Flight 93

[jammonius]

Already done, Good luck changing simile to conspiracy, Dumbenick tried to put words in his mouth.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

.

What are you gloating about, AW? Kindly explain in words and phrases. I gather you have no real response to the weak, insipid nature of the Moussaoui evidence you previously posted up? Asking questions about the reliability of documents is not moving the goal posts. I had plainly said validated and authenticated lists. Photocopies of photocopies that were not used in a setting (the Moussaoui evidence) where one would have expected them to be used is an outcome determining event in connection with the unreliability of the lists you produced, as I see it.

But, let's put it this way. If you are satisfied with the authenticity of the lists you produced, then you are free to say so. If that is where YOU want the goal posts to be planted, namely not very far away, then fine, I can't change that.

I will stand by my assertion that those poor photocopies dated as of October 4, 2002, coming from who knows whither and going to who knows where are fundamentally inadmissible as evidence.

I thought you were taking your time in order to try to salvage the Moussaoui evidence you tried to rely on by posting up some more persuasive photos and/or to try to resurrect those unreliable photocopies of photocopies of alleged passenger manifests dated a year after the event with something better than a restatement of your goal post claim. Why didn't you respond to the burden of proof quote from skeptic wiki that I posted up? Do you claim your photocopies of photocopies cannot be questioned at all?

Please explain what you think the video stands for. And, once again, this is not about "winning" and "losing." It is about posting up reasoned statements. Reason stands or falls on its own merit and doesn't need to be hyped.

thanks

 

[A W Smith]

What are you gloating about, AW. Kindly explain in words and phrases. I gather you have no response to the weak, insipid nature of the Moussaoui evidence you previously posted up?

I thought you were taking your time in order to try to salvage the Moussaoui evidence you tried to rely on and/or to try to resurrect those unreliable photocopies of photocopies of alleged passenger manifests dated a year after the event?

You appear to have dropped that ball completely and now you come with some sort of video splurb that you do not even explain?

Please explain what you think the video stands for.

thanks

Apparently. you skipped a post jammonius

And since you are editing your own posts. I guess I can edit mine

A reminder

the prosecution used the data extracted from the manifests I posted as evidence in other documents used during that trial.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/P200018.html

Notice how the seat assignments in the flash presentation. match that of the faxed manifests I had shown you in my post.

 

[beachnut]

Some people who prefer lies and telling lies about 911, inspired by the liars called 911Truth, call these parts of Flight 93 a myth, they can't form rational conclusions based on evidence. These people who lack knowledge prefer to remain in ignorance and post lies on the Internet.

Thousand of parts of Flight 93 called a myth by knowledge free people who can't do physics.

All the Passengers were identified on Flight 93 by DNA.

These are parts from a 600 mph. The impact crater is behind this location. Not a single person has refuted with evidence these are parts from Flight 93. Why can't 911 truth produce a single fact or shred of evidence? They only post lies backed up by delusions, hearsay and stupidity.

 

[BigAl]

Well, it looks like AW has upped and left us with the result being the thread has returned to its norm of little or no substance being posted.

Big Al, you had your chance and now, yet again, you've demonstrated your piety when it comes to 9/11 victims is fake.

I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

 

[jammonius]

Apparently. you skipped a post jammonius

That is true. I only noticed it after posting the original draft. I did modify, somewhat, after seeing your attempt to resurrect your "goal post" claim.

For what it's worth, that is all a part of the same concept as that of "impossible perfection." If you think it is asking too much for authenticated manifests, then please know we have a disagreement.

More than that, however, it is becoming clear that the emotional factor is too dominant for reason.

I see no reason to continue much further, absent someone posting up a piece of compelling evidence of information supporting the proposition that a Boeing 757 jetliner crashed in Shanksville Pa.

Big Al took a pass at the 'cell phone' evidence, but posted it in a way that was too personal for me to respond to, absent the clearances I requested.

Just as a suggestion, AW, why don't you go down the cell phone path?

In my experience, in 9/11 discussion, the A number 1, drop-dead show stopper for proponents of the official version of events consists in variations on the fallacy "...what about the passengers?...

That one is a show stopper because it sets up an emotional barrier to reasoning. Big Al almost went there, but he framed it in a way that killed it.

