Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

[twinstead]

The Commission Report states explicitly that a passenger yelled out, "Roll it" because that's what was on the transcript. "Let's roll" never appears in the report.

So answer my question: Don't you think a cover up would have made sure that the Commission Report verified that "Let's roll" was said?

The passenger "counter-attack" and "Let's Roll" are the two most indelible images of Flight 93. If the reality is that the passengers never made it inside the cockpit and Beamer never yelled "Let's roll," you can see why the Bush administration wouldn't exactly publicize this. I've read the report, and I had trouble finding it's brief discussion of the passenger revolt.

Again. Why would the Bush administration need to publicize it? If this were some grand plot like you say, (unless of course you take everything the Commission Report says as the truth, then of course you have other issues) the Commission Report would have just said "let's roll".

This is relevant to an Inside Job discussion because this exaggeration combined with a lack of evidence in the ditch further casts doubt on the official story of Flight 93.

No, it just means there is, as in EVERY LARGE-SCALE INVESTIGATION, some questions about the details. It only casts doubt on the official story because you have decided it does.

I've heard many people say that they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but they think the plane was shot down, an unfortunate but necessary act. If this is true than the "crash scene" was certainly faked.

Regardless of what 'many people' you've heard say, there is no evidence to support a shoot down, nor is there any reason to cover up "an ufortunate but necessary act", and A CRAPLOAD of evidence to support a crash.

What you are doing is trying find a way, ANY way, to hand wave away evidence that supports the official story by trying to insert irrelevent, yet somehow in your eyes of equal weight, evidence. It's just mental gymnastics.

 

[Pardalis]

What you are doing is trying find a way, ANY way, to hand wave away evidence that supports the official story by trying to insert irrelevent, yet somehow in your eyes evidence of equal weight.

For a moment there I could swear you were talking about Creationists.

 

[twinstead]

For a moment there I could swear you were talking about Creationists.

Yup. Funny how it works out like that

 

[RedIbis]

So answer my question: Don't you think a cover up would have made sure that the Commission Report verified that "Let's roll" was said?

Again. Why would the Bush administration need to publicize it? If this were some grand plot like you say, (unless of course you take everything the Commission Report says as the truth, then of course you have other issues) the Commission Report would have just said "let's roll".

No, it just means there is, as in EVERY LARGE-SCALE INVESTIGATION, some questions about the details. It only casts doubt on the official story because you have decided it does.

Regardless of what 'many people' you've heard say, there is no evidence to support a shoot down, nor is there any reason to cover up "an ufortunate but necessary act", and A CRAPLOAD of evidence to support a crash.

What you are doing is trying find a way, ANY way, to hand wave away evidence that supports the official story by trying to insert irrelevent, yet somehow in your eyes evidence of equal weight. It's just mental gymnastics.

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

I think I've heard somewhere that the hijackers were given the directive to take the plane down immediately if they were in danger of losing control. It may have been in some of the handwritten instruction found in Atta's belongings. Does anyone remember this?

(By the way...a "fit and well trained pilot" is fit and trained to fly a plane, not to fight off a homicidal attack while strapped tightly to his chair in a cramped cockpit.)

 

[Pardalis]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

What do you think a plane crashing at 563 mph would look like?

 

[Jackanory]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

Please link us to the evidence that supports the 'no soil contamination' and 'nor is it able to burn the grass along the rim'. Anything that supports this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

When large objects collide at extremely high speeds with other large objects, counter-intuitive effects are likely to crop up.

Since it doesn't happen often, we don't have experience to tell us what SHOULD happen, and common sense certainly isn't appropriate in this situation.

Also, it is very likely that your information is incomplete and/or inaccurate.

There you go! No contortions necessary.

 

[twinstead]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

Can you cite any reports that say there was no soil contamination PRIOR to the clean up? As far as the burning the grass, now that's just personal incredulity. You are again ignoring all the evidence that supports a crash. You can't just come up with a couple non issues like soil contamination AFTER THE CLEAN UP and some odd requirement that a certain patch of grass MUST have been burnt or it was all faked without yourself being questioned as to how all that evidence got there, and how all the first responders and volunteers who spent days picking up bits of airplane and human remains were fooled.

So, again, you are trying to shove non-issues down our throats all the while playing God of the Gaps rhetorical games with us. Jesus, we're not idiots.

 

[RedIbis]

Please link us to the evidence that supports the 'no soil contamination' and 'nor is it able to burn the grass along the rim'. Anything that supports this.

Go through the thread. We've covered it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

Red I'll admit, you got me curious about that when you first brought it up... Whether the result was a quirk or was a result of the tests being done as the site was being cleaned up it doesn't do anything to change that the DNA of all passengers, and 95% of the plane's mass was recovered. Unfortunately the contamination semantic issues you have while interesting aren't enough to make me think twice about whether or not the crash happened. For the nth time, the majority of what's available points to flight 93 having plowed into the soil. Your opinions on how much of the plane should have been intact or the lack thereof is irrelevant

 

[RedIbis]

Can you cite any reports that say there was no soil contamination PRIOR to the clean up? As far as the burning the grass, now that's just personal incredulity. You are again ignoring all the evidence that supports a crash. You can't just come up with a couple non issues like soil contamination AFTER THE CLEAN UP and some odd requirement that a certain patch of grass MUST have been burnt or it was all faked without yourself being questioned as to how all that evidence got there, and how all the first responders and volunteers who spent days picking up bits of airplane and human remains were fooled.

So, again, you are trying to shove non-issues down our throats all the while playing God of the Gaps rhetorical games with us. Jesus, we're not idiots.

Personal incredulity? .

 

[Pardalis]

If flight 93 was shot down, where did all the debris go?

They did find the debris and human remains from Challenger and Columbia, which were a much powerful and devastating explosions, so you won't be able to claim all of the plane got disintegrated.

 

[johnny karate]

I think real contortions come in when you try to explain how a 100 ton commercial airliner crashes into the ground and doesn't leave behind any soil contamination, nor is it able to burn the grass growing along the rim.

Time and again, you've displayed your complete lack of understanding of how science works. What you describe as "contortions" others far more intelligent and qualified see as well within the realm of expectation.

Out of the hundreds of eye witnesses, first responders, and crash scene investigators, not one has ever expressed a doubt that UA 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville.

Let's see you explain that without resorting to contortions.

 

[RedIbis]

Red I'll admit, you got me curious about that when you first brought it up... Whether the result was a quirk or was a result of the tests being done as the site was being cleaned up it doesn't do anything to change that the DNA of all passengers, and 95% of the plane's mass was recovered. Unfortunately the contamination semantic issues you have while interesting aren't enough to make me think twice about whether or not the crash happened. For the nth time, the majority of what's available points to flight 93 having plowed into the soil. Your opinions on how much of the plane should have been intact or the lack thereof is irrelevant

Semantic issues?

Does it really look like a plane crashed in that ditch?

 

[Pardalis]

http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpgDoes it really look like a plane crashed in that ditch?

What do you think it should have looked like?

And please show evidence why you think so.

 

[twinstead]

Semantic issues?

Does it really look like a plane crashed in that ditch?

Who cares what it looks like to you? How many times do we have to go over this? The overwhelming evidence supports a crash. Obviously, your expectations of what the 'ditch' should look like is WRONG.

rational people wouldn't ignore that evidence in favor of some ignorant incredulity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Semantic issues?

Does it really look like a plane crashed in that ditch?

No redibis, it looks like a meteor impact. And all of these were comet impacts
It must be since I don't see a 100-ton airliner in either of these.

Now run along, personal incredulity is calling for you
You don't care anyway, you've been doing this for a few years now... why would I expect you to change after your seeing these for the thousandth time

 

[Pardalis]

RedIbis' repetitive use of the word "ditch" makes it look like he enjoys disrespecting the death of these people.

 

[Myriad]

Does it really look like a plane crashed in that ditch?

Of course not. If I were to walk past a scene like that, I'd never think "wow, a plane must have crashed there." (If it were still burning, I'd probably think, "hmm, looks like some trash burning in a landfill.")

But, so what? What it looks like to me or your has nothing to do with anything. Last I checked, neither of us is an air crash investigator, and neither of us has actually examined the scene.

We don't assess aircraft crashes based on what they look like to laymen in photographs. That would be ridiculous.

When you need a medical diagnosis or a checkup, do you send a photo of yourself to your doctor and ask him what diseases it looks like you have? If not, why not? It would certainly be easier than meeting the doctor face to face for an actual examination. Is it possible that the examination serves some useful purpose?

Respectfully,
Myriad