Flight 93

[beachnut]

beachnut,

Thanks for your reply. Here's the deal: This thread presupposes there was a FL93 and that it crashed either as the common myth would have it, via passenger intervention; or, alternativley, by having been shot down by a missile intercept. That is a false choice, nothing more, nothing less. In logic, one cannot presume what has not been proven to have occurred. That is why my posts have been, are and will remain relevant to the topic.

Here's a bit more to the deal. I now have reason to believe that you can distinguish the real from the unreal, when you are put into a position where doing so has a purpose.

The 9/11 myth scenario is so preposterous and so blatantly unproven in any of its stupid particulars as to no longer require banter back and forth about what did or did not happen, supported by various links to newspaper and other indirect sources. The normal sources that one would rely on, for instance, to prove a jetliner crash are not available with respect either to FL 93 or to any of the other phantom flights on 9/11.

Your boy, Yoda, or Mark Roberts, or whatever his name is, is not an expert on 9/11 and is not a debunker of anything. Most of his sources, like those of every other citizen activist, on any side of the issue, are all secondary, with the possible exception of the photographs. You, for instance, posted up two or three times a photograph of an empty field, containing, as its most prominent feature, 3 pink circles that were sun spots and you sought to use that photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

You are not incapable of photographic analysis. You know as well as anyone else your photo provided no proof of a jetliner crash.

So, the issue is simply this, you can continue to support the common myth for as long as it fulfills some need to do so, such as your sense of patriotism, your refusal to come to grips with living in a country that is controlled by unseen forces who would pull off a 9/11 for reasons of their own.

The future of the kids that you and I have posted up depends upon the current generation of adults coming to their senses in time to make things right before they get a lot worse.

So, no more back and forth about what your newspaper clippings say versus another set of newspaper clippings, least of all the Chinese Youth Daily, which stands as the source for the stupid proposition that WTC steel was shipped to China. No more of that crap.

The official version of events of 9/11 is totally false and enough people have said that for it no longer to be an item in contention. There was no FL 93 and the photo you have posted up what, 3 times now, is proof enough there was no jetliner crash at that site. Thus, alternative claims about how it crashed are presumptuous in the extreme and that is the point.

All that talk and no evidence. I thought typing skills were indicative of rational thinking; I can't be right on everything like you are wrong on 911.

It stands, the Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and attacked the terrorists you apologize for with your horse-trailer nonsense.

The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, you have not after 8 years of spewing lies and my jet fuel still starts with a spark, I even showed you the igniters that can do it.

The photos I posted are proof of Flight 93 crashing at 600 mph, your lack of knowledge in physics does not make your fantasy true. You ignore all the evidence.

I was trained to work, investigate, and supervise aircraft accident investigations; you can't identify a fuselage part. Many other JREF members can figure this out without training, just using knowledge and critical thinking; why can't you?

Take any of your claims and present the evidence; otherwise it is talk from made up delusions.

The FDR, RADAR, DNA, FAA, NTSB, FBI, physics, math, logical thinking, rational research, knowledge, flight procedure, ATC, CVR, and more prove you to be wrong about Flight 93.

8 years and you can't identify a fuselage, or understand an aircraft impact at 600 mph. Do you know how many joules the kinetic energy impact was?

How many aircraft accidents have you investigated?

Is that a common term you use, "boy"? Are you another neoNAZI? Gravy debunked you and all of 911 truth. Where is your evidence? Dog ate it? Lost it when you fell in the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth?

Next time try evidence and some logical thinking before slinging the stuff you find at the bottom of your horse-trailer.

It is not a myth the Passengers attacked the terrorists you weakly apologize for by spreading lies, it is a fact the passengers attacked, and the terrorists flew the plane into the ground. To prove otherwise takes evidence from you which your refuse to do because you have talk and delusions.

 

[wargord]

beachnut,

Thanks for your reply. Here's the deal: This thread presupposes there was a FL93 and that it crashed either as the common myth would have it, via passenger intervention; or, alternativley, by having been shot down by a missile intercept. That is a false choice, nothing more, nothing less. In logic, one cannot presume what has not been proven to have occurred. That is why my posts have been, are and will remain relevant to the topic.

Here's a bit more to the deal. I now have reason to believe that you can distinguish the real from the unreal, when you are put into a position where doing so has a purpose.

The 9/11 myth scenario is so preposterous and so blatantly unproven in any of its stupid particulars as to no longer require banter back and forth about what did or did not happen, supported by various links to newspaper and other indirect sources. The normal sources that one would rely on, for instance, to prove a jetliner crash are not available with respect either to FL 93 or to any of the other phantom flights on 9/11.

Your boy, Yoda, or Mark Roberts, or whatever his name is, is not an expert on 9/11 and is not a debunker of anything. Most of his sources, like those of every other citizen activist, on any side of the issue, are all secondary, with the possible exception of the photographs. You, for instance, posted up two or three times a photograph of an empty field, containing, as its most prominent feature, 3 pink circles that were sun spots and you sought to use that photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

You are not incapable of photographic analysis. You know as well as anyone else your photo provided no proof of a jetliner crash.

So, the issue is simply this, you can continue to support the common myth for as long as it fulfills some need to do so, such as your sense of patriotism, your refusal to come to grips with living in a country that is controlled by unseen forces who would pull off a 9/11 for reasons of their own.

The future of the kids that you and I have posted up depends upon the current generation of adults coming to their senses in time to make things right before they get a lot worse.

So, no more back and forth about what your newspaper clippings say versus another set of newspaper clippings, least of all the Chinese Youth Daily, which stands as the source for the stupid proposition that WTC steel was shipped to China. No more of that crap.

The official version of events of 9/11 is totally false and enough people have said that for it no longer to be an item in contention. There was no FL 93 and the photo you have posted up what, 3 times now, is proof enough there was no jetliner crash at that site. Thus, alternative claims about how it crashed are presumptuous in the extreme and that is the point.

Isn't your claims that FL93 didn't exist presumptuous? They only evidence you provide is that the evidence that others have don't show what they claim they show. It seems that all you do is look at evidence and since you can't see the full plane say it never existed. How is that evidence? How do you even use that as proof for your claim?

Just because a picture of a plane crash doesn't look like what a plane crash should look like, in your mind, doesn't mean a plane didn't crash. I mean how many plane crashes have you seen that had the exact same parameters as FL93? None, right! That is because no plane crash is the same, we have somewhat similar plane crashes, but not one that is the exact same as another. To even conclude that FL93 didn't crash because it didn't look like a plane crash is moronic.

 

[jammonius]

This is an outright error. The NTSB provided both an analysis of the FDR as well as a transcript of the ATC communications. Don't forget the flight path study built on both the FDR as well as the radar data. All of this can be found at the NTSB's site: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

The NTSB may not have had beginning to end responsibility for investigating the crash - that's the FBI's responsibility - but it is absolutely incorrect that the crashes were never investigated by the NTSB. They were. The proof is available at the links.

elmondo,

You don't need me to tell you the limitation on your post. You are not contradicting me. You are pointing, despartately, to the fact that the NTSB was called in to look at some data in a cirucmstance that is different from the NTSB having conducted an air crash investigation.

The best you can say is that the NTSB was provided data and/or alleged black boxes that it did not, itself collect, and was asked to analyze it. The NTSB has only ever said that it analyzed what it was given. The statements, themselves, may not be lies, but they are also not proof of FL 93 or of any other flight in the context of 9/11 that, after all, plainly involved simulated hijackings.

Do not fool yourself. The NTSB has only provided secondary analysis of what also involves an unproven assumption. This is clear, is not in doubt and cannot have escaped your notice.

 

[jammonius]

beachnut,

Please stop skipping over the lack of evidence of a plane crash and jumping to the issue of passengers. You are just remaining in denial by doing that. Furthermore, the passenger information itslef is inconclusive in and of its own right, absent the ability to actually document discussions with the next of kin of known victims, which almost always leads to other and further anamolies.

This is why I was hoping Big Al would not chump out on me on the next of kin of Edward Felt. Unfortunately, and as usual, the chance to connect with next of kin didn't materialize.

Look further into that yourself. Once again, you don't need me to find the disconnects and the factors that give rise to the inability to prove that the persons died in a plane crash.

It is time to get real here. The need to wake up and come to grips with the falsity of the 9/11 myth is NOW rather than later. The longer we wait, the more irreparable damage will be done.

 

[jammonius]

Isn't your claims that FL93 didn't exist presumptuous? They only evidence you provide is that the evidence that others have don't show what they claim they show. It seems that all you do is look at evidence and since you can't see the full plane say it never existed. How is that evidence? How do you even use that as proof for your claim?