Cell phone calls are an aspect of "what about the passengers?" and might be useful for you to explore.

If you give that one your best shot, I will respond. Mind you, I am not here telling you what to do, I'm just making a suggestion.

 

[jammonius]

The NTSB does accidents, the police do crime.

... the goal of AirDisaster.Com
They do accidents, not crime. (but do they have 911 stuff? yes, can't trust anyone)


Our latest expert was looking for crime photos at an accident web site.
And he missed it.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/12.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/wtc/2.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/2.shtml
They also post photos from crimes.
Aircraft crashes documented at airdisaser.com.

It was from Flight 93 crash area; and you can't prove it was not because you can't identify it. Due to your lack of knowledge you say it was horse trailer. That make you not an expert at much more than being wrong about everything. You failed to prove it was horse trailer, and you can't refute it was found near the imapct area. 8 years to put togther your fantasy and you can't identify part of an airliner. Is this your A-game?

It is a fuselage section, either you have knowledge and you agree or you lack knowledge and make up moronic lies and call it a horse trailer. Which is it, are you capable of rational thought or do you make up lies and spread false information? So far you are in the make up lies business, how do you intend to back out of being a poster of pure nut case discombobulated poppycock?

That photo is from Flight 93 the only plane to go down in Pennsylvania on 911 of that size. Only a morons can't identify the aircraft with the evidence available; and I agree you are not a moron, you just post lies about 911. The fact it is Flight 93 is backed up by the FDR, RADAR, and DNA of the passengers is proof it is flight 93. And I know you will never refute the DNA evidence because you can't even find it; so you can't start to refute evidence you can't even find out of ignorance, the judge will laugh you out of court and your the Pulitzer Prize is not granted to the baseless delusions and lies you post.

If you need help with rational questions you can get help here. So far you post lies and poppycock and act like a kid who can't learn.

This is skeptic forum, are you at the wrong place, you don't hold any of the lies you post without evidence to any scrutiny. Do you think you will ever use evidence to bake your claims which are definitely delusions without any evidence. Do you know what evidence is? You know FDR, DNA, RADAR, and the aircraft parts from Flight 93 exactly where the RADAR track stops, and the FDR confirms the speed of impact, which is evident by the damage to the aircraft? Any clues on where your evidence is lost at? Did you dog eat it?


If you have evidence to deny Flight 93 crashed in PA why do you hold it and keep it a secret (you don't have any)? Post your evidence, and stop posting proof of your ignorance by claiming the fuselage is a horse trailer. That was a stupid post.

What do your friends in the Navy call your delusions on 911?

beachnut,

This replies both to the quoted post and to the most recent one where you reposted this photo:

I think you remarked or quoted the fact that airdisaster.com has 2,519 photos of 519 air crash accidents.

I admit I haven't looked at all of them. However, among those that I have looked at, they all pretty clearly show conditions that are indisputably consistent with, well, plane crashes.

Your photo, big and blown up as it is, shows conditions that might be consistent with a UFO claim or a ghost claim, bedause of those pink circles, probably caused by sun glare, but your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash.

There is no emotional condition strong enough for you to be able to post the above photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

I don't care how strongly you need to defend the official version of events, that photo does not do it. Are we clear on this, beachnut? Your photo shows nothing at all that would support a claim a jetliner crashed anywhere shown on that photo and it is ludicrous for you to try to say otherwise.

 

[DavidJames]

I see no reason to continue much further...

Good bye and please give Killtown my regards.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The above is unworthy of discussion based on reason. How many times must one remind folks here that you cannot presume what hasn't been proven? You cannot use presumed facts about what happens in a jetliner crash to prove a jetliner crash occurred.

You cannot say there's no evidence of a jetliner crash, therefore the jetliner must have vaporized and burned away all of the evidence of a jetliner crash. Doing so is an unworthy trick of reasoning.

Look, you have an advantage over me. Were I to post up something as illogical as what you did, you would likely, if this thread is any guide, promptly post up epithets, put downs and pronouncements about my sanity. I cannot do that in turn. First of all, it isn't worth it and I don't need that kind of emotional gratification.

Any reasonable, well-adjusted person would realize that when the coroner expressed surprise that there were no bodies, he was commenting on the violence of the crash. He was NOT expressing skepticism that there was an actual crash there.

Truthers don't seem to understand the concept of subtext. If you look at what someone says in the context of the situation and in other statements he makes, then you can usually figure out these sorts of things. That's why journalists rarely explain exactly what a person meant when they reference a quote--to the average person, the full meaning is obvious.

To truthers, not so obvious. It's as if context were not relevant and all that matters is his own set of beliefs, through which everything he experiences is filtered.

 

[carlitos]

I think that further engagement would just be mean on my part. jammonius is to "evidence" for 9/11 as Joseph Farah is to President Obama's birth certificate.

ETA - good point on context / subtext. I think it's in someone's signature here, that Google is great because it removes context automatically?

 

[jammonius]

I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

Big Al,

You cherry-picked my post to you and made it sound as if I was saying something that I wasn't really saying. However, this is a message board and we are engaging in competitive banter, I suppose, even if there's nothing to be won or lost.

So, I accept that you know of real people who died on 9/11 and that the experience was personally traumatic. I am not taking issue with you on that, at all.

What I do take issue with is that you do not have the right to presume that you are more sympathetic to victims than I am and that questioning 9/11, in general, by anyone, is unsympathetic to victims. It is no such thing.

However, that said, I have already acknowledged, several times now, that taking exception to the common version of events of 9/11 does inherently raise questions that are far too painful and far too difficult for most people to confront. If the implications of 9/11 being a false flag op, to some degree or other, are true, then that makes us a rogue nation who did something that is almost historically unprecedented in its wickedness; as well as having made fools of all of us.

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.

take care, Big Al

 

[carlitos]

just one more try!

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.

Could you possible describe the "what" in your sentence above. Also the "it" that is highlighted. I'm dying for this info and you won't give it to me. I find this very, very odd. What happened that was so bad that "it" might happen again on an even larger and more deadly scale?

 

[BigAl]

Those implications are too painful to look at, UNLESS and UNTIL we come to grips with the fact that if we do not confront what happened on 9/11, it will almost certainly be done to us again on an even larger and more deadly scale.

take care, Big Al

19 Arab Islamists lead by bin Laden (who declared war on the US in 1991 and was already responsible for killing a couple hundred Americans) hijacked 4 jets and proceeded to crash them into two towers, the Pentagon and a corn field, killing all on board and about 3,0000 other people.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The second and more important factor is also emotional. I have said several times that the emotional attachment to the official 9/11 myth is very strong and there exists an emotional need to trust that official version.

What is emotional about accepting the theory that best fits the evidence? What you call the official "myth" is not just the best theory, it is THE ONLY THEORY!

What are we supposed to trust? Do YOU have a theory about what happened on 9/11?

No, you do not. At least not one you'd be willing to share, because it would be crazier than purple spaghetti.

That is because if the official version fails, then Americans will be forced to consider the unthinkable; namely, that elements that we do not understand did this to us for reasons that are equally unthinkable; namely, reasons involving false pretenses and horrificly pretextual justification to attack innocent peoples and countries.

No, the consequences are more dire than that. If the official version fails, then it will mean that the rules of cause and effect that govern the Universe are null and void. We will all cease to exist with a blinding flash of gamma rays.

 

[jammonius]

Any reasonable, well-adjusted person would realize that when the coroner expressed surprise that there were no bodies, he was commenting on the violence of the crash. He was NOT expressing skepticism that there was an actual crash there.

Truthers don't seem to understand the concept of subtext. If you look at what someone says in the context of the situation and in other statements he makes, then you can usually figure out these sorts of things. That's why journalists rarely explain exactly what a person meant when they reference a quote--to the average person, the full meaning is obvious.

To truthers, not so obvious. It's as if context were not relevant and all that matters is his own set of beliefs, through which everything he experiences is filtered.

aggle,

You start with phraseology that seeks to politicize the matter "...any reasonable... would realize..." Well, your purpose is clear; namely, to put yourself on the side of truth and virtue and to put me on the opposite side; but the fact is, you are engaging in a cheap argumentation trick by doing that. I am sorry you found it necessary to do that.

Coroner Miller has a certain expertise, but there is no reason to attribute to him expertise in crash physics and/or the forensics of jetliner crashes. One often hears the phrase "vaporized" when the issue of the jetliners of 9/11 are under discussion. The fact is, there is so little debris, and no properly identified parts from ANY of the 4 crashes that it is baffling as to the amount of time the myth of jetliner crashes has been able to maintain its hold on the public imagination.

Where is the metalurgical analysis that supports this "vaporization" of jetliners? Yes, it is true that the jetliners of 9/11 do appear to have vaporized because there damn sure aren't any jetliners to be found.

But, the reasoned explaination is that is true because there were no jetliners there, and not that they all vaporized for one reason or another. Yet, that word might well be the key word: VAPORIZATION.

Is that what you folks have done to yourselves? Have you driven yourselves into that corner that requires you to assume 4 jetliners got vaporized and left no trace, unlike virtually any other plane or rocket crash ever and none I can think of offhand?

What the heck posters, you talk about 600 mph?

The space shuttle Columbia came unglued at close on to, what was it? 12,000mph and much of it, including the ubiquitous tail section, I believe, or parts of it, like the vertical stabilizer, as well as other recognizable parts, not to leave out respectful mention of human remains, were all found.

I know darn well none of you are going to source or prove your vaporization claims, because the claim has not been proven, merely assumed. And, it has been assumed to have happened not once, twice or thrice, but four times. That is what you folks are reduced to.

good night and good luck

 

[sylvan8798]

I don't need to prove to you or anyone that the people I know that died on 9/11 are real.

Essentially every New Yorker knows people that died on 9/11 and sees the families of these people daily. It's been 9 years and nobody brings up the names of the dead without some sort of permission in conversation. Why I should I communicate a message to her from some loon in the Internet , I have no idea.

See comments 100 and 101 for the potential outcome of such an action:

http://unlimitedhorizonsintl.com/tinc?key=TMMkDV8T&start=-1&reverse=1

Truthers take the cake when it comes to despicable, and they have no limits or boundaries they won't cross.

 

[sylvan8798]

Ok, this guy's a no-planer through and through. Why are people bothering with him? My late mother used to say "never argue with small children or the insane".

 

[A W Smith]

That is true. I only noticed it after posting the original draft. I did modify, somewhat, after seeing your attempt to resurrect your "goal post" claim.

For what it's worth, that is all a part of the same concept as that of "impossible perfection." If you think it is asking too much for authenticated manifests, then please know we have a disagreement.

Again, watch the presentation that was used as evidence at the trial. The seating locations. the list of passengers. Its all there. presented in a court of law and not contested by the defense.

More than that, however, it is becoming clear that the emotional factor is too dominant for reason.

I see no reason to continue much further, absent someone posting up a piece of compelling evidence of information supporting the proposition that a Boeing 757 jetliner crashed in Shanksville Pa.

I have linked to compelling evidence as well as contact info of those who collected it. And interviews of witnesses, Forensic data, Yet your agenda blinds you to it. At this point you are hopelessly lost deep in your rabbit hole.

Big Al took a pass at the 'cell phone' evidence, but posted it in a way that was too personal for me to respond to, absent the clearances I requested.

Just as a suggestion, AW, why don't you go down the cell phone path?

Its been done already in the past
from http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

The Phone Calls


GTE Airfone recovered from flight 93 wreckage


Details of 37 phone calls made from flight 93, from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial

Graph below shows flight 93 at about 5,000 feet when the two cell phone calls at 9:58 were made.

​

Interview with Lisa Jefferson, the phone supervisor who took Todd Beamer's call from United Flight 93.

Operator can't forget haunting cries from Flight 93. (9/10/02)

Dispatcher honored for Flight 93 efforts (John Shaw)

Tom’s Burnett's last calls, as remembered by his wife Deena Note that Deena says she received four calls from Tom, but the chart above indicates only three. It seems likely that Tom would have used an Airfone for the 9:54 call as he did with the others.

