How am i attacking people?
I am the one that usually gets attacked because i have enough common sense and intelligence not to just go along with the official story.
NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon
- Thread starter ULTIMA1
- Start date
- Status
How am i attacking people?
I am the one that usually gets attacked because i have enough common sense and intelligence not to just go along with the official story.
First of all it's not my country, second the crater in shanksville is consistent with a head-on crash collision, third, even if it was shot down, it doesn't really change anything of what happened that day, and fourth, it's 2009, we need to move on.
As soon as i get the document i will post it.
But the document has been verified by several sources.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I call BS and that TWO irony meters you owe me.
Yes. speacilly when the you and the outher beleivers attack and insult poeple for no reason then they disagree with you.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
[/quote]
Sorry, but unless your document somehow speaks to the crater that FL93 made, you can't make that statement with any authority.
Besides, it is consistent with a head-on collision. Your saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
I am not a believer, i do not beleive in the official story enough to call everyone else who does not names and attack them.
Uh, ULTIMA. You know you're supposed to put the other guy's post in quotes and leave yours for the white background.
Last edited:
consistent with a head-on collision. Your saying otherwise doesn't make it so.[/QUOTE]
if you look at any actaul facts and evidence about the crater you would see that is not consistant with a head-on.
Also do not forget about the 2 distinct debris fields so far away, or the engine core found far away.
if you look at any actaul facts and evidence about the crater you would see that is not consistant with a head-on.
Also do not forget about the 2 distinct debris fields so far away, or the engine core found far away.
Last edited:
an you unable to post any facts and evidence makes you a joke.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
You are overreaching. That they might possibly be wrong about what jets might have been in the area doesn't change a thing about the FDR, CVR, DNA data, recovered wreckage, or any other piece of evidence we've discussed to death in this forum. Which is my entire point. It's one thing to catch the 9/11 Commision out on a single error, but it's a whole other thing to use that as leverage to question the entire event. What about a single mistake regarding jets in the area contradicts, for example, the witnesses to both the jet crashing and the cleanup workers who recovered the debris? What characteristic of that omission throws into doubt the FDR data which demonstrates that the jet was in proper working condition right up to the point the hijacker flew it into the ground? What piece of information garnered from this omission puts into doubt what was heard on the CVR?
Again, at most, all you can claim is a jet in the area. It doesn't change anything else about what happened to Flight 93, because it does not speak to any of the rest of the evidence. At most, it speaks to what was in the air around FL93. At most.
you mean the existence of A DOCUMENT, of which we have not seen the content, matching the name you requested, has been verified, because they say they have found the document and are sending it to you?
Or did they simply say,
"We have received your request for document X, and are in the process of retrieving it for you?"
The two are completely different.
Like I said, until I see the actual document in question, with verification of its legitimacy, I think you are lying.
TAM
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I have looked at the "actaul" (sic) facts.
- The secondary debris field was lighter material (i.e. paper, fabrics) that could and did float on air. The heavier stuff was found in the immediate vicinity of the crash.
- The engine core was 300 yards away, perfectly and entirely consistent with having detached upon impact.
Please show me a report that matches the wreckage found to Flight 93.
Please show me a report that explains how the engine core was so far away from the crater.
Please show me any official crime scene reports from the FBI or NTSB, OH thats right you cannot because there are none.
You have no actual facts, evidence, or report that states that engine core would be consistant being detached upon impact.
You do know there is more then just missiles on a fighter right? You do know fighters also carry guns?
You also must know that the CVR captured sound of rushing air in the cockpit right?
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
At this point I must remind the troll from UNCLE that he is the one making outlandish claims. Therefore it's on him to provide evidence.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I read the report, they only deal with the planes that were directly involved (or comment on). So what makes you say that no planes were intercepted?
What plane are they talking about? I don't remember seeing a flight number referred to. Please show me if I'm wrong.
You need to show facts for us to accept. So far you have failed. If I'm wrong please show me my mistake.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Matches Flight 93 to what? Flight 93? That's established by the radar data, FDR, and CVR. The NTSB report on UA93's FDR can be found here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
The flight path study can be found here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf
The CVR transcript can be found here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf
Gravy has data listing the FL93 victim's airphone calls, which establishes that flight's identity:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
... that page also contains articles discussing things such as the DNA evidence, witness testimony, etc.
Flight 93's identity at Shanksville is established with far more data than mere matching of the wreckage. The passengers are matched, the data about it's flightpath is recorded, the victims' own statements identify the flight beyond all question... there's a plethora of evidence placing FL93 at Shanksville.
I'd love to see which part of all of that is questioned by your document. I thought it restricted itself to discussing the presence of a military jet.
Why? The core was only 300 yards away. If it impacted at 400+ MPH, the real question is why was it so close, not why it was "so far away".
Think of things this way: Let's presume the horizontal component of a jet is merely 200 MPH when it impacts the ground (modify that figure as you wish; I'm merely choosing one arbitrarily. I know FL93 was going faster, I'm referring strictly to the horizontal component of that speed). 200MPH translates into nearly 98 yards per second. It would take only about 3 seconds of travel to go that far. Is it that far out of bounds to think that wreckage hitting the ground at airliner speed wouldn't bounce along for a mere 3 seconds?
I don't have to show you any report explaining this. Simple logic should be enough to establish that something hitting the ground at several hundred miles an hour would scatter debris as far as 300 yards. Recall that in the case of American Eagle FL 4818, debris was scattered "throughout a 3/4 mile area". And that commuter prop-driven aircraft hit the ground at a slower speed (431.5 MPH, as opposed to 563 for FL93).
I've already shown you a pair of reports from the NTSB; you can locate furhter ones here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
FBI evidence was presented in the Moussaoui trial. That evidence can be perused here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
And as said above, Gravy has compiled a good deal of information, most of it popular news stories, but some of it direct links to information (such as the NTSB reports I've linked above). Anyway, the information is all there.
So, which part of it is disputed by the document again? I don't recall you sharing anything about CVR or FDR data being changed. All you noted was that there was another jet in the area. Unestablished as that is, I find it hard to conceive of a document discussing the presence of a military jet also discoursing over DNA evidence, airphone calls, and the like.
- Status