• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

Well, debunkers claim that it was only a small debris field so it shouldn't be a problem to recover all the wreckage should it?

I don't know. Grab a shovel and start digging and let us know what you find.

Seriously though, can you please explain the relevance? I'm not going to bother looking into a question that is only being asked for the sake of being asked.
 
I don't know. Grab a shovel and start digging and let us know what you find.

Seriously though, can you please explain the relevance? I'm not going to bother looking into a question that is only being asked for the sake of being asked.

For all they knew the remaining 5% could have had human remains on it. Why would they stop looking with 5 tons of debris still left to find?
 
RedIbis - I'm not one for getting involved in 9/11 CT issues, partially because I'm a little late to the party, so to speak, and it would take me an enormous amount of research to get up to speed, which I don't really consider a good use of my time. But I have to admit that I have somewhat of a fascination in reading the ongoing 9/11 CT arguments, to see how convincing they seem, even if only on face value, and how well, or poorly, they're presented.

I like to think I can be, and am, objective when presented with arguments. The problem with your postings here, though (and I haven't read any other 9/11 CT threads to which you might have contributed, so I can't know whether this is typical), is that you haven't presented any real argument, certainly not well-supported arguments. All you've really done is pose questions, most if which you could, I suspect, and therefore should, if you're motivation is genuine, obtain answers to through sensible, proper enquiry. The remaining questions, as others have pointed out, are invalid, in the sense that you shouldn't, as a member of the general public, realistically expect readily available answers to them.

You seem to expect that the respective Authorities are under some sort of obligation to investigate Flight 93 to the nth degree, and make all of its findings publicly available, simply to pre-empt any and every possible question that could conceivably be asked, regardless of source or motive. The World doesn't work like that. It would be great if it did, but then you'd need to find a new hobby, which might not be a bad thing, for all concerned.

RedIbis, please don't take offence, but you really should, as should others like you, take a step back, a deep breath and then a serious reality check on life generally, and your motivations in particular. I remember the first time I became involved in geocaching (I trust you know what that is) as a 40-year-old adult(!). It was good fun, derived a great sense of excitement and satisfaction, and made me feel like part of a special community that has found its purpose in life. Then the novelty wore off and I reverted to more grown-up pursuits. I kinda look back sometimes and wonder what it was that I found so appealing. I suppose it was the sense of adventure - rising to the challenge and trying to find the answer to the puzzle, or better still, being crowned the "first to find"!.

I can't help feeling that your motivations, and those of similar ilk, are not disimilar, the only difference being that you don't really want to find the cache, because that then signals the end of the search, and it's the search that appeals to you, not the truth. It's like the bitter-sweet feeling of completing a jigsaw that you've been painstakingly working on for weeks, feverishly slotting the last few pieces into place because the end is in sight, but then pausing with the final piece poised, not really wanting to place it into position because of the sudden realization that the "challenge" will then evaporate instantaneously, never to present itself again.

So, how do you manage your motivations and expectations? Simple, you mentally dispose of some pieces of the "jigsaw". That way you can ostensibly attempt to complete the picture, but you know it'll never happen. Whatever you do, no matter how hard you try, or whatever help is offered by others, the puzzle will never be properly solved. Trouble is, if you're honest with yourself, you know exactly what the picture is from the start. You don't need to complete the jigsaw to know. It's on the box for all to see.


That was a damned fine post.
 
For all they knew the remaining 5% could have had human remains on it. Why would they stop looking with 5 tons of debris still left to find?

You should perhaps contact a crash scene investigator to satisfy your burning and completely genuine curiosity.
 
Where did I say it was shot down?

OP young Clippy, OP. Do you beleive it was shot down?

Clippy said:
I asked you for a diagram. If 95% of the plane was recovered, I am interested to know where these parts were recovered. If you don't know whether such a diagram exists, then it's ok to just say so.

Why would there be a diagram? What difference would it make?
 
Last edited:
OP young Clippy, OP. Do you beleive it was shot down?

I suspect it may have been.

Why would there be a diagram? What difference would it make?

Well, it seems there are questions about whether the debris recovery from flight 93 suggests it was shot down. The spread of the debris is one thing that is mentioned. But it seems there is no precise information about what the spread of debris was, some say it was at least 5 miles. Just think it would be useful to debunkers and truthers alike if there was some more precise information on this.
 
Who is claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered? In the link posted above; http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html the claim was made that 95% of the wrecked was returned to the aircraft owner.

That's not what that link says. The actual quote is,

At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.

Lynn Truss would have a field day here over the question of whether a comma has been omitted after the word "plane", but I would interpret it as saying that 95% of the plane was found at the site and that this 95% has now been turned over to UA.

Dave
 
Lynn Truss would have a field day here over the question of whether a comma has been omitted after the word "plane", but I would interpret it as saying that 95% of the plane was found at the site and that this 95% has now been turned over to UA.

Dave

I think that might play into Ranb's hands, who is likely to wonder even more then where the other 5% is.
 
Until they find the little spring that was attached to that little handle that flushed the first-class toilet of flight 93 I demand another investigation!
 
how much of the plane was fragmented beyond recovery? I would imagine seat foam, food, beverages, body matter, fuel, is all pretty hard to locate after you fly into the ground a high speed.

think that it is pretty stunning they recovered 95% TBH
 
I suspect it may have been.

By what?

Well, it seems there are questions about whether the debris recovery from flight 93 suggests it was shot down. The spread of the debris is one thing that is mentioned. But it seems there is no precise information about what the spread of debris was, some say it was at least 5 miles. Just think it would be useful to debunkers and truthers alike if there was some more precise information on this.

Spread is only one part of it. There are reports about where certain debri were found and they are nowhere near the spread if a plane had been shot down at that height and speed. You also need to look at size of parts. Numerous large parts would have fallen off the aircraft as it broke up. There would have been larger parts of the passengers including whole bodies. Missiles do not vapourise aircraft. They damage them enough to bring them down.

Check Lockerbie for amount, spread and size of debri in a plane that was blown out of the sky.

The FDR data also contradicts the shootdown theory as does the majority of witness testimony.
 
For all they knew the remaining 5% could have had human remains on it. Why would they stop looking with 5 tons of debris still left to find?
5 tons? Is that how much it would be?

I think you are assuming that the 5% would all be in one piece and/or from the same part on the aircraft.

Do you know what the average amount of wreckage recovered during an accident investigation is? When you find the answer then you will know if it is an unusual amount.
 
Last edited:

Not sure, but I don't think it was a space beam or semtex in a tape recorder.


Spread is only one part of it. There are reports about where certain debri were found and they are nowhere near the spread if a plane had been shot down at that height and speed. You also need to look at size of parts. Numerous large parts would have fallen off the aircraft as it broke up. There would have been larger parts of the passengers including whole bodies. Missiles do not vapourise aircraft. They damage them enough to bring them down.

Check Lockerbie for amount, spread and size of debri in a plane that was blown out of the sky.

The FDR data also contradicts the shootdown theory as does the majority of witness testimony.

Would not this depend on what hit the plane and where it was hit?
 
Not sure, but I don't think it was a space beam or semtex in a tape recorder.

theres very few things it could have been?

clippy said:
Would not this depend on what hit the plane and where it was hit?

What do think could have hit the plane and created the scene as witnessed?

You are basically saying you have no worldy explanation for why you think it was shot down? If you made a few guesses I may be able to help you. I worked on military aircraft and know about missiles and weapons systems.

You missed the FDR data contradicting the shootdown theory also?
 

Back
Top Bottom