Flight 93

[ElMondoHummus]

edit, there have been more responses.

Well, let's see what we have. Since I posted proof that something about FL 93 was prepared afterwards for a purpose having nothing whatever to do with investigation of FL 93, there have been nine responses. Two each by elmondo and wargord with one each from jimbenarm, jackonary and Big Al [add 1 by switchpoint and 1 by iratant].

Thanks to each and all for those respoonses.

Now, what are we to make of them as a whole? I think we're making progress, to tell you the truth. You folks are coming to recognize that FL 93 cannot be shown to have either flown or crashed on the basis of normal evidence from normal sources.

elmondo, who tends to save indications that he is reaching the point of recognition until the last part of his posts, had this to say:

"...the NTSB did indeed investigate the elements of the crash that were their responsibility..."

Thanks for that elmondo. That is ever so typical of 9/11. Always a limitation, a box, a curtailment. You did not say the NTSB investigated [FL 93], rather, you said NTSB investigated "elements of the crash" meaning they didn't investigate the crash itself.

Look, folks, the basic problem is that you don't require proof of 9/11, for if you did, you wouldn't be defending the indefensible. It is indefensible for NTSB to have investigated "elements of the crash" because that is not normal. Furthermore, if you're going to say NTSB investigated "elements of the crash" who investigated the crash itself, and what did that investigation result in and where are its findings to be found?

There was no investigation of the crash of FL 93 because there was no such thing.

The fact that something as sensitive as the examination of the gte phone calls, something that involves sensitivity towards victims and their families, relies on a claim of investigation done, what, years or months later for another purpose, is utterly indefensible.

Please stop assuming the evidence is there when it isn't. Stop relying on indirect, second-hand sources. As I said before, the jig is up.

There is no valid proof of the proposition that FL 93 crashed in PA on 9/11/01 and you cannot post any, even if you tried. I am not making this up. The most recent serious effort to post up proof consisted in the cell phone proof. I have conclusively shown that proof fails because it wasn't prepared for purpose of proving FL 93 crashed. By its own plain language, it was prepared at a later date for the Moussaoui trial. That means it was prepared by individuals who had no responsibility for investigating FL 93 and was, instead, prepared by folks who had an agenda of framing up Zacarias Moussaoui.

Wow. Silly, twisted logic delivered wholesale. Let's remember something: There is no one, single piece of evidence that proves or disproves the event, and that's why the certainty is so strong: Multiple lines of evidence converge to prove the fate of UA93. Again:

• The FDR, radar data, ATC transmissions combined into the flight path studies.
• The NORAD recordings
• The Moussaoui trial evidence, including such things as the cockpit voice recorder transcripts
• The airfone calls (presentation taken from the Moussaoui trial evidence), plus a simple list of them.
• The DNA evidence.
• The witnesses to Flight 93
• The witnesses to FL93's crash scene
• Family members recounting via cell and airfone calls what the victims saw
• The documented work of the first responders (here's a second, independent study documenting what they did; here's a third), as well as their own observations/testimonies
• Personal effects of Flight 93 victims recovered from the site
• Photos, more photos, even more photos, and even EPA photos of the wreckage

(Note, too, how he slips an unsupported allegation - "folks who had an agenda of framing up Zacarias Moussaoui" - in with everything else. No proof, no support, just a bare accusation. Yet, he tries to write off everything else.)

Anyway, the pathology here is clear: Jammonious is demonstrating a Conditional Delusion regarding the authority and veracity of the evidence behind the Flight 93 narrative:

Conditional Irreducible Delusion: Belief that is totally unsupported, and thus impossible or unnecessary to directly refute.

This third class is related to sophistry, and typically manifests as an argument from ignorance. This class is common because the Truth Movement often focuses on the absence of evidence it arbitrarily decides is important, rather than addressing actual evidence. It is also generally followed by a misplaced burden of proof or call to perfection. ”Aircraft were never identified by their component serial numbers” is an example of Conditional Delusion – while vaguely possible, there is no way to prove, and indeed no reason to even suspect, that such checking was never performed. Furthermore, there are numerous other means of unambiguous identification, so without somehow invalidating this other evidence this oversight would have no practical impact even if it was true. As a result, for this claim to be relevant, it must be true, and it is conditional on several unsupported assumptions.
​

Jammonious indulges in sophistry writ large; again, as an example: Note his attempts to diminish the NTSB's role in the overall investigation. Does it really matter that they were only part of a larger team? Does that invalidate their conclusions drawn from a study of the electronic data? As I said before, the only way the NTSB conclusions can be taken as incorrect is to have not only them, but the information providers - in the case of FL93, the first responders who obtained the flight data recorder, plus the FAA who gave the radar data - be part of "The Plot". That is merely one example; he rejects all evidence with some form of sophistic, fallacious reasoning that doesn't address the accuracy and validity of the evidence.

I don't even need to illustrate his arguments from ignorance; chances are, his response will contain at least one.

Also, look at his misplaced burdens of proof. The narrative set in place by the lines of evidence converging is unambiguous, yet, he places it on us to further prove it. It doesn't matter that we documented the GTE airfone calls, and also linked to GTE staff who listened in, family members who were the recipients, and documentation that the evidence was good enough for a court. No, he sets a silly, irrelevant bar regarding the motives of the "... individuals who had no responsibility for investigating FL 93", ignoring the fact that the individuals who gathered the data have yet to be "corrected" by the people who originated it. No GTE staff member, for example, has expressed any doubt about the veracity of the calls they handled. No family member has either. Yet, the mere possibility that the handler of the information is impugnable is enough for Jammonious to write off the evidence. Nevermind that it has been validated in other ways.

The belief that the evidence is dismissable is convenient for him since he can fill in the blanks with all sorts of fallacious and unsupported explanations. Problem is, it's an avoidance of the evidence itself. Jammonious holds a completely unsupported stance, and until he comes to terms with the error of his fallacious reasoning, there's nothing else to discuss. The evidence stands, his sophistry retailed in the attempt to to invalidate the strength of the evidence fails, and the only thing left to do is marvel at the range of delusion he displays in place of the evidence.

 

[tsig]

switchpoint,

You're about to wear out your rookie status. I asked you to post up the single best piece of evidence you have for the claim FL93 was hijacked and crashed on 9/11. You didn't do it; and, instead, merely argued a piece of evidence I, and not you, posted up that was in response to another poster who hadn't posted up any evidence, either.

The thread is slipping badly again. Its pointless if you folks aren't going to come to your senses and start realizing your beliefs in the explanation of what happened on 9/11, FL 93 among them, are not based on any rationally documented explanation of those events.

We're almost at the point where you might just as well return to arguing back and forth as to whether FL 93 got shot down or was caused to crash because the passengers rushed the flight deck.

You are certainly welcome to do that, you know. I have done what I could.

You said:
" No matter what information you turn to, you will find that the information proves nothing."

so why bother?

 

[PhantomWolf]

jammonius,

Since United Airlines were the ones that first reported the crash of UAL93, I have to assume that you believe that they were lying. What evidence do you have to support this?

 

[MikeW]

You said:
" No matter what information you turn to, you will find that the information proves nothing."

so why bother?

Because what jammonius meant was, "No matter what information you turn to, I will tell you that the information proves nothing." Much as with any other truther, really: denial rules.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You said:
" No matter what information you turn to, you will find that the information proves nothing."

so why bother?

Because what jammonius meant was, "No matter what information you turn to, I will tell you that the information proves nothing." Much as with any other truther, really: denial rules.

Irreducible delusion. See above.

 

[beachnut]

... You're finally getting it. ...

We have had it for 8 years, and the Passenger on 93 figure it out in minutes.

... The US must undergo the necessary catharctic awakening ...

You need to wake up and stop pushing lies and spell better - cathartic, but you need to clean your own mind of the lies and stupidity on 911.

... The Underwear bomber deal is, ...

Has nothing to do with 911. Give me your plane I have Depends filled with RDX! lol

... So, that slight digression ...

All your post are digressions into insanity.

... How close to breakthrough are you?

Since you prefer delusions who cares about your insane claims based on lies and hearsay?

... Let's make an exception here. ... Post up what you consider to be the single best piece of evidence ...

Your posts are the single best evidence of your complete ignorance of 911 and an idiotic delusion you have as you shovel that horse-trailer clean and sling the contents at us.

When you are not slinging those lies from the bottom of your horse-trailer, bet you are out there taking action to save us all from what ever you are here to do.

Any progress on identifying this object?

You called it a horse-trailer; need some help? lol, how sad the legacy you leave you kids is supporting liars and nut case conspiracy theorists.

No, you can't do reality based research and thinking. You make up idiotic lies.

 

[jammonius]

Folks,

The regression shown in the last few posts is regretable. Some have reposted old, inconclusive stuff without looking at it. In the post immediately above, for instance, beachnut has reposted the photograph of the cargo carrier that beachnut wants desparately to be a fragment of a Boeing 757. One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner. And, what is more, beachnut can't find any source cofirming that piece of tin is from a jetliner. None.


elmondo had previously posted up his list of FL93 information, some of which comes from Pittsburgh Live and one of which is a study done by some academics.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch3_grant.pdf

If posters here want to understand what I am saying, I invite you to read the above referenced report. It is entitled, simply enough "The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville PA."

Its content, especially from pg 11 of 26 onward confirms that there was nothing whatever the Univ Colorado researchers could say about an actual jetliner crash. Read it posters and you will see, in carefully worded prose, what can be said about a jetliner crash that finds nothing whatsoever having to do with a jetliner crash, for that is what that study stands for pure and simple.

Mind you, that is not what it wants to say; but that is what it has to say and does say when and to the extent the study deals with local first responders.

Thanks, elmondo, for posting that and your Pittsburghlive, etc. sources. They confirm there was no jetliner crash confirmed by a competent investigation.

But, we know at this point that the point here is when posters will come to the recognition there was no jetliner crash. You aren't helping yourselves by posting old news. There is enough information out there for posters to grasp the essential fact there was no FL 93 jetliner crash in Shanksville PA.

 

[beachnut]

... there was no FL 93 jetliner crash in Shanksville PA.

Too lazy to resreach so you regress to posting lies from idiots in 911 truth; too lazy to be sketpical of the liars.

The FDR and DNA prove you to be a liar.

You post talk and come with this failed moronic lie based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

We posted the proof, you rejected based on your inability to understand.

You base you ideas on lies, and can't tell a fuselage from horse-trailer.
8 years of failure, a legacy of moronic delusions on 911 is all you have to leave to your kids, a dim future as you can't tell a fuselage from horse-trailer. Want another chance? No, you will rinse your mind clear of the reality based evidence on 911 and repeat your lies forever.

You are off topic, go start another thread on your next idiotic idea.

Your post confirm you inabilty to use logical thinking to form ratiaonal conclusion, and you repeat it every single post.

You support murderers who did 911 by erasing them from you mind like a kid closes his eyes and then you make up excuses for yourself hiding behind your ignorance and spewing delusions. The CVR has the terrorist killing a woman, on tape she begs for her life and the best, the very best you can do is make up lies due to your extreme bias, or willful ignorance.

What do your parents think of your disrespect for 911 victims which to you don't exist? Who laughs at your lies the most? Since you have no friends the only outlet you have is here, where you can post lies and no one will know who you are. What do you friends say about your warped insane ideas?

 

[wargord]

Folks,

The regression shown in the last few posts is regretable. Some have reposted old, inconclusive stuff without looking at it. In the post immediately above, for instance, beachnut has reposted the photograph of the cargo carrier that beachnut wants desparately to be a fragment of a Boeing 757. One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner. And, what is more, beachnut can't find any source cofirming that piece of tin is from a jetliner. None.

Well, where is your source confirming that piece of "tin" is from a cargo carrier and not a Boeing 757? Your only evidence provided is

One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner.

What happened to your valid sources from proper investigations? What proper investigation determined it was from a cargo carrier? It seems you are quite comfortable using your opinions as fact but demand "valid sources" of information from "proper investigations" from everyone else.

elmondo had previously posted up his list of FL93 information, some of which comes from Pittsburgh Live and one of which is a study done by some academics.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch3_grant.pdf

If posters here want to understand what I am saying, I invite you to read the above referenced report. It is entitled, simply enough "The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville PA."

Its content, especially from pg 11 of 26 onward confirms that there was nothing whatever the Univ Colorado researchers could say about an actual jetliner crash. Read it posters and you will see, in carefully worded prose, what can be said about a jetliner crash that finds nothing whatsoever having to do with a jetliner crash, for that is what that study stands for pure and simple.

Mind you, that is not what it wants to say; but that is what it has to say and does say when and to the extent the study deals with local first responders.

It is very evident that you don't know how to read.

Thanks, elmondo, for posting that and your Pittsburghlive, etc. sources. They confirm there was no jetliner crash confirmed by a competent investigation.

More proof you do not know how to read.

But, we know at this point that the point here is when posters will come to the recognition there was no jetliner crash. You aren't helping yourselves by posting old news. There is enough information out there for posters to grasp the essential fact there was no FL 93 jetliner crash in Shanksville PA.

When are you going to provide the evidence that there was no FL93?

 

[DGM]

Look, folks, the basic problem is that you don't require proof of 9/11, for if you did, you wouldn't be defending the indefensible. It is indefensible for NTSB to have investigated "elements of the crash" because that is not normal. Furthermore, if you're going to say NTSB investigated "elements of the crash" who investigated the crash itself, and what did that investigation result in and where are its findings to be found?

.

For someone that claims to know so much about things you'd expect that you'd know why the NTSB didn't take the lead and who did.

Now, I'm not going to explain it to you because I know you don't care.

Why do you still after all these years refuse to talk to people that could answer your questions (not only about UA93 but NYC)? I suspect I know, your afraid you'll learn the truth and people will stop responding to your posts and you'll be lonely because your not very interesting without "truth". Let me clue you in, your not that interesting with it. Sorry.

 

[jammonius]

The regression is now complete. So, I'll play along. That is the essential theme of the movie Shutter Island.

OK, this is a piece of a Boeing 757 that came from FL 93 that can be obtained from United as the FBI returned it to them for safekeeping:

"SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds."

 

[beachnut]

Was some repeating the NTSB junk again?
NTSB does accidents
FBI does crime
Why does 911 truth mess up the facts, and make up lies about 93? They do a good job of making up idiotic lies only morons find the time to repeat them.

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just ridiculous because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole already existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is ridiculous.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.

They never will present evidence they only talk and regurgitate delusions made up by morons in the 911 truth movement. A bunch of crazies with the leader living off of suckers money selling books, DVD, and taking donations. No evidence in 911 truth.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Sad, sad... irreducible delusion.

In the post immediately above, for instance, beachnut has reposted the photograph of the cargo carrier that beachnut wants desparately to be a fragment of a Boeing 757. One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner. And, what is more, beachnut can't find any source cofirming that piece of tin is from a jetliner. None.

Oh, the dishonesty. That was a piece of evidence submitted for the Moussaoui trial. Doesn't get any more verfied than that.

elmondo had previously posted up his list of FL93 information, some of which comes from Pittsburgh Live and one of which is a study done by some academics.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch3_grant.pdf

If posters here want to understand what I am saying, I invite you to read the above referenced report. It is entitled, simply enough "The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville PA."

Its content, especially from pg 11 of 26 onward confirms that there was nothing whatever the Univ Colorado researchers could say about an actual jetliner crash. Read it posters and you will see, in carefully worded prose, what can be said about a jetliner crash that finds nothing whatsoever having to do with a jetliner crash, for that is what that study stands for pure and simple.

Mind you, that is not what it wants to say; but that is what it has to say and does say when and to the extent the study deals with local first responders.

Funny how Jammonious subtracts the fact that it was linked as validation of the fact that rescue and cleanup workers were at the Flight 93 crash site. Funny, too, how he subtracts all the other evidence firmly establishing why the responders were there as well as what they saw.

Thanks, elmondo, for posting that and your Pittsburghlive, etc. sources. They confirm there was no jetliner crash confirmed by a competent investigation.

On the contrary, they confirm exactly that. They confirm a jetliner crash (How else would workers recover jetliner parts, a black box, and a cockpit voice recorder), confirm that the workers had to clean up the wreckage, and confirm where two pieces of electronic evidence - the FDR and CVR - came from.

As I said before, Jammonious is suffering under a Conditional Irreducible Delusion: He automatically disbelieves any and every piece of evidence that firmly establishes the presence of the jetliner, plus confirms the narrative of the people that were there. Once again, a quick, abbreviated sample of evidence that's quickly available online:

• FDR, radar data, ATC transmissions combined into the flight path studies.
• The NORAD recordings
• The Moussaoui trial evidence, including such things as the cockpit voice recorder transcripts
• The airfone calls (presentation taken from the Moussaoui trial evidence), plus a simple list of them.
• The DNA evidence.
• The witnesses to Flight 93
• The witnesses to FL93's crash scene
• Family members recounting via cell and airfone calls what the victims saw
• The documented work of the first responders (here's a second, independent study documenting what they did; here's a third), as well as their own observations/testimonies
• Personal effects of Flight 93 victims recovered from the site
• Photos, more photos, even more photos, and even EPA photos of the wreckage

Jammonious's delusion continues to steer him towards denying the legitimacy and veracity of the evidence, but his delusion accomplishes nothing towards refuting it. It all proves the crash of UA93 beyond doubt.

 

[beachnut]

...
Oh, the dishonesty. That was a piece of evidence submitted for the Moussaoui trial. Doesn't get any more verfied than that.
...

To him it is a horse-trailer, the same horse-trailer he spoons out his pile of steaming lies from. Being a poster of talk saves tons of time looking up this junk for him which rejects due to ignorance, or some massive learning disability yet to be discovered.


http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html

 

[leftysergeant]

In the post immediately above, for instance, beachnut has reposted the photograph of the cargo carrier that beachnut wants desparately to be a fragment of a Boeing 757. One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner.

Bull flops. To those of us who have been around aircraft wreckage (like me) it looks exactly like a piece of a passenger jet.

Let's see you try to explain how it could be anything else.

Twooferism is a form of pschotic delusion.

 

[lapman]

And I was upstairs in our facility, immediately went downstairs, picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, "Is this part of the exercise?" Because quite honestly, and frankly we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time to time. But I realized that it was not. This was real life.

There. I bolded what you refuse to acknowledge. General Arnold specifically states that it was not an exercise. Therefore, you're own source confirmed that the 9/11 hijackings did happen.

 

[BigAl]

Folks,

The regression shown in the last few posts is regretable. Some have reposted old, inconclusive stuff without looking at it. In the post immediately above, for instance, beachnut has reposted the photograph of the cargo carrier that beachnut wants desparately to be a fragment of a Boeing 757. One can look at that piece of tin and tell that it is not from a jetliner. And, what is more, beachnut can't find any source cofirming that piece of tin is from a jetliner. None.


elmondo had previously posted up his list of FL93 information, some of which comes from Pittsburgh Live and one of which is a study done by some academics.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch3_grant.pdf

If posters here want to understand what I am saying, I invite you to read the above referenced report. It is entitled, simply enough "The Crash of United Flight 93 in Shanksville PA."

Its content, especially from pg 11 of 26 onward confirms that there was nothing whatever the Univ Colorado researchers could say about an actual jetliner crash. Read it posters and you will see, in carefully worded prose, what can be said about a jetliner crash that finds nothing whatsoever having to do with a jetliner crash, for that is what that study stands for pure and simple.

How can you read that paper and not conclude that the authors and people named didn't know that a big jet crashed in a corn field in Shanksville?

 

[jammonius]

Sad, sad... irreducible delusion.
Oh, the dishonesty. That was a piece of evidence submitted for the Moussaoui trial. Doesn't get any more verfied than that.



Funny how Jammonious subtracts the fact that it was linked as validation of the fact that rescue and cleanup workers were at the Flight 93 crash site. Funny, too, how he subtracts all the other evidence firmly establishing why the responders were there as well as what they saw.



On the contrary, they confirm exactly that. They confirm a jetliner crash (How else would workers recover jetliner parts, a black box, and a cockpit voice recorder), confirm that the workers had to clean up the wreckage, and confirm where two pieces of electronic evidence - the FDR and CVR - came from.

As I said before, Jammonious is suffering under a Conditional Irreducible Delusion: He automatically disbelieves any and every piece of evidence that firmly establishes the presence of the jetliner, plus confirms the narrative of the people that were there. Once again, a quick, abbreviated sample of evidence that's quickly available online:

• FDR, radar data, ATC transmissions combined into the flight path studies.
• The NORAD recordings
• The Moussaoui trial evidence, including such things as the cockpit voice recorder transcripts
• The airfone calls (presentation taken from the Moussaoui trial evidence), plus a simple list of them.
• The DNA evidence.
• The witnesses to Flight 93
• The witnesses to FL93's crash scene
• Family members recounting via cell and airfone calls what the victims saw
• The documented work of the first responders (here's a second, independent study documenting what they did; here's a third), as well as their own observations/testimonies
• Personal effects of Flight 93 victims recovered from the site
• Photos, more photos, even more photos, and even EPA photos of the wreckage

Jammonious's delusion continues to steer him towards denying the legitimacy and veracity of the evidence, but his delusion accomplishes nothing towards refuting it. It all proves the crash of UA93 beyond doubt.

elomondo,

You post the above in a listing but with no examination of the actual content, let alone the multiple contradictions contained within each one and between and among them.

I mentioned the Univ of Colorado study simply to show that it contained next to nothing about its title, which was "The Crash of United Flight 93 at Shanksville PA" However, that doesn't mean the Colorado study didn't mention anything at all about the jetliner crash. It actually contains a very, very important disclosure.

We've all been told tht the reason why no plane debris or human remains was visible was because the plane crashed so hard. I think that particular claim is chewy's favorite refrain. Certainly, someone in this thread has harped on that claim, over and over again.

But, according to Univ of Colorado, that didn't stop one of the first responders who wasn't even looking for debris to make the most important finding of all; namely, the hijacker's wallet and passport:

"... the first significant piece of evidence was found the first night by a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper assigned to security, who found the wallet and passport of one of the hijackers (Morrison, 2002)."

So, there ya go posters. We have proven FL 93 crashed, burned disintegrated and was hijacked because we have the wallet and the passport found, not by a first responder looking for debris, but by a trooper doing security detail.

Hey elmondo, keep up the good work and let us know when you detect any signs of delusion, any at all.

 

[sylvan8798]

"SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds."

So it's entirely possible that United Airlines has these pieces in storage somewhere (or at least some of them).

Hypothetical: some guys in dark suits and sunglasses arrive at jammonius' basement door. "Mr. Jammonius, we want to show you something. Please come with us." They take Jammonius to the storage location containing parts of Flight 93. They show him the serial numbers, the parts, the part lists, the pieces of fusalage, the Shanksville dirt embedded in the parts, the dried blood of dead passengers, the many pictures and documentations taken at the time and not made public because they are of, oh you know, body parts.

Is there anything they can show jammonius that would change his mind about what did or didn't happen to Flight 93?

What about it, jammonius? What would it take, exactly?

 

[jammonius]

How can you read that paper and not conclude that the authors and people named didn't know that a big jet crashed in a corn field in Shanksville?

Hi Big Al,

I can read that paper and not conclude that the authors and people named didn't know that a big jet crashed in a corn field in shanksville because the study describes discord, cover up and deception.

As it's you asking the question, Big Al, I'll assume you'll be curious enough to follow up. Please read the section entitled:

"Impact on Interaction and Trust"

See pg. 12 of the Colorado study. It starts with this:

"The designation of the crash site as a federal crime scene made the response
event somewhat unique for the local and state responders. The coordinated
response and recovery activities among the various local and state agencies
proceeded smoothly, according to the plans that were in place. The initial
perception of the FBI by several of the local responders was that the local
coordination was working well and the FBI was just doing its job without
really working with the locals. Federal interagency cooperation appeared to
be coordinated; however, there were initial rough spots between the federal
and local responders."

That paragraph describes conflict between the locals and the feds. One reason for the apparent discord is very likely that the locals were questioning whether a jetliner crashed or not. After all, no need to discuss trust if everything was hunky dory.

But, questioning the feds is not an easy thing to do in connection with 9/11, either back then or now.

After all, anyone who questioned the common myth, especially as it was being drummed into our collective psyche, would have received the kind of treatment I receive around here, right? The common myth mandates agreement, otherwise one is considered to be going against an established, even sacred, norm, to put it in polite language.

I have said pages and pages ago that 9/11 is an emotional issue. One has to believe in the common myth, even as it was being drummed into consciousness, or else get called "nuts."

That is what the Univ of Colorado researchers are telling you. But hey, Big Al, I know you can't go there yet.

Let me conclude by asking this: Has some hint of lucidity encroached on your consciousness yet, Big Al? When you achieve breakthrough, don't worry, you won't be alone. Sooner or later a critical mass will be achieved and the public will do what has to be done to unravel the 9/11 myth.

Coming to grips with the falsity of the 9/11 myth won't be easy. It could be very painful and social unrest could happen. It will be better, I think, to face the music sooner rather than later, though. Once again, if we don't deal with it, we run the risk of an even bigger false flag op against us.