Edward Felt's Phone Call
​

Conspiracists often mention a phone call placed by flight 93 passenger Edward Felt to the Westmoreland County 911 Emergency switchboard, because in one version, Felt is said to have heard an explosion and seen white smoke in the plane. This is commonly used by conspiracists to support their claim that flight 93 was shot down: a claim that is supported by no other evidence. There are numerous sources that say Felt did not mention an explosion or smoke, including Felt's family, who heard the recording of his phone call. The incorrect story apparently originated with Glenn Cramer:

"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor. "We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Source

"For example, in the days following the crash, the Associated Press interviewed Glen Cramer, a Westmoreland County emergency services supervisor, who told AP and other news agencies that he had read "off a transcript" that minutes before the crash a passenger, David Felt [sic], had called and told the dispatcher that he had he had heard an explosion and that there was white smoke in the pane.

But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated". Source

“A male passenger, Edward Felt, did call from the bathroom of the plane, but never mentioned an explosion or puff of smoke, said John Shaw, the dispatcher who took the call. “Didn't happen,” he said. Felt's wife, who heard a tape of the call, corroborated Shaw's story.” (Among the Heroes, p. 369) (New York Times, 3/27/02)
The transcript of Ed Felt's call in the 9/11 Commission files (PDF. Thanks Mike W. of 911myths.com.)
John Shaw: received a call from Flight 93
​

GTE Airfone instructions, FAQ, 1998
​

In my experience, in 9/11 discussion, the A number 1, drop-dead show stopper for proponents of the official version of events consists in variations on the fallacy "...what about the passengers?...

That one is a show stopper because it sets up an emotional barrier to reasoning. Big Al almost went there, but he framed it in a way that killed it.

Cell phone calls are an aspect of "what about the passengers?" and might be useful for you to explore.

If you give that one your best shot, I will respond. Mind you, I am not here telling you what to do, I'm just making a suggestion.

See above, And please do not bother presenting a link to A.K. Dewdney, he's been debunked here years ago

 

[aggle-rithm]

aggle,

You start with phraseology that seeks to politicize the matter "...any reasonable... would realize..." Well, your purpose is clear; namely, to put yourself on the side of truth and virtue and to put me on the opposite side; but the fact is, you are engaging in a cheap argumentation trick by doing that. I am sorry you found it necessary to do that.

Wrong.

Coroner Miller has a certain expertise, but there is no reason to attribute to him expertise in crash physics and/or the forensics of jetliner crashes.

Which was probably why he was surprised by the lack of bodies, don't you think?

One often hears the phrase "vaporized" when the issue of the jetliners of 9/11 are under discussion. The fact is, there is so little debris, and no properly identified parts from ANY of the 4 crashes that it is baffling as to the amount of time the myth of jetliner crashes has been able to maintain its hold on the public imagination.

Where is the metalurgical analysis that supports this "vaporization" of jetliners? Yes, it is true that the jetliners of 9/11 do appear to have vaporized because there damn sure aren't any jetliners to be found.

But, the reasoned explaination is that is true because there were no jetliners there, and not that they all vaporized for one reason or another. Yet, that word might well be the key word: VAPORIZATION.

Is that what you folks have done to yourselves? Have you driven yourselves into that corner that requires you to assume 4 jetliners got vaporized and left no trace, unlike any other plane or rocket crash ever?

What the heck posters, you talk about 600 mph?

The space shuttle Columbia came unglued at close on to, what was it? 12,000mph and much of it, including the ubiquitous tail section, was recovered.

I know darn well none of you are going to source or prove your vaporization claims, because the claim has not been proven, merely assumed. And, it has been assumed to have happened not once, twice or thrice, but four times. That is what you folks are reduced to.

good night and good luck

Contact United Airlines. They have recovered 95% of the wreckage of flight 93. Maybe they will let you see it.

Not that this would stop you believing.

 

[DavidJames]

Ok, this guy's a no-planer through and through. Why are people bothering with him? My late mother used to say "never argue with small children or the insane".

Very good advice. If people on this forum would only respond to sound logic and presentation of evidence, the forum would die. As far as I'm concerned this forum should RIP.

 

[A W Smith]

Hello? Dewdney? Jammonious here.

Well I guess he logged off to make some "phone calls". after I posted about the flight 93 calls