile away? 2.5 miles? Why is that "normal" in the flight 93 crash, but not in any other one?

 

[beachnut]

Tell me, how far away were those human remains? Anything over a mile away? 2.5 miles? Why is that "normal" in the flight 93 crash, but not in any other one?

False, no rib bone. Sorry, you are messing up.

The only things 2.5 miles away were things that can fly on the wind.

Please produce one photo of your rib bone, and seat cushions. BTW, the seat cushion talked about was found on a cabin right next to the impact crater, not 2.5 miles away.

Fleegle, Brant and a fellow marina worker, Tom Spinelli, jumped in a truck and rushed to the crash site.

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.

Your rib bone is hearsay! Do you understand hearsay?

 

[1337m4n]

Start a new thread for your strawman-bait, please.

Look who's talking!

 

[1337m4n]

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.

Liar.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You can't be serious. The remains of the plane were underwater! Of course they weren't visible. They also had a large portion of the wreckage sink down into the mud, if memory serves.

And fragments of flight 93 were embedded in the ground at Shankesville. I don't expect the exact same results but I find it ironic you can accept that the debris in the everglades crash could be under 10 to 25 feet of water/peat/muck but not embedded in the soil in and around the crater in Shankesville. The muck greatly impeded efforts in debris recovery in that crash

Tell me, how far away were those human remains? Anything over a mile away? 2.5 miles? Why is that "normal" in the flight 93 crash, but not in any other one?

Flight 93 crashed and got shredded apart in much the same way the valujet airliner did crashing into 10 - 25 feet of peat and then a solid mass of bedrock immediately underneath... Both planes, despite the difference in why they crashed, hit the ground at a steep angle and at high velocity.
They're fairly similar outcomes, granted the causes and ground conditions are different

ETA: "Rescue workers said they had found no evidence of bodies and most of the wreckage seemed buried."

There are numerous articles out there, in some regards the two crashes are quite similar: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...0A25756C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

 

[1337m4n]

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.

Nitpick and handwave your way out of this one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAR9901.pdf

 

[TJM]

You can't be serious. The remains of the plane were underwater! Of course they weren't visible. They also had a large portion of the wreckage sink down into the mud, if memory serves.

Tell me, how far away were those human remains? Anything over a mile away? 2.5 miles? Why is that "normal" in the flight 93 crash, but not in any other one?

Then have a look at this video by Walter Ego:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121440

 

[Corsair 115]

If the claim is that Flight 93 crashed in that ditch...

One can infer from the above quote that you think all of the aircraft debris should have been contained within the impact crater. Is that what you actually think should have happened?

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

people! ignore red! please!
It just wants attention!

 

[deep]

And fragments of flight 93 were embedded in the ground at Shankesville. I don't expect the exact same results but I find it ironic you can accept that the debris in the everglades crash could be under 10 to 25 feet of water/peat/muck but not embedded in the soil in and around the crater in Shankesville. The muck greatly impeded efforts in debris recovery in that crash

Why is that so hard to believe? If I'm standing hovering in the middle of the Everglades, and drop a handful of marbles, they will not be visible. If I'm standing on dry land, and I drop a handful of marbles, they will be visible.

Whether or not the crashes were similar is besides the point - we're talking about the visibility of debris on water vs. land. The Everglades would have concealed all but the largest debris - even entire human bodies. You cannot use that to justify the lack of visible debris in Shanksville.

 

[WildCat]

Why is that so hard to believe? If I'm standing hovering in the middle of the Everglades, and drop a handful of marbles, they will not be visible. If I'm standing on dry land, and I drop a handful of marbles, they will be visible.

Whether or not the crashes were similar is besides the point - we're talking about the visibility of debris on water vs. land. The Everglades would have concealed all but the largest debris - even entire human bodies. You cannot use that to justify the lack of visible debris in Shanksville.

Is this supposed to be some last-ditch effort at a Stundie nomination before the month ends?

Sorry young grasshopper, the competition is strong this month.

 

[deep]

Then have a look at this video by Walter Ego:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121440

I thought YouTube videos weren't evidence of anything? Or is that only when it's convenient?

---

The max takeoff weight of a 757-200 is 255,000 lbs. The max takeoff weigh of a BAe 146 is no more than 95,000 lbs. The bigger plane is going to produce more debris.

They also very clearly state that papers were scattered up to 8 miles away. On the other hand, human remains and other non-paper debris (e.g., a burning seat cushion) from Flight 93 were found miles away from the alleged crash site (plus paper debris, which is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion).

Think about it - how could human remains get scattered that far? People weren't losing rib bones out the windows on the way down - it would have to happen after the impact. Is there a force that can carry a rib bone, or other human remains, 2 miles (or more) through the air? Although I doubt it, I'm not sure - I would have to calculate it.

PS - notice the extreme transparency of the investigators in the video. I would call that an example of normal, expected behavior.

 

[deep]

Nitpick and handwave your way out of this one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/AAR9901.pdf

There's nothing disingenuous about my questions. Like I said, I would love to believe that Flight 93 simply crashed, but I can't do that until the explanation is reconciled with the evidence & key observations.

I will take a look at that document - thanks for providing (half of) a constructive response.

 

[beachnut]

... the lack of visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.
I may be cheating, I was trained in aircraft accident investigation; Flight 93 is what a high speed aircraft impact looks like; all the evidence confirms it.

Visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.

Visible debris in Shanksville.
Your fantasy is due to what? Lack of knowledge?
I see thousands of parts visible!

 

[SezMe]

Think about it - how could human remains get scattered that far? People weren't losing rib bones out the windows on the way down - it would have to happen after the impact. Is there a force that can carry a rib bone, or other human remains, 2 miles (or more) through the air? Although I doubt it, I'm not sure - I would have to calculate it.

Do that then, deep. A rough calculation will suffice. Present all your assumptions, calculations and results. I'd love to see a truther show some numbers for once.

 

[deep]

Do that then, deep. A rough calculation will suffice. Present all your assumptions, calculations and results. I'd love to see a truther show some numbers for once.

Experimentation not withstanding, I'm not sure how to determine the maximum force that a rib bone can withstand before breaking apart. Without that critical bit of information, the calculation would be of little practical use.

(unless I'm missing something?)

 

[SezMe]

Bullcrap. You're making a weasel look good. You were going to calculate, "Is there a force that can carry a rib bone...2 miles" Do it. Then, knowing the result, we can decide if a rib bone can withstand that force. Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[leftysergeant]

If the plane were hit by a missile that could tear bodies into small pieces, it would not have all come down in a mass great enough to dig that crater. That there was anything smaller than a 757 in that crater is an absurd assertion. It is fully the right size out to a point at least halfway between the engines and wing tips. There is no indictation on any photo that it was recently excavated by anything other than an aircraft going in nose-first.

All of the debris photographed above ground appears to be from parts of the aircraft aft of the wings. Those parts would have been torn apart as they separated from the fuselage, tearing up bodies as they did so. The forward momentum would have carried some of those pieces along down-range.