Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

RedIbis said:
Or do you think that Flight 93's hijacking automatically means that it crashed in the ditch in Shanksville?
Click to expand...

I think what you're saying is that correlation is not the same as causation. It's possible we are making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc error.

Sure, it's possible. Here's one scenario:

1. The terrorists hijacked the planes.
2. Several passengers called to the ground to report the hijacking.
3. The terrorists felt really bad about what they did, so they turned control over to the passengers and apologized.
4. They all became fast friends, and broke out the champagne.
5. Wild drunkenness ensued. Someone yelled, "Allahu Akbar!"
6. Nobody noticed when the plane went out of control.

Hmmm... I don't know. I just think that "the hijacking led to the crash" seems more reasonable.
 
Originally Posted by RedIbis
I answer sincere, direct questions, not unrealistic requests for hundreds of pages of speculation. As you guys say, "that's so 2006."
Click to expand...
BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Here's a question I have about Flight 93. Did Todd Beamer say, "Let's Roll" as a rallying cry for the passengers to attack the cockpit?
Click to expand...


So I guess for you an answer to a direct question is to ask a different question that attempts to change the topic.
 
Last edited:
Why can't you debunkers answer one simple question?

What color socks were the pilots of Flight 93 wearing?

It's funny how you all run for the hills when asked a simple and direct question.
 
What color socks were the pilots of Flight 93 wearing?
Click to expand...

Who say he were wearing socks, do you have any witnesses?

Besides, do you realice that the copilot did not have breakfast that morning.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is only reality; your extra possibilities are pure lies, fantasy, and moronic tripe.
There is one reality; you have chosen stupid ideas.

93 was taken by force killing the pilots and the passengers figured out 911 in minutes which leaves you as one of the last fringe no logic people on earth who cant figure out 911 due to some learning disability or mental block.

The Passengers attacked the cockpit; the terrorist flew the plane into the ground. The evidence is clear (RADAR, FDR, DNA, impact site) to those with rational minds; why are you unable to grasp reality?
 
What a joke. There were no planes, ergo, no pilots, ergo no socks.

As for this thread, great intention and produced some excellent questions, but I'm afraid it's reached the end. I think we should, yes, you knew this was coming

put a sock in it.
 
I've misplaced my Truther Playbook, but I believe this is the part where I say "PWNED!!11!" due to the collective failure of the debunkers to answer my completely relevant and important question. :D
 
chillzero said:
Why don't you finish dealing with the last piece of nonsense first before adding more?
Click to expand...

Instead of scolding me on when and how I post, try dealing with some of what I've already asked. Saudi involvement, whether or not Flight 93 is in the ditch, or are you going to claim you don't have the credentials to address these topics?
 
beachnut said:
There is only reality; your extra possibilities are pure lies, fantasy, and moronic tripe.
There is one reality; you have chosen stupid ideas.

93 was taken by force killing the pilots and the passengers figured out 911 in minutes which leaves you as one of the last fringe no logic people on earth who cant figure out 911 due to some learning disability or mental block.

The Passengers attacked the cockpit; the terrorist flew the plane into the ground. The evidence is clear (RADAR, FDR, DNA, impact site) to those with rational minds; why are you unable to grasp reality?
Click to expand...

Did they attack the cockpit, or did they attack the door to the cockpit because you have zero evidence they ever got in. According to the theory you support, hijacking terrorists who have managed to kill, fit and well trained pilots were scared of food cart wielding passengers banging on a door.

Great theory.
 
RedIbis said:
Did they attack the cockpit, or did they attack the door to the cockpit because you have zero evidence they ever got in. According to the theory you support, hijacking terrorists who have managed to kill, fit and well trained pilots were scared of food cart wielding passengers banging on a door.

Great theory.
Click to expand...

And your great theory is...........??
 
I know you won't Red, so maybe we can start off small, eh? How about you explain why the theory that the passengers attacked the cockpit is BS.Is this part of the cover up ? Please explain why the phone calls from the passengers to loved ones who said they were going to do this is BS, is this part of the cover up ? Explain why the blackbox transcript is BS, is this part of the cover up ?

When you are ready.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom