Flight 93

[beachnut]

... Once again, if we don't deal with it, we run the risk of an even bigger false flag op against us.

This is not evidence is paranoia. You sound like Tim McVeigh, an anti-government conspiracy theorists who lack knowledge. Have you been to talk to the victims relatives to tell then your delusion.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html

You failed with delusional beam weapon.
You failed with jet fuel implying it can't burn.
You failed with flight 93.
What other idiotic ideas do you have.


You debunk yourself when you present evidence the wallet and passport of someone who boarded Flight 93 253 miles away was found at the crash site. Debunked yourself. Good job.

Coming grips with your insane delusions looks like a lost cause, you are so paranoid you repeal knowledge and repeat your lie with idiotic paranoid anti-government double talk.

 

[jammonius]

So it's entirely possible that United Airlines has these pieces in storage somewhere (or at least some of them).

Hypothetical: some guys in dark suits and sunglasses arrive at jammonius' basement door. "Mr. Jammonius, we want to show you something. Please come with us." They take Jammonius to the storage location containing parts of Flight 93. They show him the serial numbers, the parts, the part lists, the pieces of fusalage, the Shanksville dirt embedded in the parts, the dried blood of dead passengers, the many pictures and documentations taken at the time and not made public because they are of, oh you know, body parts.

Is there anything they can show jammonius that would change his mind about what did or didn't happen to Flight 93?

What about it, jammonius? What would it take, exactly?

Hey sylvan,

I'm easy. If what you describe were to happen and the gents in the suits and shades were to escort me to, say, the FBI's evidence locker or warehouse where evidence that must satisfy a "chain of custody" process in order to be admitted as evidence in a regular court is kept, I'd be well on my way to considering it reliable. One double checks the details, of course.

If, however, the dudes took me to a United Airlines facility, claiming the FBI gave them the plane parts it recovered, I would say "gentlemen, you are engaging in deception." and I would then say "the jig is up;" assuming I had some witnesses nearby and hadn't formed the impression that the suits and shades were about to do me in for knowing too much. After all, one way to keep the common myth in place is to use threats of violence, right?

 

[lapman]

Hi Big Al,

I can read that paper and not conclude that the authors and people named didn't know that a big jet crashed in a corn field in shanksville because the study describes discord, cover up and deception.

False. Unsupported by evidence.
-snip-

"The designation of the crash site as a federal crime scene made the response
event somewhat unique for the local and state responders. The coordinated
response and recovery activities among the various local and state agencies
proceeded smoothly, according to the plans that were in place. The initial
perception of the FBI by several of the local responders was that the local
coordination was working well and the FBI was just doing its job without
really working with the locals. Federal interagency cooperation appeared to
be coordinated; however, there were initial rough spots between the federal
and local responders."

That paragraph describes conflict between the locals and the feds. One reason for the apparent discord is very likely that the locals were questioning whether a jetliner crashed or not. After all, no need to discuss trust if everything was hunky dory.

False assumption not supported by evidence.

But, questioning the feds is not an easy thing to do in connection with 9/11, either back then or now.

Especially since that pesky little thing called evidence backs up what they say. Oh, I forgot. You have shown that you don't believe in evidence.

After all, anyone who questioned the common myth, especially as it was being drummed into our collective psyche, would have received the kind of treatment I receive around here, right? The common myth mandates agreement, otherwise one is considered to be going against an established, even sacred, norm, to put it in polite language.

Nobody here has any problem with going against the establishment. However, we do have a problem with people like you that ignore evidence and make up your own.

I have said pages and pages ago that 9/11 is an emotional issue. One has to believe in the common myth, even as it was being drummed into consciousness, or else get called "nuts."

Nope. People believe what the evidence shows. Maybe you should try it. However, your history shows that you have no interest in evidence and truth.

Let me conclude by asking this: Has some hint of lucidity encroached on your consciousness yet, Big Al? When you achieve breakthrough, don't worry, you won't be alone. Sooner or later a critical mass will be achieved and the public will do what has to be done to unravel the 9/11 myth.

Actually, we have completely unraveled the myths purveyed by the likes of you for quite a few years.

Coming to grips with the falsity of the 9/11 myth won't be easy.

We've completely come to grips with the falsity of the 9/11 truth movement myths. The plethora of evidence that people like you ignore has helped rational people like us come to grips with it quite well.

It could be very painful and social unrest could happen. It will be better, I think, to face the music sooner rather than later, though. Once again, if we don't deal with it, we run the risk of an even bigger false flag op against us.

This has been predicted for quite some time. The problem is that the people that were supposed to be behind the "even bigger false flag op" are now out of office. So take your own advice and face the music. Your movement is irrelevant.

 

[BigAl]

Answers in red.

Hi Big Al,

I can read that paper and not conclude that the authors and people named didn't know that a big jet crashed in a corn field in shanksville because the study describes discord, cover up and deception.

As it's you asking the question, Big Al, I'll assume you'll be curious enough to follow up. Please read the section entitled:

"Impact on Interaction and Trust"

See pg. 12 of the Colorado study. It starts with this:

"The designation of the crash site as a federal crime scene made the response
event somewhat unique for the local and state responders. The coordinated
response and recovery activities among the various local and state agencies
proceeded smoothly, according to the plans that were in place. The initial
perception of the FBI by several of the local responders was that the local
coordination was working well and the FBI was just doing its job without
really working with the locals. Federal interagency cooperation appeared to
be coordinated; however, there were initial rough spots between the federal
and local responders."

That paragraph describes conflict between the locals and the feds.


Such is life. It happened in spades between NYPD and the Feds for the capture of Najibullah Zazi and friends a couple months ago.

So what?


One reason for the apparent discord is very likely that the locals were questioning whether a jetliner crashed or not. After all, no need to discuss trust if everything was hunky dory.

Please show us what you read that suggests in the context of the whole paper that there was no Flight 93 crash.


But, questioning the feds is not an easy thing to do in connection with 9/11, either back then or now.

After all, anyone who questioned the common myth, especially as it was being drummed into our collective psyche, would have received the kind of treatment I receive around here, right? The common myth mandates agreement, otherwise one is considered to be going against an established, even sacred, norm, to put it in polite language.

I have said pages and pages ago that 9/11 is an emotional issue. One has to believe in the common myth, even as it was being drummed into consciousness, or else get called "nuts."

That is what the Univ of Colorado researchers are telling you. But hey, Big Al, I know you can't go there yet.

Let me conclude by asking this: Has some hint of lucidity encroached on your consciousness yet, Big Al? When you achieve breakthrough, don't worry, you won't be alone. Sooner or later a critical mass will be achieved and the public will do what has to be done to unravel the 9/11 myth.

I can't unread all the history and forensics and science that tells me that Flight 93 was hihacked and crashed in Shanksville. Here is just a little bit if it.

You have done nothing, nothing to make anyone doubt the reality of all the evidence. Here is my reading list.


Some Flight 93 Evidence Updated 5/27/09
http://911links.webs.com/Flight93.htm

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[[7]
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
[19] Flight 93 Radar track
[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed

 

[jammonius]

There. I bolded what you refuse to acknowledge. General Arnold specifically states that it was not an exercise. Therefore, you're own source confirmed that the 9/11 hijackings did happen.

[qimg]http://www.dustwave.net/zooi/epic_fail3.jpg[/qimg]

Hey lapman,

It is as if you do not know that the 9/11 Commission repudiated the military personnel who testified, accusing them of systematic lying. It is as if you do not recall that Bush and Cheney trashed out the investigation by appearing together, not testifying under oath and not permitting a transcript of what they said to be made, let alone released. And you accredit General Arnold for asking if it was exercise, then saying it wasn't as being a statement that confirms the common myth?

And, to boot, you post up what apparently is your impression that you have achieved a eureka moment of high value?

What you've actually done is demonstrate just how important it is to maintain belief in the common myth, at all costs.

I understand.

 

[lapman]

Hey lapman,

It is as if you do not know that the 9/11 Commission repudiated the military personnel who testified, accusing them of systematic lying. It is as if you do not recall that Bush and Cheney trashed out the investigation by appearing together, not testifying under oath and not permitting a transcript of what they said to be made, let alone released. And you accredit General Arnold for asking if it was exercise, then saying it wasn't as being a statement that confirms the common myth?

And, to boot, you post up what apparently is your impression that you have achieved a eureka moment of high value?

What you've actually done is demonstrate just how important it is to maintain belief in the common myth, at all costs.

I understand.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all. You use Arnold's statement to "prove" your point and when it's shown to do the opposite, now he's lying. It wasn't a "eureka moment." Unlike you, I follow the evidence. As others have stated, when are you going to post some? I can gather by your absolute belief in the "Truth Movement" myths that you have this need to be important. It's unfortunate that you've attached yourself to the "Truth Movement" lies and deceptions in a piss poor attempt to gain importance.

 

[jammonius]

Answers in red.

