evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[RedIbis]

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

Ha! Good one. Don't you understand they live for this? What would this forum be without people to argue with. Some of the posters here, with whom I disagree, don't whine like babies. Some of them provide logical, spirited, respectful responses to me and other posters they disagree with.

You should try it sometime.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If I'm standing on dry land, and I drop a handful of marbles, they will be visible.

Are these marbles hitting the ground at 500+ miles per hour and with the same mass as an aircraft? Are you really sure you want to use that analogy?

Whether or not the crashes were similar is besides the point we're talking about the visibility of debris on water vs. land.

My reason for bringing up the everglades crash was simple. You claim that no visible debris means that whether a plane crashed on-site or not is in question. If I apply the same logic used for Shankesville to the valujet crash what becomes of the assumptions regarding the plane? Am I supposed to immediately assume that no plane crashed there? Am I to immediately assume that the plane was a decoy because I couldn't find intact human remains?

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.

The everglades swampy ground conditions resulted in a much different debris spread than that contributed by the ground conditions at Shankeville. In the Everglades, some of the energy released by the impact of the plane was contained by the swamp, whereas shankesville was nothing of the sort. The ground is soft soil and little more. This means that the forces on the impacting body are much different, but the spread of the debris field as well.

And what do you mean entire human bodies? Neither crash site had them... Do you honestly expect a human body to remain in any recognizable shape after a plane crash like that? Slamming into either swamp or soil is like smashing into concrete at those speeds...

 

[SDC]

Red I. apparently expects to see something about as destructive as a 30-mph car crash, judging by his complaints about 93. Perhaps the plane should have bounced a couple of times, but remained essentially intact; and the passengers, though killed, remained whole.

This is beyond belief. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when his statements imply this kind of belief? Has he never read even newspaper accounts of airplane crashes? Or what happens to the human body whether in collisions, or explosions, or other traumatic events?

Beachnut has the experience. I think I've seen other posters refer to similar expertise -- investigating crashes, I mean. For heaven's sake, Red I., listen.

 

[RedIbis]

Red I. apparently expects to see something about as destructive as a 30-mph car crash, judging by his complaints about 93. Perhaps the plane should have bounced a couple of times, but remained essentially intact; and the passengers, though killed, remained whole.

This is beyond belief. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when his statements imply this kind of belief? Has he never read even newspaper accounts of airplane crashes? Or what happens to the human body whether in collisions, or explosions, or other traumatic events?

Beachnut has the experience. I think I've seen other posters refer to similar expertise -- investigating crashes, I mean. For heaven's sake, Red I., listen.

Hole in ground is empty and the rim is unburnt. And you want me to withhold skepticism?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hole in ground is NOT empty. Hole in ground matches previous crashes that were similar. No bases for why rim should be burnt.

And you want people to take you seriously because?

 

[Pardalis]

Hole in ground is empty and the rim is unburnt. And you want me to withhold skepticism?

You don't see plane parts in the holes on the towers, yet you accept planes flew into them?

 

[RedIbis]

You don't see plane parts in the holes on the towers, yet you accept planes flew into them?

For the love of video, they were filmed!

 

[A W Smith]

Its true. Deep lost all his marbles

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.

Strawman noted

Drop those marbles at 530 MPH

 

[Pardalis]

For the love of video, they were filmed!

But you don't see plane parts.

No video, no plane, no 9/11?

 

[RedIbis]

But you don't see plane parts.

No video, no plane, no 9/11?

You're not this dense. Is there film of Flight 93 flying into the ground?

 

[Pardalis]

You're not this dense. Is there film of Flight 93 flying into the ground?

Are there visible plane parts in the holes of the towers?

 

[Pardalis]

Hole in ground is empty and the rim is unburnt. And you want me to withhold skepticism?

You don't see plane parts in the holes on the towers, yet you accept planes flew into them?

For the love of video, they were filmed!

But you don't see plane parts.

No video, no plane, no 9/11?

You're not this dense. Is there film of Flight 93 flying into the ground?

Are there visible plane parts in the holes of the towers?

Clearly someone is not following the discussion or is evading the question.

The issue here is not whether or not there is video of the event, but if there are enough visible plane parts.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You're not this dense. Is there film of Flight 93 flying into the ground?

Here is your apparent logic for the flight 93 crash site:
No video, no plane, no [intact] bodies inside a crater = no plane crash

Everglades similarity: No discernible crash crater, little to no recognizable debris visible, no intact bodies, no video of a plane crash.

So did the everglades crash ever happen? Was there a plane?

How about we go to Paradalis's application and assume for scenario's sake that video did not capture the plane impacts:

No video of a plane hitting the building, we can't see any discernible plane wreckage inside the towers. Would that mean no plane if we applied your criteria?

 

[WildCat]

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!

It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to continue making the patently ridiculous claims RedIbis is making.

 

[SDC]

I'm reminded of jury service. Confessions are lacking (if the case gets to a jury), and the other evidence can, often, be interpreted in more than one way. There are gaps and ambiguities.

To recall one case I served on: there was no video of the accused creating fake banking documents. Yet we convicted them. We had witnesses' testimonies (people who worked at the banks, a former employer), handwriting and fingerprints, and such; I don't recall what else (it was 13 years ago this Thanksgiving. Give me a break). Incredible, wasn't it? We didn't have a video, yet we convicted them.

Well, they are probably out of jail by now, so I can't throw my tender conscience on the mercy of the Southern District of New York. Obviously, per Red I., we the jury did wrong.

ps I gather from Red I.'s statements that he is basing his analysis on some photos. Is he an expert in photo analysis?

 

[beachnut]

What gets me, if 93 was faked or something else crashed there, why did they do such a good job making it look just like an aircraft had hit at 600 mph?

I mean they faked it exactly how a high speed impact would be. If they wanted to fool idiots they would have left a big tail section and had bodies in seats. They made it look just right so experts would not question an aircraft hit at high speed. Only those who are gullible and lack knowledge make up ideas it is not 93. They make up stupid ideas and think they have something, but they only have ignorance on the topic.

If there was big tail section surviving all the thousands of aircraft investigators would have see the fake scene and we would have been heroes breaking the biggest news story of the decade. We would take action, not talk it up like the 9/11 truth apologists, paranoid about all because they lack knowledge.

Flight 93 impacted at high speed, it is exactly what a high speed impact looks like. Those who support the moronic ideas of 9/11 truth lack the knowledge to understand a high speed aircraft impact. They can't even calculate the kinetic energy of the impact, or understand it!

The entire 9/11 truth movement is an anti-intellectual group who spew hearsay instead of using science and physics. A movement that thrives on ignorance of the member on issues needed to understand each event.

 

[SDC]

Beachnut, I am sorry, but you have to understand that it just is not satisfactory to Red I. Regardless, he wants to see those large visible chunks of airplane (or perhaps the Wiley Coyote outline in the dirt), plus real, actual bodies. And maybe a briefly surviving flight attendant who manages to squeak out to witnesses, right before she discreetly expires, "It was the Arabs..." (Actually, Red I. perhaps wants the flight attendant to murmur, "It was Cheney... He had a shotgun... He winged a political donor... Then he parachuted from the plane... Cough, cough [croak].")

Real world knowledge just doesn't live up to imaginations and desperate needs to believe in bizarre fantasies.

 

[R.Mackey]

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).

No, they weren't!

You are making a false claim!

When I asked you to back up this claim, you declined, stating that "you weren't making any claims."

You are a particularly obnoxious liar.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Red, Deep,

Was United Airlines lying when within 20 mins of the crash, they rang the FAA to inform them that UA Flight 93 had crashed near Shanksville?

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Additional proof of the above: Swiss Air Flight 111.

It crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1998. Of the 229 on board who were killed in the accident, only one was identified visually; 147 were identified by fingerprints, dental records, and x-ray comparisons; the remaining 81 were identified by DNA.

The force on impact was estimated to be 350 g. An estimated two million pieces of debris were recovered during the investigation by the TSB (Transportation Safety Board of Canada). This amounted to some 279,000 lbs. of debris, or approximately 98% of the aircraft's structural weight.

The TSB's final accident report can be read here. The Wikipedia page on the accident can be read here.