Flight 93

[jammonius]

We can start with your evidence that such destruction took place, using your own high standards of evidence.

Proceed.

Already done. The standard here consisted in the process of using multiple sources. They are:

1--The curiously worded statement of the Moussaoui trial exhibts already discussed where it was finally acknowledged by tom that the photographs would need to be verified by, among other things, experts. Do you recall that?

2--The History Commons sources that referenced that Shanksville was not investigated per a grid pattern that would allow for proof of what happened. Do you recall that?

3--My questioning posters as to whether they could source the assertion that the FBI had collected 95% of the jetliner wreckage and then turned it over to United/ Recall that/

4--My specific questioning as to whether it was true that the FBI had turned over 95% of the wreckage to United, as reported in newspapers (and therefore unverified) and whether or not United still had the wreckage. Do you recall this.

5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:

"1--Does United have FL93 wreckage?
After contacting United (a couple years ago) and having several responses back and forth, I can confidently say, they HAD it. Why don't you contact them so you don't have to take our word for it?

(I'd look-up the email I got but there would be no way to prove it's authentic, so why bother)

Quote:
2--Is wreckage available for inspection?
No.

By the way, I greatly respect DGM's forthcoming answers and have indicated that for purposes of this discussion, it can now fairly be asserted that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation. It was, frankly, in the aftermath of all that transpired and led up to post # 515 that sparked my challenge to posters to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's trashing of the Shanksville investigation.

From post #515 onward, the basis for the assertion that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation has been a matter of record. There has been almost no response at all; and, instead, one artful and some not so artful dodges after another.

You people want desparately to avoid this issue and the pattern and practice of your posting to that effect is clear and undeniable. You are manifesting complete and total weakness, posters. Do better.

The one notable exception was, as I have said, post # 680 that dealt with an EXCUSE rather than ACCOUNTABILITY but which, nonetheless, served to further confirm just how little the FBI did to preserve Shanksville evidence. It is possible, of course, that others can post up other information further developing post # 680, tom at least tried. But, so far, none of you have been able to do anything. I have asked for this for pages and pages now, and you folks remain abject failures.

Either you are playing dumb or you are dumbed down by the emotional need to hold onto the common myth at all costs. It really doesn't matter. You folks are showing signs that you understand but do not want to admit that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation.

Quite frankly, I couldn't be happier with a message board if I wanted to be.

Keep digging, posters

 

[ElMondoHummus]

From post #515 onward, the basis for the assertion that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation has been a matter of record. There has been almost no response at all; and, instead, one artful and some not so artful dodges after another.

This is manifestly untrue. The assertion that the FBI "botched" the Shanksville investigation was unsupported, and is nothing more than your uninformed opinion. The actual "matter of record" is that the evidence gathered by the FBI and submitted to the Moussaoui trial passed muster for the US District Court of Virginia. And separately, it is validated by witness statements, electronic data, and testimonies from people who talked to the victims before the crash.

You assertion is disproven by fact. Not "artful" dodges. Fact. Silly sophistry is no substitute for logic and evidence. You need to stop offering nothing but silly sophistry that is easily shown to be such.

 

[Jackanory]

this oughta be a good show
[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/jacksonpopcorn.gif[/qimg]

Nah......repeats always bore me to tears. But what can ya do?

ETA . Just notice that this was post 747. Is that conclusive evidence that it really was an inside job? elevensy 1111111ses

 

[lapman]

Already done. The standard here consisted in the process of using multiple sources.

Lie. You have cherry picked some quotes. Several of which contradict what you claim it states. E.g. the coroner that clearly states saw body parts even though you claim that he didn't see any human remains.

They are:

1--The curiously worded statement of the Moussaoui trial exhibts already discussed where it was finally acknowledged by tom that the photographs would need to be verified by, among other things, experts. Do you recall that?

False. Only you require such a thing. Since you have not provided any proof that you have any expertise, you requirement is irrelevant. Rational adults look at the full body of evidence.

2--The History Commons sources that referenced that Shanksville was not investigated per a grid pattern that would allow for proof of what happened. Do you recall that?

You have yet to provide proof that the grid pattern would be required. Since they had the FDR and CVR, mapping the debris would be a waste of time since it would show nothing of substance.

3--My questioning posters as to whether they could source the assertion that the FBI had collected 95% of the jetliner wreckage and then turned it over to United/ Recall that/

4--My specific questioning as to whether it was true that the FBI had turned over 95% of the wreckage to United, as reported in newspapers (and therefore unverified) and whether or not United still had the wreckage. Do you recall this.

5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:

"1--Does United have FL93 wreckage?
After contacting United (a couple years ago) and having several responses back and forth, I can confidently say, they HAD it. Why don't you contact them so you don't have to take our word for it?

(I'd look-up the email I got but there would be no way to prove it's authentic, so why bother)

Of course you would say that. You have shown that you will handwave away any and all evidence that goes against your fantasy.

Quote:
2--Is wreckage available for inspection?
No.

Please prove that United is required to allow inspection.

By the way, I greatly respect DGM's forthcoming answers and have indicated that for purposes of this discussion, it can now fairly be asserted that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation. It was, frankly, in the aftermath of all that transpired and led up to post # 515 that sparked my challenge to posters to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's trashing of the Shanksville investigation.

That issue has been dealt with completely. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

From post #515 onward, the basis for the assertion that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation has been a matter of record. There has been almost no response at all; and, instead, one artful and some not so artful dodges after another.

It has been responded to numerous times. Here is one more.THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE FBI BOTCHED THE INVESTIGATION. YOUR ASSERTIONS HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY.

The one notable exception was, as I have said, post # 680 that dealt with an EXCUSE rather than ACCOUNTABILITY but which, nonetheless, served to further confirm just how little the FBI did to preserve Shanksville evidence.

As usual, you have yet to provide evidence to support your fictitious claim. Just because you say that they should have kept the aircraft parts does not make it so. The onus is on you to prove that the FDR, CVR, DNA, passport, wallet, etc. evidence that they did keep was inadequate.

 

[switchpoint]

confirm just how little the FBI did to preserve Shanksville evidence.

Evidence of what? How would cataloging the wreckage of a jetliner prove that it was hijacked by political terrorist? What physical evidence could be gathered that would prove that theory?

That's kind of like carefully examining a television to determine who was watching it.

 

[sylvan8798]

Bolded mine. IMHO

There is no Honesty in your opinions.

One beer owed by me. Sorry

Nor Humility for that matter

 

[aggle-rithm]

Already done. The standard here consisted in the process of using multiple sources. They are:

1--The curiously worded statement of the Moussaoui trial exhibts already discussed where it was finally acknowledged by tom that the photographs would need to be verified by, among other things, experts. Do you recall that?

A curiously-worded statement does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

2--The History Commons sources that referenced that Shanksville was not investigated per a grid pattern that would allow for proof of what happened. Do you recall that?

Failure to follow the protocols that you, personally, would prefer does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

3--My questioning posters as to whether they could source the assertion that the FBI had collected 95% of the jetliner wreckage and then turned it over to United/ Recall that/

4--My specific questioning as to whether it was true that the FBI had turned over 95% of the wreckage to United, as reported in newspapers (and therefore unverified) and whether or not United still had the wreckage. Do you recall this.

Your failure to get others to verify your claims for you does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:

Turning evidence over to its rightful owner after an investigation has been completed does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

Perhaps if you explained to us how you got from the points mentioned above to "evidence was destroyed by the FBI", we would all understand each other better.

However, I think we probably understand you all too well.

 

[jammonius]

Hey elmondo and posters,

The following is more denial. And it comes almost right underneath the carefully documented scope of the discussion that shows that the denial elmondo engages in flies right in the face of what has been posted.

Denial does not refute, elmondo. Denial merely reflects your emotional condition. We know you are in denial as are most people about what happened on 9/11. It takes a long time to work through denial. It can be noticed that I asked the question about what had happened to the Shanksville wreckage or debris at post # 481. It took until post # 515 just to get an answer to that.

It surprises me not at all that posters are refusing to address the issue of accountability for the FBI's botching of the Shanksville investigation.

I can promise you this, posters. Investigation of what the FBI did will be a fruitful and highly informative exercise. Please do not fail on this.


So, quite frankly, DENIAL is now shown to be the issue.

Posters here simply cannot, will not and do not know how to deal with factual information confirming, six ways to Sunday, that the FBI botched the Shanksville investigation, no matter what and no matter how plainly that evidence is presented. It now seems the favored tactic is to not really demand more proof; rather, the favored tactic is that of ignoring the proof already presented; or, in other words, DENIAL in one of its simplist forms.

This is manifestly untrue. The assertion that the FBI "botched" the Shanksville investigation was unsupported, and is nothing more than your uninformed opinion.

The above comes right after a specific listing of how the issue of botching the investigation was established.

The actual "matter of record" is that the evidence gathered by the FBI and submitted to the Moussaoui trial passed muster for the US District Court of Virginia.

The above comes right after the painstaking discussion of the highly limiting language used by the court itself in connection with the Moussaoui. We discussed this at post # 620:

While you continue to miss the point that back and forth banter about what little evidence of FL 93 there is is pointless, let's nonetheless take as an example this iconic photo:
[The tin lizzy photo]
I have said it looks like the piece of a cargo carrier of some sort, I offered as a possibility, a horse carrier as, after all, it was found in a rural and agricultural part of Pennsylvania.
Others say that it is something else.
Query, to what source can anyone who proclaims to high heaven and beyond that the piece of metal shown above is a part of a Boeing 757 refer for specific identification of that piece of metal as a part of the Boeing 757 that crashed at Shanksville?
I note, for example, that the Moussaoui trial exhibit list makes only the following claim about that piece of metal:

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Now, since that language does not identify the said piece of metal as a part of a Boeing 757, can the posters here who place so much emphasis on how obvious that photo is of a Boeing 757 please source their claim.

After you fail to do that, can we please move on to the necessary discussion of accountability for the botched investigation of what happened in that field at Shanksville on 9/11, once and for all?

thanks in advance

separately, it is validated by witness statements, electronic data, and testimonies from people who talked to the victims before the crash.

The witness statements do no such thing. I'm the one who's been quoting witnesses here and they show that witnesses saw neither evidence of a plane crash, nor debris nor remains.

You assertion is disproven by fact. Not "artful" dodges. Fact. Silly sophistry is no substitute for logic and evidence. You need to stop offering nothing but silly sophistry that is easily shown to be such.

Yet another blanket denial and an apparent reference to a thread, with neither specific quotes, links or references that have any meaning at all.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL OR ADMIT YOU CANNOT OR WILL NOT DO THAT.

 

[lapman]

ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL OR ADMIT YOU CANNOT OR WILL NOT DO THAT.

THERE IS NOTHING TO ADDRESS SINCE YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE WHAT THE FBI IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR.You have been asked for this time and again. All you have done is make fictitious claims. The things that you claim that they have done wrong have no basis in reality. All you have shown is that you will grasp at any straw to keep your fantasy going.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I have said it looks like the piece of a cargo carrier of some sort, I offered as a possibility, a horse carrier as, after all, it was found in a rural and agricultural part of Pennsylvania.

yeah, and I asked you to provide an example of what that came off of to prove your point. You didn't. You also didn't answer how many plane crashes had gone down in that area. Why are you not trying to do so?

 

[jammonius]

alggglerithm,

You remain in simple denial. The post that you quote is right in front of you, still you ask what it means. You reference the following:

5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:
Turning evidence over to its rightful owner after an investigation has been completed does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

Perhaps if you explained to us how you got from the points mentioned above to "evidence was destroyed by the FBI", we would all understand each other better.

However, I think we probably understand you all too well.Quote:
5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:
Turning evidence over to its rightful owner after an investigation has been completed does not constitute destruction of evidence by the FBI.

Perhaps if you explained to us how you got from the points mentioned above to "evidence was destroyed by the FBI", we would all understand each other better.

However, I think we probably understand you all too well.

It is not as though the above question hasn't been answered. It has, including in a recent post about altering and tampering with photos. The point here is once you give evidence away, it can no longer be confirmed by a proper "chain of custody." Furthermore, as to plane wreckage, where there are no properly identified parts based on serial numbers, there is no proof. Plus, even if you have serial numbers, if you then destroy or give away the actual evidence itself, it cannot survive a challenge to its, you guessed it, AUTHENTICITY.

But let me ask, agglerithm: You did not need this explanation, did you?

Please get out of DENIAL it does not become you. Posters, we are fast approaching # 775.

I say again: Either say "yes" or 'no" as to whether you're willing to engage in discussion of accountability for the FBI botching the Shanksville investigation? Answer that and stop the denial, please; or, acknowledge that you're not going to answer it and be done with it.

I'm making this easy for you posters as the point is already made.

If you don't want to address accountability, then simply say so.

 

[Jackanory]

alggglerithm,

You remain in simple denial. The post that you quote is right in front of you, still you ask what it means. You reference the following:



It is not as though the above question hasn't been answered. It has, including in a recent post about altering and tampering with photos. The point here is once you give evidence away, it can no longer be confirmed by a proper "chain of custody." Furthermore, as to plane wreckage, where there are no properly identified parts based on serial numbers, there is no proof. Plus, even if you have serial numbers, if you then destroy or give away the actual evidence itself, it cannot survive a challenge to its, you guessed it, AUTHENTICITY.

But let me ask, agglerithm: You did not need this explanation, did you?

Please get out of DENIAL it does not become you. Posters, we are fast approaching # 775.

I say again: Either say "yes" or 'no" as to whether you're willing to engage in discussion of accountability for the FBI botching the Shanksville investigation? Answer that and stop the denial, please; or, acknowledge that you're not going to answer it and be done with it.

I'm making this easy for you posters as the point is already made.

If you don't want to address accountability, then simply say so.

NO! KSM did it.

 

[jammonius]

yeah, and I asked you to provide an example of what that came off of to prove your point. You didn't. You also didn't answer how many plane crashes had gone down in that area. Why are you not trying to do so?

unsecured coins,

You folks are good at proving my assertions about the type of DENIAL you are engaging in. I have said the type now features simple refusal to acknowledge what has been posted. Another name for that kind of denial is IGNORANCE (as in the process of ignoring that which is right in front of you.) I posted references to horse carriers very early on and most recently at post # 602 where this big red one was posted:

Niether DENIAL nor IGNORANCE become you unsecured coins. Do better.

 

[jammonius]

NO! KSM did it.

Fair enough. I accept that you do not want to address the issue and already have your mind made up.

Thank you for your post.

 

[lapman]

It is not as though the above question hasn't been answered. It has, including in a recent post about altering and tampering with photos. The point here is once you give evidence away, it can no longer be confirmed by a proper "chain of custody." Furthermore, as to plane wreckage, where there are no properly identified parts based on serial numbers, there is no proof. Plus, even if you have serial numbers, if you then destroy or give away the actual evidence itself, it cannot survive a challenge to its, you guessed it, AUTHENTICITY.

Wow. You do understand that what you claim is not a requirement in realit. BTW, they do have the FDR and CVR. Therefore, they do have what you claim. In the real world, you only need one part and they have 2. Only in your fantasy world do you need every part. If you think that the FBI has to be accountable to your fantasy, then it is up to you to file the lawsuit. Please let us know the outcome.

 

[lapman]

unsecured coins,

You folks are good at proving my assertions about the type of DENIAL you are engaging in. I have said the type now features simple refusal to acknowledge what has been posted. Another name for that kind of denial is IGNORANCE (as in the process of ignoring that which is right in front of you.) I posted references to horse carriers very early on and most recently at post # 602 where this big red one was posted:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/TinaTrailerLeft-1.jpg?t=1267044910[/qimg]

Niether DENIAL nor IGNORANCE become you unsecured coins. Do better.

Those windows look nothing like the picture from Shanksville. You have been asked repeatedly to show a "cargo carrier" with the same windows. You have failed to do so.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey elmondo and posters,

The following is more denial...

Denial by you. Problem for you is, none of that blathering changes the fact that the evidnece was validated by the US District Court. You still fail.

The witness statements do no such thing. I'm the one who's been quoting witnesses here and they show that witnesses saw neither evidence of a plane crash, nor debris nor remains.

And we're the ones pointing out that you're misrepresenting their statements. Once again, as an example of your basic dishonesty, you said just a page previous:

I do, however, think he was honest in saying he saw no bodies. And, without bodies, it is hard to have reliable DNA samples. You agree?

We were the ones who pointed the following out:

As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

Finally, some fragment of each of the dead had been positively identified, either by DNA or, in a few cases, fingerprints. So now the remains were going to be returned, he says, "and some people were going to look inside the caskets and I wanted them to know it would be shocking. I had to explain . . ."

"The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five [search] sectors." –Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, quoted in Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes," p. 262.

And demonstrated that you were deliberately misrepresenting when you claimed that Coroner Miller saw no bodies. You tried to make the claim that he saw no remains at all. But the entire context of his statements clearly demonstrate that what he was doing was noting that he saw no intact corpses. How could he have found "(t)he remains of a number of passengers" as well as positively identified any of them had he found zero remains at all? What he found were body parts. Which is to be expected given that the jet impacted the ground at several hundred miles an hour. Of course the corpses wouldn't be intact. Yet, you take a statement confirming this and try to make it a claim that the coroner found no remains at all

That's why you are a liar. And that's why your posts are sophistry. Furthermore, that's why no one takes your arguments seriously; you try cheap tricks, not logically regimented arguments.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL OR ADMIT YOU CANNOT OR WILL NOT DO THAT.

Accountability for 9/11 has already been established. Radical islamic hijackers were responsible. The various investigations competently verified this. Accountability has been definitively addressed.

 

[EventHorizon]

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Of all the silly things truthers say, this ranks right near the top. While it is true that the sentence doesn't specifically say that the airplane part found was part of Flight 93 or a Boeing 757 (which is somewhat redundant but I'll go with it anyway) the rest of us can add one and one and get two.

 

[DGM]

5--DGM in post # 515 admitting FBI did turn over the wreckage to United and United doesn't have it any longer. As to post # 515, I consider this to be the relevant excerpt:

I find the word "admitting" as very interesting. Why would you use that word? This implies that I (we) were hiding something in the first place.

I contacted United because I was interested in find out what ever became of the wreckage. I can tell you that they seemed ashamed to say they scrapped it (except for some undisclosed pieces that are saved for a possible memorial). I can understand that (and I relayed it to them) it would be unrealistic to expect them to store this wreckage for all eternity. From there I never felt the need to push them any further to find out who they scrapped it with because frankly I thought that it was a painful thing for them to do. I'm satisfied with what they have reported and if someone else wants to push them for more info, well. have at it. United corporate costumer service is not that hard to get in touch with (but personally I see no point in opening up wounds they are trying to let heal) .

I have not had a chance to sort through all the old emails I have to see if I still have them (frankly I don't see the point).

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I contacted United because I was interested in find out what ever became of the wreckage. I can tell you that they seemed ashamed to say they scrapped it (except for some undisclosed pieces that are saved for a possible memorial). I can understand that (and I relayed it to them) it would be unrealistic to expect them to store this wreckage for all eternity. From there I never felt the need to push them any further to find out who they scrapped it with because frankly I thought that it was a painful thing for them to do. I'm satisfied with what they have reported and if someone else wants to push them for more info, well. have at it. United corporate costumer service is not that hard to get in touch with (but personally I see no point in opening up wounds they are trying to let heal).

Yeah... I figured they would've rendered the debris as scrap metal by now. It's not like you'd trust the pieces as replacement parts any longer, not after having suffered the stress of impact. And it's not like they'd be in any condition to be reused to begin with.

But, I don't think there's anything for them to be ashamed about. They'd either have to commit resources - even if it's nothing more than a storage room somewhere - to keep the material, and frankly, it doesn't do anyone any good just sitting there. It would've made sad but logical sense to scrap it and let recyclers do their jobs with it.

The only people that seem to want the debris to still be accessible are those conspiracy addicts who believe there's something yet to find in it. If the plethora of information that currently exists is not enough to tell those people what happened, then the debris is not going to inform them any better; they've already proven they cannot understand plain evidence. So plane evidence (pardon the pun) won't cure them of their delusions.