Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

[RedIbis]

Do you accept the fact that Flight 93 was hijacked and flown into the ground at Shanksville?

YES [ ]
No [ ]

It's a sincere and direct.

False choice fallacy. There are other possibilities, this being just one:

C - Flight 93 was hijacked but wasn't flown into the ditch

 

[Dave Rogers]

False choice fallacy.

No, it isn't. The question is whether you accept that the flight was hijacked and flown into the ground. Either (a) you accept that as a correct summary of events, in which case the answer is "Yes", or you doubt or question it, in which case the answer is "No", or you believe it to be incorrect, in which case the answer is again "No". If, for example, you believe that the aircraft was hijacked but may not have been flown into the ground, then the answer is "No", because you do not accept that the plane was both hijacked and flown into the ground.

It's interesting, by the way, that you've substituted the word "ditch" for the word "ground", thereby giving a false impression that the impact crater was a pre-existing feature.

Dave

 

[Jackanory]

False choice fallacy. There are other possibilities, this being just one:

C - Flight 93 was hijacked but wasn't flown into the ditch

Question/conundrum posed.

Pause...............................................................................

 

[dtugg]

False choice fallacy. There are other possibilities, this being just one:

C - Flight 93 was hijacked but wasn't flown into the ditch

But it did crash in Shanksville. 100% of the evidence points to this.

Anyway here are some questions that you will no doubt ignore:

Did UA 93 crash in Shanksville?

If no, then:

How did remains from every person aboard get at the scene?

How did the FDR and CVR get there?

Why does RADAR data track the plane from Newark to Shanksville?

Why do eyewitnesses report a plane crashing in the area?

Why does nobody who was at the scene investigating express any doubts as to what happened?

Why doesn't United Airlines question what happened?

How many people do you think would be required to be in on it in order to pull off, and keep covered up such an insane stunt as faking the crash of a jetliner?

 

[RedIbis]

No, it isn't. The question is whether you accept that the flight was hijacked and flown into the ground. Either (a) you accept that as a correct summary of events, in which case the answer is "Yes", or you doubt or question it, in which case the answer is "No", or you believe it to be incorrect, in which case the answer is again "No". If, for example, you believe that the aircraft was hijacked but may not have been flown into the ground, then the answer is "No", because you do not accept that the plane was both hijacked and flown into the ground.

It's interesting, by the way, that you've substituted the word "ditch" for the word "ground", thereby giving a false impression that the impact crater was a pre-existing feature.

Dave

If I had answered no, there would be no way to determine which part of his proposition I disagreed with, thus the need for at least a third choice.

Your tedious semantics aside, what's happening here is an attempt to say that if it can be proven Flight 93 was hijacked, then it must have been crashed into the ditch. This is simply not the case. There are many possibilities between hijacking and crashing that absolutists choose to ignore.

 

[dtugg]

There are many possibilities between hijacking and crashing that absolutists choose to ignore.

Please name these possibilities.

After you're done coming up with those, please narrow that list down to the ones that have supporting evidence and don't contradict existing evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If I had answered no, there would be no way to determine which part of his proposition I disagreed with, thus the need for at least a third choice.

Wrong. There would be the option for you to state which part of the proposition you did not accept, after answering yes or no. Nobody is preventing you from explaining your answer.

Your tedious semantics aside, what's happening here is an attempt to say that if it can be proven Flight 93 was hijacked, then it must have been crashed into the ditch.

No, what's happening here is your usual modus operandi: a statement that you will answer any reasonable question put to you, followed immediately by your evasion of such a question.

Dave

 

[Jackanory]

Wrong. There would be the option for you to state which part of the proposition you did not accept, after answering yes or no. Nobody is preventing you from explaining your answer.



No, what's happening here is your usual modus operandi: a statement that you will answer any reasonable question put to you, followed immediately by your evasion of such a question.

Dave

Yep

Pose - Pause.................................................................

Cant Pounce because has nothing

 

[RedIbis]

Please name these possibilities.

After you're done coming up with those, please narrow that list down to the ones that have supporting evidence and don't contradict existing evidence.

