Flight 93

[sylvan8798]

And, for those of you who need to hold onto the 9/11 myth, you have a problem. Your problem is that it is not possible to rationally and reasonably confirm that the common myth is true.

That is too bad.

Is it possible to rationally and reasonably confirm that the conspiracy theory myth is true?

 

[jammonius]

You need to show that other airline crash investigations rely solely on part and serial numbers as the way that they identify an aircraft after a crash. Go on. I'll wait.

samiam,

Don't you ever get tired of cheap, 'burden of proof' games? What interest are you seeking to advance by asking ME to do something you could just as easily do by, say, disputing the claim that jetliner crash investigations normally identify parts by serial number?

Because you are engaging in a cheap trick, I am flat out going to refuse to go do research for you that you then get to unilaterally dispute.

Basically, the proposition that a crash resulting in the complete and total annihilation of a machine can most easily be confirmed by matching known serial numbers that are put on each part and piece precisely to facilitate identification is not a controversial remark. It makes sense. Identification in that way is just as firm and reliable as is, pardon the frankness here, identifying dead soldiers who have been blown to bits by their dog tags. In fact, that is why they have them, in part.

So, no. There will be no 'burden of proof' shifting gimmick allowed here.

You go get the answer yourself if you want it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Jammonius... you're missing the point [again], are there not other things that can be used to help identify the aircraft? You seem to be focused entirely on one thing, but investigations do not focus on singular materials when solving a case

 

[TJM]

Yet another question he runs from.

I rest my case.

 

[BigAl]

samiam,

Don't you ever get tired of cheap, 'burden of proof' games? What interest are you seeking to advance by asking ME to do something you could just as easily do by, say, disputing the claim that jetliner crash investigations normally identify parts by serial number?

Because you are engaging in a cheap trick, I am flat out going to refuse to go do research for you that you then get to unilaterally dispute.

Basically, the proposition that a crash resulting in the complete and total annihilation of a machine can most easily be confirmed by matching known serial numbers that are put on each part and piece precisely to facilitate identification is not a controversial remark. It makes sense. Identification in that way is just as firm and reliable as is, pardon the frankness here, identifying dead soldiers who have been blown to bits by their dog tags. In fact, that is why they have them, in part.

While they still are issued and useful, dog tags are now obsolete as the best or only way to identify a causality. Now, each soldier has a sample of bodily fluid taken and kept for the DNA data it provides and which is used if needed to identify body parts.

Generally, DNA can be used to identify bodies even if a sample wasn't taken. It just takes longer.

DNA was used to identify all the passengers and crew on Flight 93. How was it possible for body parts of all the people on the boarding manifest to get from Newark airport to Shanksville in 120 minutes if not by Flight 93?

 

[Shadou]

Oh my, what a burden that useless proof is. Why should a claimant have to gather evidence of there claims? You all know the only real proof is found on bottle labels.

So how it works is if a piece of a puzzle doesn't fit we just throw away the puzzle and draw what we thought the puzzle was supposed to be. makes perfect sense...

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius... you're missing the point [again], are there not other things that can be used to help identify the aircraft? You seem to be focused entirely on one thing, but investigations do not focus on singular materials when solving a case

grizzly,

Greetings. Well, a claim of "missing the point" is potentially important as we certainly don't want to engage in a discussion where points are missed, do we, let alone "again"? I here acknowledge I may have missed a point. That can happen.

I know there are other ways of identifying jetliners that have crashed, but the surest and most trustworthy way is that of serial number identification. I have established that no such identification of Flight 93 was done. Do you acknowledge that is point I have, in fact, made?

I'm not dodging anything here. I am open to proof that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11 if you have any.

The photographs are not proof because they are inconclusive. Serial numbers easily trump the inconclusive photos, could have resolved them, but were not done. That is the fact of the matter.

Look, this is not controversial. Serial number identification is a swift and sure way of identifying crashed aircraft. That is the point that I think is the important one, grizzly, and it was not missed.

The point is NOT that there are other ways of identifying and confirming jetliner crashes, in my opinion. Or, if that is the point, I didn't "miss" it as you haven't MADE it by showing another reliable way in which Flight 93 was identified, that I know of.

As I said at the outset, I may have missed a point. So, if you have posted up proof Flight 93 crashed, would you kindly show where and how you have confirmed Flight 93 crashed?

Moreover, I invite you to post up what you assert are the ways in which Flight 93 was positively identified. I am not going to do that work for you, nor should I. If you have come to the conclusion UA Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville PA on 9/11/01, then tell us why.


thanks

 

[jammonius]

While they still are issued and useful, dog tags are now obsolete as the best or only way to identify a causality. Now, each soldier has a sample of bodily fluid taken and kept for the DNA data it provides and which is used if needed to identify body parts.

Generally, DNA can be used to identify bodies even if a sample wasn't taken. It just takes longer.

DNA was used to identify all the passengers and crew on Flight 93. How was it possible for body parts of all the people on the boarding manifest to get from Newark airport to Shanksville in 120 minutes if not by Flight 93?

big al,

DNA. I invite you to post up your proof that DNA positively identified people. I do not know of any. I do know, for instance, that wikipedia has a statement about DNA identification that may or may not be limited to Flight 77 that states that "citation needed." In other words, that while the DNA claim has been made, it hasn't been proven.

Please give a citation for your claim that DNA positively identified people. Note: Newspaper accounts are not valid as proof. The AFIP report was not a forensic report and said so and also said it made no claim of positive identification, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. You've made your claim, big al, now kindly source it.

 

[TJM]

The point is NOT that there are other ways of identifying and confirming jetliner crashes, in my opinion. Or, if that is the point, I didn't "miss" it as you haven't MADE it by showing another reliable way in which Flight 93 was identified, that I know of.

Aaaaaaaaaaand we're back to your argument from incredulity.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You need to show that other airline crash investigations rely solely on part and serial numbers as the way that they identify an aircraft after a crash. Go on. I'll wait.

You'd think it would be a fairly straightforward process. When authorities find that a plane has crashed, they would ask themselves:

1. How many planes known to be flying in this area are missing?
2. It's probably one of those.

Two-step process. Or, the converse, if a plane known to be in the area is missing:

1. How many smoking craters surrounded with debris and body parts are found in the area?
2. That's probably where it crashed.

Believe it or not, for the authorities this line of reasoning only provides a starting point for the investigation. It was days after the crash in Austin before they would say for certain that it was Joe Stack's plane that had crashed into the building, even though the local media came to that conclusion almost immediately.

In the case of flight 93, the remains of the passengers provided far more compelling evidence than any part numbers would. Part numbers can be faked, but you can't fake someone's DNA.

 

[BigAl]

big al,

DNA. I invite you to post up your proof that DNA positively identified people. I do not know of any. I do know, for instance, that wikipedia has a statement about DNA identification that may or may not be limited to Flight 77 that states that "citation needed." In other words, that while the DNA claim has been made, it hasn't been proven.

You've already dismissed without any reason, an official press release and a citation to a an article in a medical journal that support the claim.

Your dismissal out of ignorance doesn't change the fact that all bodies were identified by DNA.

How did they get from Newark to Shanksville in 120 minutes?

 

[BigAl]

grizzly,
I'm not dodging anything here. I am open to proof that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11 if you have any.

DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Plane-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned to hijack, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by some of these people;

The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".
www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,685127,00.html

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489

The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11 might be a clue.

 

[sylvan8798]

Basically, the proposition that a crash resulting in the complete and total annihilation of a machine can most easily be confirmed by matching known serial numbers that are put on each part and piece precisely to facilitate identification is not a controversial remark. It makes sense.

This is where you are in error. The purpose of identifying the individual parts of the plane is NOT to identify the flight, but in case a particular part failure was the cause of the crash. In that case, other planes with the same part in use can be checked/repaired before another one fails.

Have you ever seen a case where they said Flight so-and-so had crashed and then later, after retrieving plane parts, corrected themselves that it was actually SOME OTHER FLIGHT? Have you ever seen a case where they couldn't come up with a flight identification for several days until some or all of the parts were checked against part logs? You need to run your premise by someone who does crash investigations face to face and get back to us.

They knew which flight this was at the time this picture was taken. Do you really think they would have told the public if they weren't sure? How many parts do you think they had checked?

 

[wargord]

Don't you ever get tired of cheap, 'burden of proof' games? What interest are you seeking to advance by asking ME to do something you could just as easily do by, say, disputing the claim that jetliner crash investigations normally identify parts by serial number?

You still haven't shown were this is done at all. I have looked over the investigation reports at Airdisaster.com and found no mention of serial/part numbers to determine which aircraft crashed. The only serial/part numbers recorded were those identifying the parts that caused the crash. It seems that they are not required to establish which/if a jetliner crashed, only to find what the cause of the crash was.

Because you are engaging in a cheap trick, I am flat out going to refuse to go do research for you that you then get to unilaterally dispute.

It's ok. I did the research and found that you are lying and full of it as always.

Basically, the proposition that a crash resulting in the complete and total annihilation of a machine can most easily be confirmed by matching known serial numbers that are put on each part and piece precisely to facilitate identification is not a controversial remark. It makes sense. Identification in that way is just as firm and reliable as is, pardon the frankness here, identifying dead soldiers who have been blown to bits by their dog tags. In fact, that is why they have them, in part.

If a crash resulted in the "complete and total annihilation of a machine" then there would be no serial/part numbers to identify. They would have to use flight manifests, departure times, and radar to determine which machine crashed in that location.

So, no. There will be no 'burden of proof' shifting gimmick allowed here.

You still need to prove that airplane crashes are only identified by serial/part number.

 

[jammonius]

Hey posters,

As nearly as I can tell, the DNA claim is being supported by a newspaper quoting another newspaper The Guardian quoting Al Jezeera, neither of which are sourced in the USA, which might mean they are based on the psyop exception. The use of psyops is ok if the false information is not released in the US, as I understand the way psyops work. So, based on that sourcing, the psyop claim cannot be ruled out.

In addition, newspaper reports are not considered evidence. That is not my rule, that is a rule of reason.

The second source that someone actually posted on this thread, in support of a DNA claim is "myspace."

That should be considered an adequate admission that the DNA claim can't be proven, in and of itself.

The second thread seems to be a desire to morph the plane parts serial number situation into anything and everything other than a glaring deficiency in the handling of the 9/11 investigation by the authorities who had that responsiblity and who failed to discharge it.

One aspect of morphing is the claim that serial number identification is "the only" method of proof. I did not make the claim that it is the only method. My point is that it is the easiest, surest way of proving a particular jetliner crashed.

My point, as well, is that in connection with Flight 93, there has not been any sourcing of reliable proof of a jetliner crash. Look, I am not being difficult here. Flight 93 was vague, obscure, contradictory to begin with. And, all subsequent effort seems consistent with further obscuration rather than of clarification.

The FBI is neither incompetent nor dumb. Had the FBI wanted to confirm a jetliner crash occurred at Shanksville and that it was FL 93, the FBI could have done that. All of the FBI's actions are opposite of a desire to confirm a jetliner crash, and there is nothing they have done, posted or put forward that is intended to prove a crash. There may be a desire on the FBI's part that it not be questioned or that the public accept newspaper reports or secondary evidence, like transcripts of alleged conversations that cannot, in the best of circumstances, be sourced as to where they came from and the FBI has to know that.

So, posters, the fact is, proof of a jetliner crash fails and that is not my fault.

The iconic photo that one poster posted up umpteen times has, as its most prominently visible feature, 3 pink circle sun spots and no visible jetliner debris. Big al's DNA claim that he wants to make is fine if he can make it and I invite him to try to do so. I have looked and cannot find evidence. I have mentioned the sources that don't work and I will here add to it. The DMort announcement is ambiguous and contradictory. I assume you posters know that and that is why it isn't relied on as DNA proof.

What more can be said here?

Posters haven't posted up proof Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. If you can do that, then do so and stop beating around the bush.

 

[jammonius]

This is where you are in error. The purpose of identifying the individual parts of the plane is NOT to identify the flight, but in case a particular part failure was the cause of the crash. In that case, other planes with the same part in use can be checked/repaired before another one fails.

Have you ever seen a case where they said Flight so-and-so had crashed and then later, after retrieving plane parts, corrected themselves that it was actually SOME OTHER FLIGHT? Have you ever seen a case where they couldn't come up with a flight identification for several days until some or all of the parts were checked against part logs? You need to run your premise by someone who does crash investigations face to face and get back to us.

They knew which flight this was at the time this picture was taken. Do you really think they would have told the public if they weren't sure? How many parts do you think they had checked?

sylvan,

Why are you posting a photo of another plane crash, one that shows fire and a lot of visible wreckage, apparently, in support of the claim Flight 93 crashed, where the iconic photo shows neither debris, nor fire?

In my opinion, the photo you have posted is consistent with exactly why the claim that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville has not been proven; i.e., the photo evidence is very poor and is inconclusive, at best.

 

[beachnut]

big al,

DNA. I invite you to post up your proof that DNA positively identified people. I do not know of any. I do know, for instance, that wikipedia has a statement about DNA identification that may or may not be limited to Flight 77 that states that "citation needed." In other words, that while the DNA claim has been made, it hasn't been proven.

Please give a citation for your claim that DNA positively identified people. Note: Newspaper accounts are not valid as proof. The AFIP report was not a forensic report and said so and also said it made no claim of positive identification, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. You've made your claim, big al, now kindly source it.

Why are you sitting posting? You need to take your evidence to the police. Prove the DNA is fake; you can't prove anything! Never will.

Wait, you have delusions based on lies and lack of knowledge. They would laugh you out of the police station when you give them the jet fuel does not burn, the jet engine is a wheel cover, and the fuselage is a horse-trailer.

You are posting lies and nonsense about flight 93 and you can't figure out this topic give 8 years; you have failed to figure out what a jet engine is in 8 years but you repeat the lies of 911 truth as if they were your own thoughts without checking the facts. 8 years of ignorance, proof, you call jet engines wheel-covers.

 

[jammonius]

beachnut,

It is all but pointless with you, isn't it?

The above is not a confirmed picture of a jet engine. If you know of a source that claims it is a part of a jet engine, then, by all means, would you please post it. It is to be noted that the source from which the photo actually comes, the Moussaoui trial exhibits DOES NOT state that what is shown is a part of a jet engine.

Once again can you post a source claiming what is shown is a part of a jet engine? If you cannot, then, in my opinion, your posting of the jet engine claim, over and over again is in the nature of either spam or propaganda or both.

 

[BigAl]

sylvan,

Why are you posting a photo of another plane crash, one that shows fire and a lot of visible wreckage, apparently, in support of the claim Flight 93 crashed, where the iconic photo shows neither debris, nor fire?

In my opinion, the photo you have posted is consistent with exactly why the claim that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville has not been proven; i.e., the photo evidence is very poor and is inconclusive, at best.

If we had no pictures, we would still have mountains of evidence identifying Flight 93 as the plane that crashed in Shanksville.

We have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder data, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, Phone company data identifying the location where the calls were made from, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by some of these people.

The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/16/september11.usa2

And

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=1619489

The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11 might be a clue.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut,

It is all but pointless with you, isn't it?

The above is not a confirmed picture of a jet engine. If you know of a source that claims it is a part of a jet engine, then, by all means, would you please post it. It is to be noted that the source from which the photo actually comes, the Moussaoui trial exhibits DOES NOT state that what is shown is a part of a jet engine.

Once again can you post a source claiming what is shown is a part of a jet engine? If you cannot, then, in my opinion, your posting of the jet engine claim, over and over again is in the nature of either spam or propaganda or both.

It is Flight 93, one of the jet engines. It is your lack of knowledge and refusal to join reality that you call that a wheel-cover. Complete nonsense, all your posts are a waste as you defend your delusions with more idiotic delusions. Fuselages are horse-trailers to you and DNA, you spit on the dead! Good job

you are not on topic as you post insane ideas based on your lack of knowledge and failed opinions. do you know the topic?