Just because a picture of a plane crash doesn't look like what a plane crash should look like, in your mind, doesn't mean a plane didn't crash. I mean how many plane crashes have you seen that had the exact same parameters as FL93? None, right! That is because no plane crash is the same, we have somewhat similar plane crashes, but not one that is the exact same as another. To even conclude that FL93 didn't crash because it didn't look like a plane crash is moronic.

wargord,

The time for this kind argument, back and forth, has past. You didn't post up better photographs, which might have at least been a viable reply. The reason why beachnut keeps posting up an inconclusive photo of a jetliner crash is because that is all there is in connection not just with FL 93; but, as it is with 93 so it is with 11, 175 and 77. Photo after photo after photo and no viable evidence of a plane crash in any of them, at all, ever, period. That is the well established norm, posters. And, as it is with plane crash photo evidence, so it is with ever other aspect of 9/11 that depends, almost exclusively, upon indirect, inconclusive sources for proof of whatever aspect of the claim it might be.

It didn't need to be that way. Bush and Cheney could have testified under oath, separately; but they didn't. The 9/11 commission could have been conducted in a timely manner and in good faith, but it wasn't. The normal, properly empowered agencies, like NTSB could have handled plane crash investigations if plane crashes had occurred, but they didn't.

Flight manifests that are not photo copies of photo copies, dated more than a year later would not have been required if plane crashes had occurred.

Enough, already posters. This is not a joke and not a game. The myth of 9/11 is unbelievable and false. No need to spin it further than that.

So, there is no further excuse for this, posters.

It is up to people like you to deal with this. You are intelligent, interested and capable, with a lot of prodding, of assessing reality, when given no other viable choice.

That is what we are here confronted with. The jig is up. There were no planes on 9/11, now deal with it.

 

[JimBenArm]

Furthermore, the passenger information itslef is inconclusive in and of its own right, absent the ability to actually document discussions with the next of kin of known victims, which almost always leads to other and further anamolies.

What the hell is this word salad supposed to mean? That the next-of-kin lied about their loved ones being missing? That they lie about them being on the plane? Or they lied about having cell phone conversations with them?

Or is it some other sickening accusation that I'm missing?

 

[JimBenArm]

wargord,

The time for this kind argument, back and forth, has past. You didn't post up better photographs, which might have at least been a viable reply. The reason why beachnut keeps posting up an inconclusive photo of a jetliner crash is because that is all there is in connection not just with FL 93; but, as it is with 93 so it is with 11, 175 and 77. Photo after after and no viable evidence of a plane crash in any of them, at all, ever, period.

So, there is no further excuse for this, posters.

It is up to people like you to deal with this. You are intelligent, interested and capable, with a lot of prodding, of assessing reality, when given no other viable choice.

That is what we are here confronted with. The jig is up. There were no planes on 9/11, now deal with it.

There are no brains in twoofers, now deal with it.

 

[I Ratant]

...

That is what we are here confronted with. The jig is up. There were no planes on 9/11, now deal with it.

.
Your situation is so pathetic, there's no polite way to discuss the mental instabilities you display.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

beachnut,

Thanks for your reply. Here's the deal: This thread presupposes there was a FL93 and that it crashed either as the common myth would have it, via passenger intervention; or, alternativley, by having been shot down by a missile intercept. That is a false choice, nothing more, nothing less. In logic, one cannot presume what has not been proven to have occurred. That is why my posts have been, are and will remain relevant to the topic.

Here's a bit more to the deal. I now have reason to believe that you can distinguish the real from the unreal, when you are put into a position where doing so has a purpose.

The 9/11 myth scenario is so preposterous and so blatantly unproven in any of its stupid particulars as to no longer require banter back and forth about what did or did not happen, supported by various links to newspaper and other indirect sources. The normal sources that one would rely on, for instance, to prove a jetliner crash are not available with respect either to FL 93 or to any of the other phantom flights on 9/11.

Your boy, Yoda, or Mark Roberts, or whatever his name is, is not an expert on 9/11 and is not a debunker of anything. Most of his sources, like those of every other citizen activist, on any side of the issue, are all secondary, with the possible exception of the photographs. You, for instance, posted up two or three times a photograph of an empty field, containing, as its most prominent feature, 3 pink circles that were sun spots and you sought to use that photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

You are not incapable of photographic analysis. You know as well as anyone else your photo provided no proof of a jetliner crash.

So, the issue is simply this, you can continue to support the common myth for as long as it fulfills some need to do so, such as your sense of patriotism, your refusal to come to grips with living in a country that is controlled by unseen forces who would pull off a 9/11 for reasons of their own.

The future of the kids that you and I have posted up depends upon the current generation of adults coming to their senses in time to make things right before they get a lot worse.

So, no more back and forth about what your newspaper clippings say versus another set of newspaper clippings, least of all the Chinese Youth Daily, which stands as the source for the stupid proposition that WTC steel was shipped to China. No more of that crap.

The official version of events of 9/11 is totally false and enough people have said that for it no longer to be an item in contention. There was no FL 93 and the photo you have posted up what, 3 times now, is proof enough there was no jetliner crash at that site. Thus, alternative claims about how it crashed are presumptuous in the extreme and that is the point.

This is stundie worthy, my friends.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What the hell is this word salad supposed to mean? That the next-of-kin lied about their loved ones being missing? That they lie about them being on the plane? Or they lied about having cell phone conversations with them?

It's becoming increasingly evident that he's just yanking our chains. There's no way a functioning human brain could reconcile such nonsense with reality.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut,

Please stop skipping over the lack of evidence of a plane crash and jumping to the issue of passengers. You are just remaining in denial by doing that. Furthermore, the passenger information itslef is inconclusive in and of its own right, absent the ability to actually document discussions with the next of kin of known victims, which almost always leads to other and further anamolies.

This is why I was hoping Big Al would not chump out on me on the next of kin of Edward Felt. Unfortunately, and as usual, the chance to connect with next of kin didn't materialize.

Look further into that yourself. Once again, you don't need me to find the disconnects and the factors that give rise to the inability to prove that the persons died in a plane crash.

It is time to get real here. The need to wake up and come to grips with the falsity of the 9/11 myth is NOW rather than later. The longer we wait, the more irreparable damage will be done.

Go ahead prove anything you got with some evidence; where is your evidence to support your lies?

Are you a neoNAZI?
Why can't you identify a fuselage, but mess up by saying it is a horse-trailer?
The passengers on Flight 93 were all identified by DNA. FACT, which makes your statement a lie.

The only damage to be done is to your credibility, falling faster than free-fall into the pit of ignorance known as the 911 truth movement.

You really are scooping your posts out of the bottom of that horse-trailer you confused with an aircraft fuselage. The bottomless pit of 911 lies.

You have zero anomalies!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

elmondo,

You don't need me to tell you the limitation on your post. You are not contradicting me. You are pointing, despartately, to the fact that the NTSB was called in to look at some data in a cirucmstance that is different from the NTSB having conducted an air crash investigation.

The best you can say is that the NTSB was provided data and/or alleged black boxes that it did not, itself collect, and was asked to analyze it. The NTSB has only ever said that it analyzed what it was given. The statements, themselves, may not be lies, but they are also not proof of FL 93 or of any other flight in the context of 9/11 that, after all, plainly involved simulated hijackings.

Do not fool yourself. The NTSB has only provided secondary analysis of what also involves an unproven assumption. This is clear, is not in doubt and cannot have escaped your notice.

This is indeed a contradiction to what you posted. You said:

What is important, though, is that no matter how hard you try, there is no information other than newspaper clippings here or there that address the issue of jetliner crashes on 9/11. The alleged crashes were not ever investigated by NTSB and that is because there were no jetliner crashes.

1. There is indeed "information other than newspaper clippings here or there". The links I posted were proof of that.
2. You think drawing a distinction between being owning an investigation and being part of it changes the fact that they did indeed examine the evidence recovered from or (in the case of the radar data) relating to the crash? From the "Specialists Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder":

   In support of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) investigation into the terrorist act of the United Airlines Flight 93...

   They were indeed part of the investigation. The fact that they were only one of several organizations doesn't change the fact that they did indeed investigate the aspects of the crash that fell within their expertise. And oh, BTW, there were indeed crashes.

BTW,

The best you can say is that the NTSB was provided data and/or alleged black boxes that it did not, itself collect...

No kidding, Sherlock. What's significant about that? The NTSB never recovers such items directly; a simple search of internet news stories reveals that the Navy recovered the black boxes in both the TWA 800, and EgyptAir 900 crashes; the ValueJet 592's box was recovered by a Miami-Dade police diver. It is expected that someone gives the FDRs to the NTSB. This is normal procedure.