The point you're failing to comprehend is that Flight 93 being in the ditch is not contingent upon the hijacking. The hijacking could have occurred but the plane did not have to end up in the ditch. This is the last time I'm going to restate this rather obvious situation. I'm not responsible for the density of obstinate posters.

 

[RedIbis]

Wrong. There would be the option for you to state which part of the proposition you did not accept, after answering yes or no. Nobody is preventing you from explaining your answer.



Dave

Uh, there was no option, that's why I created one.

 

[Jackanory]

The point you're failing to comprehend is that Flight 93 being in the ditch is not contingent upon the hijacking. The hijacking could have occurred but the plane did not have to end up in the ditch. This is the last time I'm going to restate this rather obvious situation. I'm not responsible for the density of obstinate posters.

Please attempt to take that extra step Red.

Please Pounce with your end game theory with your evidence.

 

[Disbelief]

The point you're failing to comprehend is that Flight 93 being in the ditch is not contingent upon the hijacking. The hijacking could have occurred but the plane did not have to end up in the ditch. This is the last time I'm going to restate this rather obvious situation. I'm not responsible for the density of obstinate posters.

The start more simply:

Do you believe that UA93 was hijacked? Yes or no?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Uh, there was no option, that's why I created one.

Yes, there was the option, in the sense that you were free to do so. What you didn't do was answer the question, despite your assurance that you would.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

The point you're failing to comprehend is that Flight 93 being in the ditch is not contingent upon the hijacking. The hijacking could have occurred but the plane did not have to end up in the ditch. This is the last time I'm going to restate this rather obvious situation. I'm not responsible for the density of obstinate posters.

What I would like are other possibilities for what ultimately happened to the plane. I will not hold my breath waiting for you to supply them however.

And I am also completely shocked to see that you totally ignored my other questions.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, there was the option, in the sense that you were free to do so. What you didn't do was answer the question, despite your assurance that you would.

Dave

So when I created a third choice, that wasn't good enough for you. Or do you think that Flight 93's hijacking automatically means that it crashed in the ditch in Shanksville?

You appear smarter than that to me, but I could be wrong.

 

[Jackanory]

Uh, there was no option, that's why I created one.

Always creating another option.

Given that you clearly ignore the FDR, Radar, DNA etc can you explain where it went or what crashed at Shankville or how and which aircraft took off from Shankville to imitate 93 (given that 93 clearly ended at Shankville).

Its your mind and how it unravels this stuff that interests me Red.

 

[stateofgrace]

So when I created a third choice, that wasn't good enough for you. Or do you think that Flight 93's hijacking automatically means that it crashed in the ditch in Shanksville?

You appear smarter than that to me, but I could be wrong.

Red, a plane does not automatically end up in a ditch because it has been hijacked. Something between the hijacking and the crashing happened.

Now what do YOU think that something was?

 

[johnny karate]

So when I created a third choice, that wasn't good enough for you. Or do you think that Flight 93's hijacking automatically means that it crashed in the ditch in Shanksville?

No one anywhere, ever has made a cause and effect argument regarding the hijacking and crash site. Both are supported independently by the body of evidence.

It's incredibly stupid to believe otherwise.

But then again, you believe the Shanksville crash site was staged for some reason, so I guess believing incredibly stupid things is a matter of routine.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So when I created a third choice, that wasn't good enough for you.

No, because you didn't indicate which choice was your answer.

Let's try a worked example, shall we? Suppose you ask me whether kinetic energy is conserved or is not conserved in a collision. I reply, "You're ignoring a third possibility, which is that it is conserved in some collisions but not in others." That's all I say. Have I answered the question?

You appear smarter than that to me, but I could be wrong.

Smart enough to be able to tell that you still haven't answered the question, at least.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Red, a plane does not automatically end up in a ditch because it has been hijacked. Something between the hijacking and the crashing happened.

Now what do YOU think that something was?

I have no idea. My main concern is that the Shanksville ditch does not appear to contain a 100 ton commercial airliner.