Big Al,

Lists don't provide any proof. But that doesn't mean you need to provide quotes and links as you aren't going to prove anything one way or another. The information you can point to is all tainted and contradictory. I have shown this time after time after time, each time someone has posted up something specific.

There is no information you can point to that meets proof standards. We've seen what happens when you go the cell phone route. You are intercepted by the military exercises and the inherent unprovable assumptions assoicated with telephonic or radio transmission; namely, the inability to establish where the conversations came from.

The DNA data are equally unpersuasive based on the content of the reports and upon the irrational disconnect between the claim, on the one hand, that the plane vaporized and nothing was left, and the claim of DNA identification on the other. The coroner found no bodies and he and others said there was no blood.

The Univ of Colorado study shows how deception was a factor in making sure the locals didn't see any more than they had already seen; namely, that there was nothing there to see.

But all this is pointless, isn't it Big Al? One has to reclaim the capacity for rational thought and the ability not to allow the emotional need to believe in the common myth to cloud one's capacity for reason before doing any of this.

 

[BigAl]

Big Al,

Lists don't provide any proof. But that doesn't mean you need to provide quotes and links

By themselves, no. You have to read the books and web pages the list points to.

 

[jammonius]

Oh the hypocrisy of it all. You use Arnold's statement to "prove" your point and when it's shown to do the opposite, now he's lying. It wasn't a "eureka moment." Unlike you, I follow the evidence. As others have stated, when are you going to post some? I can gather by your absolute belief in the "Truth Movement" myths that you have this need to be important. It's unfortunate that you've attached yourself to the "Truth Movement" lies and deceptions in a piss poor attempt to gain importance.

lapman,

You're still a bit too excitable. Get a grip. I've told everyone here I understand how strong the emotional hold of the 9/11 myth is. I understand what you're dealing with, but you need to chill.

I have been quite consistent in my treatment of Arnold. Here is exactly how I introduced him to this thread back on pg. 10 when I first mentined him:

"As far as the exercises are concerned, various military officials, like say, General Arnold told various cover stories about the existence of military exercies on 9/11. The problem is, of course, the 9/11 Commission Report is fraudulent, so it cannot be relied on for much,

You can decide whether you believe General Arnold or not."

Once again, lapman, calm down.

 

[Dog Town]

One has to reclaim the capacity for rational thought and the ability not to allow the emotional need to believe...

Oh the irony!
Jam you should read the words in your quote. Then think about them long, and hard!

Cuz you just...

 

[carlitos]

Given his posting record, I will give him credit for staying within the rules of the forum. I think that our jammonius is a 'functional paranoid schizophrenic.' And for that, kudos. He can probably hold down a job as well.

He's 100% wrong about the burden of proof, and his insane claims, but no matter.

 

[beachnut]

lapman,

You're still a bit too excitable. Get a grip. I've told everyone here I understand how strong the emotional hold of the 9/11 myth is. I understand what you're dealing with, but you need to chill.

I have been quite consistent in my treatment of Arnold. Here is exactly how I introduced him to this thread back on pg. 10 when I first mentined him:

"As far as the exercises are concerned, various military officials, like say, General Arnold told various cover stories about the existence of military exercies on 9/11. The problem is, of course, the 9/11 Commission Report is fraudulent, so it cannot be relied on for much,

You can decide whether you believe General Arnold or not."

Once again, lapman, calm down.

You post lies, and you have no clue why.

Why are you so parnoid?

If you had evidence, or could understand what you read and stop cherry picking....
Wait, you are off topic again, and posting SPAM.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

in this thread has harped on that claim, over and over again.

But, according to Univ of Colorado, that didn't stop one of the first responders who wasn't even looking for debris to make the most important finding of all; namely, the hijacker's wallet and passport:

"... the first significant piece of evidence was found the first night by a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper assigned to security, who found the wallet and passport of one of the hijackers (Morrison, 2002)."

So, there ya go posters. We have proven FL 93 crashed, burned disintegrated and was hijacked because we have the wallet and the passport found, not by a first responder looking for debris, but by a trooper doing security detail.

LMAO! Someone found evidence traceable to the crash, therefore crash didn't happen?? Seriously? He wasn't intending to find it, therefore it's unreliable? Honestly?

I hate to whip out the cliché, but:


And out of all the evidence presented, that's what you key on?? One, single piece out of the plethora available?

Man, I'm starting to feel a bit guilty here... replying to Jammonious is starting to feel like clubbing a baby seal: He doesn't have any idea what's happening to him.

Hey elmondo, keep up the good work and let us know when you detect any signs of delusion, any at all.

Oh, man, the problem is not detecting it... it's keeping the sensors from burning out due to the overwhelming signal.

 

[lapman]

There is no information you can point to that meets proof standards.

Well, they meet the proof standards in the real world. However, in your delusionary world, only information that supports your position meets your highly skewed standard.

We've seen what happens when you go the cell phone route. You are intercepted by the military exercises and the inherent unprovable assumptions associated with telephonic or radio transmission; namely, the inability to establish where the conversations came from.

In the real world, that would not be essential since there would be no way to show where the phone call originated. As far as the exercises, it was already shown that it was quickly established that the events of 9/11 were not a part of any exercise. More importantly, there never has been a military exercise that came even close to duplicating what happened on 9/11.

The DNA data are equally unpersuasive based on the content of the reports and upon the irrational disconnect between the claim, on the one hand, that the plane vaporized and nothing was left, and the claim of DNA identification on the other. The coroner found no bodies and he and others said there was no blood.

The false claims continue. The plane did not "vaporize." Everything was consistent with what happens in a high speed crash of an aircraft. You then follow up with something taken completely out of context. Yes, no bodies were found. Yet there were many body parts found. Again, something consistent with a high speed plane crash. You have absolute with the common fallacious belief that all plane crashes leave intact bodies laying around.

The Univ of Colorado study shows how deception was a factor in making sure the locals didn't see any more than they had already seen; namely, that there was nothing there to see.

Only to people that refuse to actually read what the study states.

But all this is pointless, isn't it Big Al? One has to reclaim the capacity for rational thought and the ability not to allow the emotional need to believe in the common myth to cloud one's capacity for reason before doing any of this.

Again, you must heed your own advice. You have shown that you are completely unable to think rationally. Evidence and proof are foreign concepts to you. When concrete evidence is presented, you panic and do everything to trivialize it. What you claimed the piece of aircraft with the windows that are not found on cargo aircraft is proof of your inability to accept anything that is outside your belief system.

 

[lapman]

lapman,

You're still a bit too excitable. Get a grip. I've told everyone here I understand how strong the emotional hold of the 9/11 myth is. I understand what you're dealing with, but you need to chill.

Excitable? You're the comedic entertainment of the night.

I have been quite consistent in my treatment of Arnold. Here is exactly how I introduced him to this thread back on pg. 10 when I first mentined him:

"As far as the exercises are concerned, various military officials, like say, General Arnold told various cover stories about the existence of military exercies on 9/11. The problem is, of course, the 9/11 Commission Report is fraudulent, so it cannot be relied on for much,

You can decide whether you believe General Arnold or not."

Ok, I sit corrected on that. However, none of your ilk has ever provided proof of any military exercises that would have duplicated or even interfered with the military response on 9/11. Many claims have been made. However, when those claims were given even a cursory look, they showed to be irrelevant.

Once again, lapman, calm down.

I'll think about it once I stop laughing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Wait... So the Pennsylvania State Police are in on it too? Is it just the one barracks or is it all of them?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait... So the Pennsylvania State Police are in on it too? Is it just the one barracks or is it all of them?

Well, at least he's not denying they exist . My point is, it's not the craziest he can get about that specific issue.

 

[lapman]

Well, at least he's not denying they exist . My point is, it's not the craziest he can get about that specific issue.

Give it time.

 

[I Ratant]

There. I bolded what you refuse to acknowledge. General Arnold specifically states that it was not an exercise. Therefore, you're own source confirmed that the 9/11 hijackings did happen.

[qimg]http://www.dustwave.net/zooi/epic_fail3.jpg[/qimg]

.
When you read the entire section, it's obvious everyone was Punk'd.
Tracking planes that didn't exist, listening to conversations from persons on those non-existent planes, ...
it gets so genuinely insane that "Conditional Irreducible Delusion:" could use the jboy as their poster child.

 

[beachnut]

... Oh, man, the problem is not detecting it... it's keeping the sensors from burning out due to the overwhelming signal.

2 aspirins, and lots of margaritas will help me get my filing complete.

Where is the plane, a USAF plane impacted at high speed; Someone was posting how Flt 93 crash was unique, and it is. But the USAF has accidents that are similar in speed and destruction of the aircraft where only small parts are left and the engines and pilot have to be dug out of the ground. Flight 93 hit at 600 mph, usually crashes in the airlines are at slower speeds where large parts remain. Also if planes fall apart in the air, large parts do make to the ground.

To have wallets, or passports survive a 600 mph impact is not an anomaly. The small light weight objects can survive if ejected away from any fire.