Your clear implication was that the NTSB didn't have anything to investigate; your line about people only seeing newspaper articles and there supposedly being "no jetliner crashes" is proof of that. My post refutes both your implications. There is indeed information outside of media stories. And the NTSB did indeed play the role they were supposed to in the investigation. Like I said:

The NTSB may not have had beginning to end responsibility for investigating the crash - that's the FBI's responsibility - but it is absolutely incorrect that the crashes were never investigated by the NTSB. They were. The proof is available at the links.

Link: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Furthermore, the passenger information itslef is inconclusive in and of its own right, absent the ability to actually document discussions with the next of kin of known victims, which almost always leads to other and further anamolies.

What the hell is this word salad supposed to mean? That the next-of-kin lied about their loved ones being missing? That they lie about them being on the plane? Or they lied about having cell phone conversations with them?

Or is it some other sickening accusation that I'm missing?

No, you got it right.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jammonius is getting his ass handed to him over & over again. All I need now is beer & popcorn!

Actually, isn't Jammonius that retard from the Loose Change Forum who always cries about Flight 93 all the time, Dom? I smell a sock!!

 

[BigAl]

wargord,

The time for this kind argument, back and forth, has past. You didn't post up better photographs, which might have at least been a viable reply. The reason why beachnut keeps posting up an inconclusive photo of a jetliner crash is because that is all there is in connection not just with FL 93; but, as it is with 93 so it is with 11, 175 and 77. Photo after photo after photo and no viable evidence of a plane crash in any of them, at all, ever, period. That is the well established norm, posters. And, as it is with plane crash photo evidence, so it is with ever other aspect of 9/11 that depends, almost exclusively, upon indirect, inconclusive sources for proof of whatever aspect of the claim it might be.

It didn't need to be that way. Bush and Cheney could have testified under oath, separately; but they didn't. The 9/11 commission could have been conducted in a timely manner and in good faith, but it wasn't. The normal, properly empowered agencies, like NTSB could have handled plane crash investigations if plane crashes had occurred, but they didn't.

Flight manifests that are not photo copies of photo copies, dated more than a year later would not have been required if plane crashes had occurred.

Enough, already posters. This is not a joke and not a game. The myth of 9/11 is unbelievable and false. No need to spin it further than that.

So, there is no further excuse for this, posters.

It is up to people like you to deal with this. You are intelligent, interested and capable, with a lot of prodding, of assessing reality, when given no other viable choice.

That is what we are here confronted with. The jig is up. There were no planes on 9/11, now deal with it.

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,

Please stop skipping over the lack of evidence of a plane crash and jumping to the issue of passengers. You are just remaining in denial by doing that. Furthermore, the passenger information itslef is inconclusive in and of its own right, absent the ability to actually document discussions with the next of kin of known victims, which almost always leads to other and further anamolies.

This is why I was hoping Big Al would not chump out on me on the next of kin of Edward Felt. Unfortunately, and as usual, the chance to connect with next of kin didn't materialize.

Why would I bother the wife of a 9/11 victim over the delusions of an Internet troll?

 

[Hokulele]

There were no planes on 9/11, now deal with it.

So you do believe that there was no flight 93 at all?

 

[TJM]

So you do believe that there was no flight 93 at all?

Exactly.

We are now on the final leg of his journey, where he will finally have to discount us too as figments of his imagination and oh lookit the kitty...

 

[A W Smith]

So you do believe that there was no flight 93 at all?

Correct, that is what he believes. And no proof otherwise will convince him. There is no cure, There is only medication. And even with medication. When the medication starts to work, the patient believes they do not need it anymore. Hokulele, click on the profile and look at the on again, off again nature of this subjects posting history. What does that tell you?

Delusions are beliefs that are not backed up by reality. They may remain despite obvious evidence to the contrary, and the fact that nobody else believes them to be true.
Paranoid Delusions are beliefs of a suspicious nature, where the person believes something is not right with them, another person(s), or the world in general, which poses serious problems for them.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So you do believe that there was no flight 93 at all?

Exactly.

We are now on the final leg of his journey, where he will finally have to discount us too as figments of his imagination and oh lookit the kitty...

You know, at this rate, if he keeps it up, he'll eventually end up arguing that there's no New York, Shanksville, or Washington.

ETA: Yes, this is indeed a joke about yet another truther validating Ryan's Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories.