Flight 93

[jammonius]

The only thing that is known is that the wreckage was returned to United Airlines. So if anyone knows where it's at today, they haven't told me. I don't know where the pieces would be or whether it's even still available or has been recycled.

The question is, how can its location today be relevant? I sure as heck don't know where the jet's remains are now, but I can point you at a list of people who sure as hell knew where it was on September 11th, as well as for the duration of the crash site cleanup.

elmondo,

Thank you for your reply, it adds to the knowledge base of the thread. If anyone else has any information on the whereabouts of the 95% of the jetliner said to have crashed in Shanksville PA on 9/11/01 can be found, please let us know.

The main reason why its (the wreckage) location today is relevant is that if anyone does ever go on trial, (a real trial and not a show trial) then proof of what happened, including proof that a jetliner crashed will be required. This is one reason why the return of wreckage by the FBI, no less, to United, after the FBI was put forward as the lead investigating agency -- casting the NTSB aside -- seems highly dubious. Law enforcement agencies, from the smallest of small town police departments all the way up the line that presumably ends with the FBI maintain evidence of crime in meticulous ways precisely because proof of crime must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Posters, here is yet another contradiction that supporters of the common myth have to contend with. On the one hand, the FBI set aside NTSB as the investigatory agency for the alleged jetliner crashes because 9/11 was a crime. But, the FBI did not handle the wreckage of the jetliner in accordance with standard evidence colleciton procedures, on the other. That is inconsistent.

In a context where the US government has used 9/11 as justification for invading other countries, for torturing people, for setting aside centuries of precedent as to what constitutes just cause for war, it goes beyond contradictory and enters the realm of complete absurdity to here have to answer a question on why evidence of a jetliner crash had ought to be preserved.

Take Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for instance. At the moment, he is still said to be heading for a criminal trial in a regular federal court, even if his trial is moved out of NYC.

Based on the lack of jetliner crash evidence, I suspect KSM will not be tried and that the media stories that are suggesting that the public would rather hang KSM without a trial will probably develop legs and then become the policy pronouncement. The US would rather take the heat for being a rogue state than run the risk that it cannot prove KSM guilty, I would imagine.

There's a lot more here, including the capacity of a developed nation to document its own history, among many other reasons for carefully dealing with 9/11 evidence.

But, with all of that said, we still come back to the proposition that the US public will still not demand proof of what happened on 9/11 because proof is both irrelevant and possibly confusing to the simple story line that Big Al keeps posting up, as if he is hyponotized and wants the rest of us to be as well.

So, posters, believe me when I say "I understand."

The 9/11 common myth does not have to be shown to be valid. It only needs to be considered true so that we as a people do not have to examine the horrid nature of what was done, let alone give any consideration at all to trying to find out who did it to us.

 

[jammonius]

elmondo,

By the way, that wtc7lies website of yours mentions the word "United" 12 times according to my search engine on that page you linked us to that deals with FL 93. But none of those hits have anything at all to do with where the wreckage can be found, let alone whether it is available for inspection.

One link was said to have dealt with release of the names of the passengers and crew of 93 and 77 (it did not say passenger manifest). This one:

http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html

However, that link is dead as nearly as I can tell. Does anyone know of a substitute link that details whether United ever released a passenger manifest; or, for that matter, the names of the passengers and crew?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The main reason why its (the wreckage) location today is relevant is that if anyone does ever go on trial, (a real trial and not a show trial) then proof of what happened, including proof that a jetliner crashed will be required.

Proof already exists; see above.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

elmondo,

By the way, that wtc7lies website of yours mentions the word "United" 12 times according to my search engine on that page you linked us to that deals with FL 93. But none of those hits have anything at all to do with the wreckage.

One link was said to have dealt with release of the names of the passengers and crew of 93 and 77 (it did not say passenger manifest). This one:

http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html

However, that link is dead as nearly as I can tell. Does anyone know of a substitute link that details whether United ever released a passenger manifest; or, for that matter, the names of the passengers and crew?

The site is Mark Roberts, not mine.

And: Yes, the links do have to do with the wreckage. The whole third page is nothing but. This illustrates your ability to look and comprehend, and it does not cast your ability in a good light. What the first page is is a collection of links to various eyewitness and first responder testimonies. Don't mischaracterize the site; it's too easy for an objective observer to go see for him- or herself what's there, and trying what you're doing does not make you look good. Don't mischaracterize; instead, comprehend what Roberts has posted: A series of links on the first page to various testimonies from people who were there and people who were involved (like the Somerset County Coroner).

 

[Hokulele]

No Real Trial^TM? I wonder what, where, who, and how, exactly, jammonius would consider a fair trial to require...

 

[JimBenArm]

No Real Trial^TM? I wonder what, where, who, and how, exactly, jammonius would consider a fair trial to require...

What? A firing squad. No judge or jury needed. He's got it all figured out.
Where? Any old field will do, where a trench can be dug.
Who? You, me, anyone else not aligned with his "movement".
How? Well, it would consist of him saying "guilty!" and his friends opening fire.

 

[jammonius]

The site is Mark Roberts, not mine.

And: Yes, the links do have to do with the wreckage. The whole third page is nothing but. This illustrates your ability to look and comprehend, and it does not cast your ability in a good light. What the first page is is a collection of links to various eyewitness and first responder testimonies. Don't mischaracterize the site; it's too easy for an objective observer to go see for him- or herself what's there, and trying what you're doing does not make you look good. Don't mischaracterize; instead, comprehend what Roberts has posted: A series of links on the first page to various testimonies from people who were there and people who were involved (like the Somerset County Coroner).

elmondo,

You are playing fast and loose here. However, you may have posted the above before I clarified the post so as to make sure it couldn't be read in the way you are interpreting it.

Separate and apart from that, however, one other important reason for preserving the wreckage is so as to prove or disprove the assertion the Boeing 757 was shot down.

Basically, for those who are interested in presuming FL 93 happened, crashed, and so on, an important reason for having kept the wreckage so that it could be used as evidence would be to make sure the common myth is accurate, if it is, and so as to falsify the shoot-down claim if it is false.

Now, let me ask you this, elmondo:

Do you think the FBI could not have deduced that shoot down claims and/or no-plane claims might arise and that, as a result, it might be a good idea to preserve evidence?

 

[DGM]

Separate and apart from that, however, one other important reason for preserving the wreckage is so as to prove or disprove the assertion the Boeing 757 was shot down.

Already done! Remember radar data and the FDR?

 

[jammonius]

No Real Trial^TM? I wonder what, where, who, and how, exactly, jammonius would consider a fair trial to require...

hokulele,

Keep your shirt on and calm down. There is no need for righteous indignation here. This is clear. The alternative to a regular criminal trial could be the military tribunals that have been set up and, before that, the other ad hoc procedure that was used for, say, Jose Padilla, among others. Plus, even in a regular court, you can have a show trial if, say, a 9/11 defendant does what Zacarias Moussaoui did, namely, sign a stipulation admitting everything and not questioning anything.

I can go further here: Initially, it was reported that KSM wanted to conduct his defense in the manner of a show trial, admitting he did it and claiming he was justified in doing it. That would be both a show trial and a complete miscarriage of the criminal justice procedure. No defendant has to prove a damn thing in any criminal trial. Rather, the prosecution has to prove what happened and the defense gets to "confront" (in the nearly full sense of what the word confront means) the prosecution's witnesses. You agree with this much, right?

 

[jammonius]

Already done! Remember radar data and the FDR?

Not done! Remember military exercises, simulated hijackings and Gen. Arnold?

 

[Hokulele]

hokulele,

Keep your shirt on ...

You are the first person in the history of ever to ask that of me.

There is no need for righteous indignation here. This is clear. The alternative to a regular criminal trial could be the military tribunals that have been set up and, before that, the other ad hoc procedure that was used for, say, Jose Padilla, among others. Plus, even in a regular court, you can have a show trial if, say, a 9/11 defendant does what Zacarias Moussaoui did, namely, sign a stipulation admitting everything and not questioning anything.

I can go further here: Initially, it was reported that KSM wanted to conduct his defense in the manner of a show trial, admitting he did it and claiming he was justified in doing it. That would be both a show trial and a complete miscarriage of the criminal justice procedure. No defendant has to prove a damn thing in any criminal trial. Rather, the prosecution has to prove what happened and the defense gets to "confront" (in the nearly full sense of what the word confront means) the prosecution's witnesses. You agree with this much, right?

Translation: "There are No True Trials^TM."

 

[jammonius]

You are the first person in the history of ever to ask that of me.




Translation: "There are No True Trials^TM."

hokulele,

Your translation is flawed. But, with that said, let me try this on you for size and see if you can grasp it.

KSM and all criminal defendants accused of being involved in 9/11 may have to be set free. Here's why:

If the FBI turned over the wreckage of FL 93 to United, as press reports claim, and if that wreckage has either disappeared or been tampered with then the charges against KSM and any other criminal defendant will almost certainly be challenged on the basis that evidence has been tampered with and/or destroyed.

So, with that in mind, do you still think KSM will be tried in a regular court or do you think he'll be put through a show trial

 

[DGM]

Not done! Remember military exercises, simulated hijackings and Gen. Arnold?

Showing again you've done no research what so ever. The recorded radar tracks are independent of any of that (you'd know this if you cared to).

 

[Garb]

You are the first person in the history of ever to ask that of me.

Someone thinks highly of themselves.


So has jam even shown how it is possible to fake the phone calls (not the logistics but getting the families to buy that their loved ones were on the other line)?

I thought not.

 

[Hokulele]

So, with that in mind, do you still think KSM will be tried in a regular court or do you think he'll be put through a show trial

What do you mean by "a regular court"?

 

[Hokulele]

Someone thinks highly of themselves.

Not really, but the only people^* who have seen me shirtless have done so by their request.





* - Boringly enough, this has pretty much been limited to doctors and boyfriends. I never went to Mardis Gras or on college spring break in Florida.

Well, unless you count wearing a bathing suit. Then most people are too busy catching waves to worry about what I am or am not wearing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

elmondo,

By the way, that wtc7lies website of yours mentions the word "United" 12 times according to my search engine on that page you linked us to that deals with FL 93. But none of those hits have anything at all to do with where the wreckage can be found, let alone whether it is available for inspection.

One link was said to have dealt with release of the names of the passengers and crew of 93 and 77 (it did not say passenger manifest). This one:

http://www.unitedespanol.com/press/pressroom/2001/us_0912c.html

However, that link is dead as nearly as I can tell. Does anyone know of a substitute link that details whether United ever released a passenger manifest; or, for that matter, the names of the passengers and crew?

jammonius doesn't realize that there is a plethora of information out there that cannot be found on the Internet. He apparently assumes that before the World Wide Web was created, research was not possible. He is blind to the existence of libraries and microfiche, and is even clueless as to the procedures one would follow to contact someone by phone or post and ask them for information.

It's no wonder his world-view is so greatly distorted.

 

[beachnut]

...
Based on the lack of jetliner crash evidence, ...

LOL how can you make a more moronic post.

A jet engine dug out of the crater Flt 93 hit at 600 mph. A fact you can't understand due to ignorance as you would call this a horse-trailer part. The DNA for all the Passenger was found here where they found the bone fragments because the Passengers hit at 600 mph. You don't have physics in your bag of lies, so I would ask you to understand since you tell lies to apologize for terrorist, you do it poorly.

The moronic post of the day. Why.
This photo is crash debris from the only airliner lost on 911 in PA when it dropped at this EXACT location in PA. RADAR.
Behind where this photo was shot at the EXACT place Flt 93 impacted, in the crater DNA from ALL the Flt 93 passengers was found from the body parts that suffered damage from impact of EXACTLY 600 mph as found on the FDR. The damage patten is the EXACT pattern from the direction and attitude of Flt 93 found in the FDR which was dug up after it was buried 20 to 30 feet in the ground in the IMPACT crater.

I see aircraft part, you make up lies. DNA, FDR, RADAR, are the hard evidence supporting this is Flight 93 and you lack the skills and knowledge to close the deal. I have found another failed 911 truth who can't do more than post lies every day for years. 8 years of lies from you, and you lack the ability to understand 911.

Unlike you KSM will take credit and not make up moronic lies. Why do you apologize for terrorists? Your legacy is a one of a terrorist apologist, your kids will be so proud. Don't let them take Physics, they will see you lack knowlege to identify things.
Here are you delusoins.
Beam weapons.
No planes on 911.
Jet fuel can't burn.

What other lie can we add? Why do you act so dumb on 911?

 

[BigAl]

hokulele,

Your translation is flawed. But, with that said, let me try this on you for size and see if you can grasp it.

KSM and all criminal defendants accused of being involved in 9/11 may have to be set free. Here's why:

The case against KSM rests on much more than the debris of one aircraft and it pre-dates our waterboarding of him.

 

[BigAl]

elmondo,

You are playing fast and loose here. However, you may have posted the above before I clarified the post so as to make sure it couldn't be read in the way you are interpreting it.

Separate and apart from that, however, one other important reason for preserving the wreckage is so as to prove or disprove the assertion the Boeing 757 was shot down.

The black boxes by themselves prove that Flight 93 wasn't shot down. There is much more evidence that supports the black boxes.