• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

MaGZ said:
The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
Click to expand...

Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
 
George152 said:
Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
Click to expand...
Hard for neoNAZIs to comprehend Flight 93 Passengers figuring out 911 in minutes, when they can't figure out 911 after 8 years. The best they can do is make up moronic delusions out of ignorance and hearsay.
... they can't comprehend people standing up and taking action since they only understands sitting and spreading lies.
 
Last edited:
MaGZ said:
The problem is none of us knows what happened except the government. I would like someone here defend the premise that the passengers brought down the plane.
Click to expand...

Define "know what happened". Passengers rebelled and tried to take over the plane, resulting in the plane crash. It is believed, though not conclusively proven, that the hijackers deliberately steered the plane in a crash, to prevent them from being overpowered and captured. That's what the evidence we have suggests, and there is little to disprove it. Why do you doubt it? What is your theory?

McHrozni
 
beachnut said:
The passengers attacked the terrorists, the chicken terrorists only knew how to crash planes and cut throats; kind of like neoNAZIs short on skills and short on brains. The terrorists failed when their game was known, they failed! 75 percent is not close to 100; too bad neoNAZIs can't do math, like the rest of 911 truth who spew lies and idiot ideas which you love. Do you have any usable knowledge on 911 besides idiotic delusions?
Click to expand...

How is it the passengers crashed the plane if they never got into the cockpit?
 
George152 said:
Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
Click to expand...

The passengers on the plane were victims not heroes. They were victims of the hijackers and the American pilot who shot down the plane.
 
MaGZ said:
How is it the passengers crashed the plane if they never got into the cockpit?
Click to expand...

The passengers didn't crash the plane, the hijackers did because they thought they thought their deity would reward them and let them have sex with 72 virgins. To be honest, I never thought the whole 72 virgin thing was a good deal. Sure, 8-10 virgins in, I'd be having a fun. But later in the evening, I'm gonna want a pro. Sooner or later I'm gonna need a woman who knows how to pull the pin on the grenade when we're in the kill zone.
 
McHrozni said:
Define "know what happened". Passengers rebelled and tried to take over the plane, resulting in the plane crash. It is believed, though not conclusively proven, that the hijackers deliberately steered the plane in a crash, to prevent them from being overpowered and captured. That's what the evidence we have suggests, and there is little to disprove it. Why do you doubt it? What is your theory?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

The plane was shot down.

Sure some passengers rebelled once they knew they were on a death flight, but they could do nothing to divert the course of the mission of the flight if they never had access to the cockpit.

It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.
 
dtugg said:
Wrong, they were both. They were heroes for preventing the plane from reaching its intending destination, probably the US capital building.



True.



This is a lie.
Click to expand...

The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.
 
MaGZ said:
The hero was the American pilot who shot Flight 93 down.
Click to expand...

Hey, what's up there dissonance. Let me introduce you to my good friend cognition. I've got a feeling you two will make great pals.
 
femr2 said:
I'm not asking about other parts of the plane, passengers, or whatever else.

There were reports that one of the engines was found (not in tiny pieces) far from the impact site.

Is there specific information which shows those reports to be untrue ?

If there's nothing definitive, no problem. Remains an open book until there is.
Click to expand...

This is a classic example of the anomaly hunting fallacy, as far as I can see. We know that Flight 93 was boarded by four individuals with known connections to al-Qaeda, that it was hijacked by people with Middle Eastern appearances and accents, that it diverted from its course, that the passengers attacked the hijackers and attempted to break into the cockpit, that it crashed near Shanksville, and that about 95% of the remains of the airliner together with sufficient human remains to identify all the crew and passengers were recovered from the crash site. That, for anybody sane, is enough to state that we understand broadly what happened. However, the conspiracy theorist needs to manufacture doubt, even where none exists, in order to give the false impression that some other interpretation of events is plausible. Therefore, he asks for an additional level of detail to that which is already known. In this case, we have accounts that suggest that an entire engine was found in a pond 300 yards from the main crash site, and others that suggest that it was not an entire engine but rather a significant part of that engine. The conspiracy theorist will spin this into a suggestion that, because we have not identified beyond possible doubt this one small, and in fact irrelevant, detail (neither a more-or-less entire engine nor a large part of an engine being found 300 yards from the main crash site would be in any way unexpected from the dynamics of the crash), this one area of doubt renders the entire sequence of events unproven. Hence, the crash "remains an open book" until no conspiracy theorist can conceive of any anomaly, however trivial, that is not clearly resolved in an official report with links to incontravertible evidence (which, since any evidence can in principle be faked, is a non-existent concept for the conspiracy theorist in any case).

Now, femr2, it would be polite at least to state the purpose of your question. If it turns out that the reports of an entire engine being found about 300 yards from the crash site are inaccurate and in fact it was only a part of an engine, what are the implications of this discovery? If it turns out, conversely, that it was not a part but an entire engine, what are the implications? And finally, if neither is substantiated, and there is in fact no verifiable evidence of any sizeable part of the plane having been found outside the main crash site, what then?

(Since there are no reports of significantly sized parts of the plane being found anywhere else, it would be rational to assume that's not a consideration here. Please, please don't tell me that your contention is something along the lines that if one report says that part of an engine was found 300 yards away and another report says that a whole engine was found 300 yards away, the contradiction means that we must consider the possibility that both engines were found six miles away.)

Dave
 
Originally Posted by George152
Why?
The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient. Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
Click to expand...

MaGZ said:
The passengers on the plane were victims not heroes. They were victims of the hijackers and the American pilot who shot down the plane.
Click to expand...


Dodge much?

The cockpit transcripts and the cellphone traffic should be sufficient.
Or are you going to insult the memory of some very brave people?
 
MaGZ said:
It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the hijackers' instructions included a directive to crash the plane at the first opportunity if they were in danger of losing control of the situation.
 
MaGZ said:
The plane was shot down.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Sure some passengers rebelled once they knew they were on a death flight, but they could do nothing to divert the course of the mission of the flight if they never had access to the cockpit.
Click to expand...

By that logic you never wrote this post, because you didn't have the access to my keyboard. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense - you should too.

It is ridiculously illogical to think Jarrah would just crash his plane on his own without completing the mission.
Click to expand...

Appeal to ignorance. He believed he couldn't finish the mission anyway and perfered a suicidal crash to being captured. Such behavior has plentiful precendens, as opposed to, say, US Air Force deliberately shooting down airliners.

McHrozni
 
Magz,

Flight 93 wasn't "shot down" by a jet fighter. Sorry but you're wrong! The John P. Murtha Airport located in my hometown of Johnstown, PA only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. The jet fighters you're talking about were going out towards the N. Atlantic Ocean & were so far away to have an effect on Flt. 93 that it would be impossible for them to shoot it down.

I live 20 miles North of Shanksville & I know someone on this forum who lives near the town that know that what you're saying is crock.

So what are you gonna do? Are ya gonna change the subject or are you gonna persist with this fantasy that Flt. 93 was "shot down", when it wasn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom