evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[Reheat]

Are we back on the little white hush-a-plane?

Yea, you know the same one that could fly under utility wires, had no pilot, could carry air-to-air missiles, could also fly fast enough to intercept an airliner and had enough fuel to do so. It also had a camera, so the perpetrators could laugh about how they fooled everyone except for that super sleuth ole' TC329. But, he was able to unravel it all and produce cheesy videos to convince the world of the "InSiDe JeRb. Oh, I almost forgot, because it wasn't in production in 2001, the prototype was hidden in one of those submarine tunnels under Area 51!

Whyyyy, They've even even removed all of the cows around Area 51 so that he could not interview them, interpret their MOO, and uncover those sekrits. So, it will be a while before we hear about it.

 

[twinstead]

Whyyyy, They've even even removed all of the cows around Area 51 so that he could not interview them, interpret their MOO, and uncover those sekrits. So, it will be a while before we hear about it.

Dude. Wake up. They will never talk. The cows were IN on it.

 

[TC329]

Yea, you know the same one that could fly under utility wires, had no pilot, could carry air-to-air missiles, could also fly fast enough to intercept an airliner and had enough fuel to do so. It also had a camera, so the perpetrators could laugh about how they fooled everyone except for that super sleuth ole' TC329. But, he was able to unravel it all and produce cheesy videos to convince the world of the "InSiDe JeRb. Oh, I almost forgot, because it wasn't in production in 2001, the prototype was hidden in one of those submarine tunnels under Area 51!

Whyyyy, They've even even removed all of the cows around Area 51 so that he could not interview them, interpret their MOO, and uncover those sekrits. So, it will be a while before we hear about it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg

how many of the following people have you spoken with :

susan mcelwain
rick chaney
lee purbaugh
viola saylor
jim brandt
john fleegle
tom spinelli
robin doppstadt
susan custer


i know......none.
which is way less than i have.

so which ones on the above list didn't see the same plane susan mcelwain saw reheat?

 

[beachnut]

yeah and if that ain't good enough for you ask dick cheney and he'll tell you it wasn't shot down too!!

Wow, your post is fact filled again. Great post.
That is cool, a stupid post all because you are upset you can't debunk the FDR and you are upset you can't interpret witness statements to save your lies. Your witnesses debunk you, and Miller destroys you. It is funny watching you mess up what Miller says to support your lies.

You true colors come out. You just make this up cause you are not as good as Cheney at shooting your friend in the face.

but dont ask Rummsfeld, he seems to be a bit confused about it

Wow, another super post, filled with so much evidence. Great job

Why do truthers come unarmed?

 

[Reheat]

how many of the following people have you spoken with :

i know......none.
which is way less than i have.

Well then, perhaps you could explain why your aren't smarter because of that? Instead you're ..........

 

[beachnut]

how many of the following people have you spoken with :

susan mcelwain
rick chaney
lee purbaugh
viola saylor
jim brandt
john fleegle
tom spinelli
robin doppstadt
susan custer


i know......none.
which is way less than i have.

so which ones on the above list didn't see the same plane susan mcelwain saw reheat?

Susan saw a drone flying under wires. Good interview TC. Fantasyland, and you push it, it is a stupid one. Good for you.

Miller destroys all your lies in one interview.

I have looked up each of your witnesses and you can't get anything right.

“Normally I wouldn’t look up, but I just heard on the news that all the planes were grounded and thought this was probably the last one I would see for a while, so I looked up,” she said. “I didn’t see the plane but I heard the plane’s engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane’s engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn’t hear the plane’s engine anymore after that.”

Before you continue to mess up testimony, think about time, space, frame of reference, echoes, hills, sound, and try harder not to make up stupid lies by messing up what people say.

Good for you, you left out Jim Stop, the non-quote.

The structures with debris on them are south, not west, you need help.

You have no clue how to interpret witness statements, I watched you post here and mess up Millers story, you are terrible.


TC, please you are not able to understand your own interview with Miller, he struck down all your ideas by his testimony. Do you even listen to your own work? Are you messing this up on purpose. Remember back to school, were you able to get any of the work correct?

Maybe you should hook up with someone who was trained to interpret testimony.

 

[beachnut]

Pittsburgh Tribune Review

Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.

This is not what Jim said, it is what a reporter put in the story.

This is called hearsay TC. It does not count as a quote.

Jim never saw parts coming off the plane, someone said he did.

Now, stop posting hearsay, and get the real quote.

This is like you, you mess up stuff! See there are no quote marks around the "parts falling from the plane".

CHERRY PICKING, QUOTE MINING NON-QUOTES, LOL
This is your life, messing up 9/11 with ease. Please say something is hearsay, not imply something. Gee, why is all the debris after the impact. Oh, yes, you say the plane came the other direction of the people who heard the plane. Heard is the key word, reflections of sound off of hills you failed to investigate.
To use sound testimony is big problem since you have never been trained.

 

[metamars]

please explain why the little white plane witnessed by :

susan mcelwain
rick chaney
lee purbaugh
viola saylor
jim brandt
john fleegle
tom spinelli
robin doppstadt
susan custer

and others is incapable of successfully intercepting an airplane.

Does anybody think that this "little white plane" was a drone, like a Predator? (Which we know can fire missiles, though I've never heard of them handling an air-to-air, only air-to-ground.) Or simply a small, manned jet or prop plane? I haven't read about this stuff for many years, sorry....

FWIW, I've seen many jetliners, but never have I seen any trailing debris. Whether the debris could have been a piece of an engine, fuselage, or even those skimpy bags of peanuts, I've just never seen this before.

How, in your experience, do the debunkers "explain" the debris? Maybe they borrow a page from the UFO debunkers, and opine about thermal inversions, swamp gas, hordes of insects, the planet Venus, etc. I must say, I'd find it most amusing if they did borrow explanations, in this way!

More seriously, these people who talked about debris "falling on their homes" - this suggests some must have gotten a look at this debris. Do you have anything to say about this?

 

[beachnut]

Does anybody think that this "little white plane" was a drone, like a Predator? (Which we know can fire missiles, though I've never heard of them handling an air-to-air, only air-to-ground.) Or simply a small, manned jet or prop plane? I haven't read about this stuff for many years, sorry....

FWIW, I've seen many jetliners, but never have I seen any trailing debris. Whether the debris could have been a piece of an engine, fuselage, or even those skimpy bags of peanuts, I've just never seen this before.

How, in your experience, do the debunkers "explain" the debris? Maybe they borrow a page from the UFO debunkers, and opine about thermal inversions, swamp gas, hordes of insects, the planet Venus, etc. I must say, I'd find it most amusing if they did borrow explanations, in this way!

More seriously, these people who talked about debris "falling on their homes" - this suggests some must have gotten a look at this debris. Do you have anything to say about this?

The white plane is debunked. Please study this topic before spewing stupid fantasies like TC. Look it up, it was jet asked to check out 93!

93 was not trailing debris, Jim Stop was not quoted, it was a news story of hearsay. There is no quote of Jim saying that.

There is no debris falling, the debris was on houses next to the scene. You are now in the world of hearsay.

Hearsay. You need to read all the witness statements in context before your blindly follow TC lies. But if you must, just make up more speculation based on hearsay and faulty interpretation of witnesses.

Physics major? Right, you are not being very good at any scientific method.

So research is not needed for a degree in physics? http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Cool how you glom to lies of 9/11 truth and TC failed ideas.

Falcon 20
A Falcon 20 business jet, owned by VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., was spotted as it headed to the Johnstown-Cambria airport. The plane in descent to land at the airport and was at 3000 to 4000 ft altitude at the time.[16] Its pilot, Yates Gladwell, was directed to help locate the crash site.[17] This is the white plane that some people spotted after Flight 93 crashed. It was simply there to confirm the crash and get the coordinates of the crash site.

Dassault Aviation Falcon 20F-5

A number of witnesses saw the "white plane":
Tom Spinelli was working at Indian Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said. "It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."[18]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity — a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft." — not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

I do too. Not because they said it, but because it is what happens in crashes, it matches theory, and I have witnessed first hand aircraft crashes, I have owned aircraft accident scenes.

If there were anomalies thousands of experts would expose IT! You can't expose the lies of TC!

 

[metamars]

I played with the applets linked earlier to conclude that, if simply looking at increases in energy, we can conclude that a 9x increase in KE will, all other things being equal in a simple ballistics problem, leads to a 9x increase in distance.

I'm still skeptical, though, that increase in impact KE will have a linear relationship with energy / mass available for ejecting matter. The ground will absorb shock, and there's no shortage of it. I suppose you'd have to study how deep the bedrock is, and start doing a lot of research, to see if you hit some sort of limiting value and the ground starts to act elastically, in the regime we're talking about.

I really doubt it, though that's not to say that I know what the deal is.

Since you are trained in air crashes, why not state what the case is, definitively, and give a reference? The question is "Is the relationship between impact velocity and maximum translation from GZ of an impact a linear relationship to the KE?" (for a given angle of incidence and ground type)

No angle of incidence considered, but there is a lab exercize online which is supposed to allow the student to determine which of 2 theories of crater diameter size is correct.

One theory had D/D0 = (E/E0)^1/3
the other theory has D/D0 = (g0/g)^1/4 * (E/E0)^1/4

where D is the diameter, E is the kinetic energy, and D0 and E0 are known diameters and kinetic energy of a reference crater/explosion or crater/impacting mass system.

I don't know which is the correct theory, but for the 'perfect' case considered here, to double a crater radius requires at least an eight fold increase in kinetic energy.

While not super-relevant, I'd say that it suggests that, ignoring any rolling effects (which may be quite foolish, considering the high speed rotations we would assume inside the jet engines), 600 yards is too far away to be due to coincident impact.

High speed rotation internally, leading to a sudden jam, suggests that a simultaneously disconnecting engine might acquire quite a roll, due to conservation of angular momentum. However, nobody has mentioned a "roll track".

My intuition about non-linearity was basically correct, though I framed it ito outlier debris. And, well, beachnut sure has a nice looking diploma!!! It's beautiful!!!!

(Of course, I'd still prefer to defer to empirical studies of KE/debris dispersion relationship. )

This is a good illustration of why simple physics assumptions can lead to such a completely wrong answer. Crater formation behaves nothing like what you'd expect by considering the radius to behave like a simple ballistics problem, where you assume a constant proportion of incident KE can go into ejecting debris.

 

[TC329]

The white plane is debunked.

you're right.

susan mcelwain said it definitely wasn't a corporate jet.
rick chaney said it definitely wasn't a corporate jet.
dale browning saw it but he denies ever seeing anything now.
you think lee purbaugh thinks it was a corporate jet?

oh yeah and eyewitnesses place it at the crash before and after the explosion at a very low altitude. how does that fit with your fake corporate jet allegedly flown by treasonous liar yates gladwell?

please name the eyewitness in shanksville that will say "i saw a white corporate plane on 9/11". please i beg you. i will pound on their door and beg them to go public.

i got a thousand dollars right now that beachnut cannot and will not name a shanksville resident listed in the media as seeing the white plane who will say they saw a corporate jet on 9/11.

which brings us back to again every american is stupid unless he agrees with the official bush approved 9/11 commission storyline which members of the commission state is flawed and only a first draft of history and they didn't "get everything right".........

but it's 100% accurate until a new bush appointed commission whose head stays in contact with karl rove the whole times gives the stamp of approval to a new version......which isn't going to happen so the seriously flawed first draft of history that was underfunded is still 100% accurate despite many of its members admitting it's not.

this is beachnuts world.

got a video of the shootdown? beachnut will explain to you that a shootdown still isn't taking place. i **** you not.

Please study this topic before spewing stupid fantasies like TC. Look it up, it was jet asked to check out 93!

look it up?

i did.

with the people who saw it. some are brave like susan mcelwain and rick chaney and will speak publicly about it and some are not. but they all agree with what susan mcelwain describes. even rick chaney. the difference is rick chaney thought there was a person in it. when i asked him if the plane was big enough to accomodate passengers he laughed and said no. he believed there was a person on board. thats it. it couldn't accomodate passengers, it wasn't big enough to.

93 was not trailing debris, Jim Stop was not quoted, it was a news story of hearsay. There is no quote of Jim saying that.

why don't you mention how members of this forum contacted the authors at the tribune review who stand by their story?

There is no debris falling, the debris was on houses next to the scene. You are now in the world of hearsay.

the only way debris ended up at indian lake marina and new baltimore was if it was created in the air and landed there. both of these are in the opposite direction of the blast trajectory. you can try just like wally miller did to move indian lake to the southwest of the crash site but you can't. can't move new baltimore either.

so beachnut wants you to believe a massive jet fuel explosion lifted pieces of mail that were inside of the explosion so high up that the wind carried it 8 miles away and none of the mail was incinerated unlike passengers, remains, and aircraft debris.

jet fuel = hot enough to weaken steel skyscrapers in new york to cause them to collapse but not hot enough to burn us mail and bandanas in shanksville.........

Hearsay. You need to read all the witness statements in context before your blindly follow TC lies. But if you must, just make up more speculation based on hearsay and faulty interpretation of witnesses.

or you can listen to susan mcelwain and wally miller and then listen to people like beachnut telling you you're too stupid to understand what you just heard with your own ears.

Physics major? Right, you are not being very good at any scientific method.

pot. kettle. black.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Cool how you glom to lies of 9/11 truth and TC failed ideas.

beachnut is a firm believer of if you repeat it enough times people will take it as truth.......

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfR4YchCwLQ

you can watch that and compare pop mechanics flight 93 crash to wally millers and let me know if they are similar or not.

you can also see the media take susan mcelwain and manipulate and twist her story in order to support beachnuts fantasy corporate plane. if she wasn't such a credible witness then why is the history channel tracking her down and editing her testimony?

If there were anomalies thousands of experts would expose IT! You can't expose the lies of TC!

you can't expose my "lies" because there aren't any.

i can defend susan mcelwains account and wally millers account and the other accounts i will be releasing. i will defend them against people like yourself saying their words are mine and calling me a liar because you're too big of a coward to call susan or wally one.

in fact you lie continuosly about wally. you lie about his description of the crash and say he supports the official story because he doesn't understand he's contradicting it because the government fabricated one.

you act as if his belittlement of no plane/no bodies theories is the same as he treats the shoot down. the shoot down he doesn't mock. the shoot down he doesn't want to discuss about the plane he says was brought down "allegedly" [did you hear him say that?] because of a struggle on board and then later on in the interview admits he doesn't know what caused the plane to come down. yeah sounds like he has no doubt about the official story at all, huh? only in your world beachnut.........

and people wonder why i have you on ignore.

once metamars wises up to you i can go back ignoring your posts. that shouldn't be much longer i would hope.........

 

[uk_dave]

This is a good illustration of why simple physics assumptions can lead to such a completely wrong answer. Crater formation behaves nothing like what you'd expect by considering the radius to behave like a simple ballistics problem, where you assume a constant proportion of incident KE can go into ejecting debris.

The phrase you want there is "common sense". It's the 'truthers' favourite and it's the reason they get so many things wrong on subjects about which they have no specialised training.

Many things in life are counter intuitive, but if you're of an arrogant disposition, you too can view a photo or a bit of youtube video and make an instant assessment that something is wrong, based solely upon your exhalted common sense.

But, of course, 'truthers' are too humble to openly claim that they have special powers of deduction, only that everyone else in the world is too stupid to see the subterfuge, including the real experts who attended at the various sites and investigated the events of 9-11.

 

[lapman]

susan mcelwain said it definitely wasn't a corporate jet.

IIRC, Susan had no idea what she saw until somebody from California told her. Therefore, she is unable to accurately identify what type of aircraft it was.

 

[beachnut]

you're right.

susan mcelwain said it definitely wasn't a corporate jet.
...
oh yeah and eyewitnesses place it at the crash before and after the explosion at a very low altitude. how does that fit with your fake corporate jet allegedly flown by treasonous liar yates gladwell?

please name the eyewitness in shanksville that will say "i saw a white corporate plane on 9/11". please i beg you. i will pound on their door and beg them to go public.

i got a thousand dollars right now that beachnut cannot and will not name a shanksville resident listed in the media as seeing the white plane who will say they saw a corporate jet on 9/11.

which brings us back to again every american is stupid unless he agrees with the official bush approved 9/11 commission storyline which members of the commission state is flawed and only a first draft of history and they didn't "get everything right".........

but it's 100% accurate until a new bush appointed commission whose head stays in contact with karl rove the whole times gives the stamp of approval to a new version......which isn't going to happen so the seriously flawed first draft of history that was underfunded is still 100% accurate despite many of its members admitting it's not.

this is beachnuts world.

got a video of the shootdown? beachnut will explain to you that a shootdown still isn't taking place. i **** you not.

look it up?

i did.

with the people who saw it. some are brave like susan mcelwain and rick chaney and will speak publicly about it and some are not. but they all agree with what susan mcelwain describes. even rick chaney. the difference is rick chaney thought there was a person in it. when i asked him if the plane was big enough to accomodate passengers he laughed and said no. he believed there was a person on board. thats it. it couldn't accomodate passengers, it wasn't big enough to.
[/font][/color]

why don't you mention how members of this forum contacted the authors at the tribune review who stand by their story?

the only way debris ended up at indian lake marina and new baltimore was if it was created in the air and landed there. both of these are in the opposite direction of the blast trajectory. you can try just like wally miller did to move indian lake to the southwest of the crash site but you can't. can't move new baltimore either.

so beachnut wants you to believe a massive jet fuel explosion lifted pieces of mail that were inside of the explosion so high up that the wind carried it 8 miles away and none of the mail was incinerated unlike passengers, remains, and aircraft debris.

jet fuel = hot enough to weaken steel skyscrapers in new york to cause them to collapse but not hot enough to burn us mail and bandanas in shanksville.........

or you can listen to susan mcelwain and wally miller and then listen to people like beachnut telling you you're too stupid to understand what you just heard with your own ears.

pot. kettle. black.

beachnut is a firm believer of if you repeat it enough times people will take it as truth.......



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfR4YchCwLQ

you can watch that and compare pop mechanics flight 93 crash to wally millers and let me know if they are similar or not.

you can also see the media take susan mcelwain and manipulate and twist her story in order to support beachnuts fantasy corporate plane. if she wasn't such a credible witness then why is the history channel tracking her down and editing her testimony?



you can't expose my "lies" because there aren't any.

i can defend susan mcelwains account and wally millers account and the other accounts i will be releasing. i will defend them against people like yourself saying their words are mine and calling me a liar because you're too big of a coward to call susan or wally one.

in fact you lie continuosly about wally. you lie about his description of the crash and say he supports the official story because he doesn't understand he's contradicting it because the government fabricated one.

you act as if his belittlement of no plane/no bodies theories is the same as he treats the shoot down. the shoot down he doesn't mock. the shoot down he doesn't want to discuss about the plane he says was brought down "allegedly" [did you hear him say that?] because of a struggle on board and then later on in the interview admits he doesn't know what caused the plane to come down. yeah sounds like he has no doubt about the official story at all, huh? only in your world beachnut.........

and people wonder why i have you on ignore.

once metamars wises up to you i can go back ignoring your posts. that shouldn't be much longer i would hope.........

Oops, just like all your statements, not true.

How do you take testimony that supports what happen on 9/11 and twist it so easy.

Anyone watching can look up your sources and see they debunk you.

Even PM debunks you, the engine part was a fan, the fan section of the engine, a big a part but only a small percentage of the entire weight of the engine. So you are debunked again by Miller in your own interview as he says a SECTION (a section is a small part, or part of a whole, just so you know) and he kills all your ideas. You failed to comprehend your own interview.

You can't even ignore me as tell people how to debunk your lies. Just look up his sources.

BTW, susan saw a plane go under wires, just feet above here car, the size of her car (suv). Funny stuff but TC has it, and he uses that to make up a CIA drone with missiles etc. So sad to see fantasy made up with no respect for the people who died on 9/11. Your lack of expertise at investigation is noted. And all can see how you twist Miller's interview.

and people wonder why i have you on ignore.

Is this a lie, or sometimes you ignore me.

No shoot down the FDR proves that wrong.

Oh, yes call everyone a liar as you spew lies. The Falcon 20 pilot is a liar now. How sweet of you to call people liars with out proof. Just someone who saw a drone fly under the wires on the road. LOL

Miller debunks your junk, and so does everyone who has the capability of rational thought.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

You hearsay will not stand, your terrible analysis of witness is hilarious.

If you can't debunk TC, you are not trying.

The paper from the crash did travel on the wind. You are posting stupid ideas again.

Fantasy by TC
Drone flys under wires has missile and all the debris planted, all 100 tons of aircraft in one little DRONE. Cause there were no parts at the impact zone before the DRONE swooped under the wires, the size of a SUV and did the deed. LOL

Shoot down, it was shot down is his other lie; a lie because the FDR and debris pattern prove him wrong and he has been told. But the FDR, which TC has to say is fake, shows the plane in one piece, all working like new before impact.

i got a thousand dollars right now that beachnut cannot and will not name a shanksville resident listed in the media as seeing the white plane who will say they saw a corporate jet on 9/11.

Facts don't work, but his twisted witness statements do?
Notice how ATC, the FAA, is not good enough, and the pilot becomes a liar! Your lies are terrible fabrications manufactured from your inability to interpret witness statements correctly. Now I have to get my cousin to come down from Pittsburgh and interview a witness to get 1,000 dollars from the worst investigator in the world. My cousin will make me come out if he hears the money part.

Just how was the FDR faked, terrorist loyalist? You are saying the government did 9/11, I was on active duty on 9/11, so you are saying we did it and you are protecting the terrorist by blaming other people for the terrorist work. Your problem is you have no idea how things work, and you do listen to Miller destroy your ideas in one 30 minute interview.

TC, pleas learn what hearsay is, and what a quote is. You use hearsay, or you twist and mess up what people say. You are the best at ignoring reality and spewing your own made up ideas.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93 You call people liars who tell the truth.

 

[twinstead]

What strikes me as odd is the suggestion that the FDR was faked. This would mean that they had planned all along to shoot down the plane and claim it was crashed by hijackers.

What on Earth would they hope to accomplish by that?

 

[CurtC]

Does anybody think that this "little white plane" was a drone, like a Predator? (Which we know can fire missiles, though I've never heard of them handling an air-to-air, only air-to-ground.) Or simply a small, manned jet or prop plane? I haven't read about this stuff for many years, sorry....

You mean what do rational people think of it? It's thoroughly documented what it was - it was a Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation. It was on its way to land at a nearby airport, since all aircraft were ordered down, and the ATC controllers asked it to scout out whether 93 had indeed crashed. The pilots took it down so they could see what the smoke was coming from, they reported this back to the ATC, and continued on to land.

 

[Disbelief]

How many times are you going to avoid the question?

Dom, it is your claim that not enough dirt was displaced, so it is up to you to prove it. To do so, you will need to calculate the amount of dirt that should have been displaced and compare it to the amount of dirt that actually was displaced. If not, retract your claim.

You gave me two of the three needed dimensions, yet you have not said how wide the crater is. Have you figured this out?

 

[WildCat]

LMAO at the small white drone that is as small as a van, is capable of intercepting an airliner, and swoops under power lines to do so.

 

[TC329]

What strikes me as odd is the suggestion that the FDR was faked. This would mean that they had planned all along to shoot down the plane and claim it was crashed by hijackers.

What on Earth would they hope to accomplish by that?

not by any means does it mean that.........

they had from 9/11 until _______________ [date ntsb made fdr data available to the general public] to fake one.

 

[WildCat]

not by any means does it mean that.........

they had from 9/11 until _______________ [date ntsb made fdr data available to the general public] to fake one.

Ah, so the NTSB is in on the conspiracy too.