• 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

beachnut said:
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

What the **** is that, a part of horse carrier?
Breach of rule 10 removed. Do not deliberately misspell words to get around the autocensor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles


See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My inconsistently-followed rule about engaging 9/11 "truthers" who won't affirmatively state what DID HAPPEN is a good rule.
 
Like all 911 liars you are spewing lies and junk. Off topic.

Get back on topic or be reported for being off topic for the last few off topic posts. Start your own lies thread, moronic lies and fantasy claims using faulty logic.

jammonius said:
Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated and found to have been unreliable? If you're going to use parts of it that you think are valid, despite the overall repudiation of that report, then hadn't you ought to cite the specific parts of it that you claim are valid, despite the disrepute of the report in general?

Take your time. You can post up clear and concise sources for your claims.

Hey posters, I must say, you folks haven't given me much to refute yet.:eek:
Click to expand...

This is topic; you like to spew lies and make up junk ideas based on lies, but the topic is below, get back on topic if you can take the time out of SPAMMING lies in each failed evidence free post.


9/11 Chewy Defense said:
According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas 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 aleady 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 rediculas.

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.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder you have failed to refute anything and are off topic spewing lies.


Wait there is no plane for you so you have zero, zip, to say about the shoot down idiotic delusion.

Okay prove the parts were planted and the DNA. No you have to refute it with evidence not your stupid statements of woo. Go ahead try some logical investigation techniques instead of posting lies, real dumb ones at that. Where do you get the trash you spew?

Get on topic or be reported. simple stuff, this means you have to come up with evidence.
 
beachnut said:
Most your posts are off topic debunked junk from years ago.
If you have some evidence besides the moronic lies, please present it. But you don't and you will lost idiotic junk not related to much more than proof you can't figure out 911 after 8 years of failure and nut case ideas. you can't even to do the physics to save you from supporting idiots who made up the lies you spread out of ignorance.

You sure waste a lot of time spewing lies, lots of them.

more proof of 93, more aircraft parts.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg[/qimg]
But you can't figure out what aircraft parts look like in a 600 mph impact you have DEW, and the failed physics of Leaphart on your side of fantasy and idiotic delusions.

How many more failed delusions do you have before you stop your quest to post dumber and dumber junk?
Click to expand...

beachnut,

You've got this pattern of posting up inconclusive photos, beachnut. What on earth do you claim your photo stands for proof of? There is not one thing in that photo that can be attributable either exclusively or even reliably to a plane crash.

Do you for one moment claim otherwise, beachnut? Let me ask you this. Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up.

That's all I'm asking. Prove your claims with sourced material.

For example airdisaster.com provides photo proof of most plane crashes that occur. Needless to say, 9/11 was an exception and airdisaster.com did not provide its normal reporting for any of the alleged 9/11 crashes. But, just by way of example, here's how airdisaster.com photos typical plane crashes. This one is of the recent AirFrance crash of the flight from Rio to Paris:

1.jpg


I know it's harder for 9/11 because not one jetliner tail survived any of those four crashes, something that is quite rare, but hey, that's 9/11 for you. Almost nothing that was supposed to happen, happened. Literally!!
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Garb,

Cut the crap. If you've got some reliable cell phone data that you are claiming entitlement to rely on as proof then you offer it up via valid sourcing.

Stop the bull crap of trying to get away with pure, unsupported assumptions.

Demonstrate with proper sourcing what cell phone calls you are talking about, please?

And, stop conflating the cell phone calls with the lack of debris. The one has nothing to do with the other. Offering up sourcing for cell phones does not explain away a lack of debris. That point stands on its own merit.

You remind me of that 9/11 simulated narrator who said:

"There's another one" in reference to the shadow thingy explosion at Tower 2 seeking to conflate what no one had confirmed as a jetliner crash into the North Tower with such a crash. "Another one" indeed.

9/11 is one fallacy after another, posters, could more of you but realize it.
Click to expand...

There is no crap. You ignore the evidence that was put there, ignore the amount of people it would take to set up such a ridiculous conspiracy, ignore the cell phone calls (and I mean all of them where the passengers called their loved ones and those same loved ones believed it was them), ignore the black box found at the scene, and all the other data supporting it.

Paper normally comes with airplanes. Finding paper at a crash site that dealt with an airplane would make sense. Other parts of the plane WERE found along with the paper.

And if we ignore that there are the cell phone calls.

And if we ignore that there is the black box.

And if we ignore that there is the witness testimony.

And around and around we go.

So what is the problem here?
 
Well, who am I going to believe?

- An insane truther on the internet
- A trained flight accident investigator / pilot / engineer

Hmm...
 
You are a first class loon.

jammonius said:
beachnut,

You've got this pattern of posting up inconclusive photos, beachnut. What on earth do you claim your photo stands for proof of? There is not one thing in that photo that can be attributable either exclusively or even reliably to a plane crash.

Do you for one moment claim otherwise, beachnut? Let me ask you this. Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up.

That's all I'm asking. Prove your claims with sourced material.
Click to expand...

Tell it to the several thousand people who either worked the crash site or the forensics investigation who would be very surprised to hear what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Any of these people could have blown the whistle on the fraud you claim happened. In 9 years, nobody has and you insult these people by making your accusations.


 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
What the tuck is that, a part of horse carrier?

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?
Click to expand...
It is a fuselage, the only large jet airliner that crashed in PA on 911 was flight 93; making only morons incapable of a positive identification; you are not a moron, so you are left with a dilemma?

Your ignorance is not limited to 911, it is broad and encompasses general knowledge and exposes your poor research skills and lack of logical arguments. No wonder 8 years is not enough time for you to figure out the simple parts of 911.

You debunked your own moronic post; good job you are exactly like the other failed 911 conspiracy theorists you are self-debunking.

With one post you prove you can't figure out much of anything related to 911. You should sign up at the pilots for truth forum where they love lies and idiotic junk abou 911.

Instead of you posting on topic you expose your inability to identify an aircraft fuselage section. Good job, you exceed qualification to be a cult member and join the liars in the 911 conspiracy theory club, where no idea is too stupid to be rejected, including DEW, and other idiotic insane ideas.
 
beachnut said:
Like all 911 liars you are spewing lies and junk. Off topic.

Get back on topic or be reported for being off topic for the last few off topic posts. Start your own lies thread, moronic lies and fantasy claims using faulty logic.



This is topic; you like to spew lies and make up junk ideas based on lies, but the topic is below, get back on topic if you can take the time out of SPAMMING lies in each failed evidence free post.




Just a reminder you have failed to refute anything and are off topic spewing lies.


Wait there is no plane for you so you have zero, zip, to say about the shoot down idiotic delusion.

Okay prove the parts were planted and the DNA. No you have to refute it with evidence not your stupid statements of woo. Go ahead try some logical investigation techniques instead of posting lies, real dumb ones at that. Where do you get the trash you spew?

Get on topic or be reported. simple stuff, this means you have to come up with evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly don't want to go off topic. I thought if one asserts a plane either crashed or got shot down, it was implicit, to the point of being explicit, that a crash had to be proven and not assumed.

However, I know we're dealing with 9/11 believers. For such people, it may not be necessary to prove what happened on 9/11. So, I'll stop here and allow the thread to get back on topic, as it sees fit.

For those to whom I asked for sources of their various claims, you're off the hook.

Don't source anything.

I'll look for other threads where I might be able to ask for sourcing of claims without going off topic.

all the best
 
beachnut said:
It is a fuselage, the only large jet airliner that crashed in PA on 911 was flight 93; making only morons incapable of a positive identification; you are not a moron, so you are left with a dilemma?

Your ignorance is not limited to 911, it is broad and encompasses general knowledge and exposes your poor research skills and lack of logical arguments. No wonder 8 years is not enough time for you to figure out the simple parts of 911.

You debunked your own moronic post; good job you are exactly like the other failed 911 conspiracy theorists you are self-debunking.

With one post you prove you can't figure out much of anything related to 911. You should sign up at the pilots for truth forum where they love lies and idiotic junk abou 911.

Instead of you posting on topic you expose your inability to identify an aircraft fuselage section. Good job, you exceed qualification to be a cult member and join the liars in the 911 conspiracy theory club, where no idea is too stupid to be rejected, including DEW, and other idiotic insane ideas.
Click to expand...

Your fallacies are showing.

Do you have a photo showing when and where the alleged "fuselage" was found? It does not appear to have been on the scene of that large photo you displayed, why is that?
 
BigAl said:
You are a first class loon.



Tell it to the several thousand people who either worked the crash site or the forensics investigation who would be very surprised to hear what they saw with their own eyes didn't happen.

Any of these people could have blown the whistle on the fraud you claim happened. In 9 years, nobody has and you insult these people by making your accusations.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/174224b1ff5354b232.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Another "everybody knows" fallacy. OK, Big Al, I give up. You just aren't going to source your claims, are you?

I did need to respond to these last few posts, before signing off. I do not want to be accused of moving this thread off topic, so I will stop here. But, if you guys keep on responding, then I might be required to post up.

I'm willing to stop so as not to veer off topic. I've let you guys off the hook and have not asked for sources.

So, are we agreed to call it a day?
 
jammonius said:
Well, I certainly don't want to go off topic. I thought if one asserts a plane either crashed or got shot down, it was implicit, to the point of being explicit, that a crash had to be proven and not assumed.

However, I know we're dealing with 9/11 believers. For such people, it may not be necessary to prove what happened on 9/11. So, I'll stop here and allow the thread to get back on topic, as it sees fit.

For those to whom I asked for sources of their various claims, you're off the hook.
Click to expand...

  • 9/11 Commission Report
  • Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Sumner
  • Report from Ground Zero by Smith

Those are good for a start. If you find something wrong in any, please let us know. Be sure to provide the page number.
 
jammonius said:
Another "everybody knows" fallacy. OK, Big Al, I give up. You just aren't going to source your claims, are you?

I did.


I did need to respond to these last few posts, before signing off. I do not want to be accused of moving this thread off topic, so I will stop here. But, if you guys keep on responding, then I might be required to post up.

I'm willing to stop so as not to veer off topic. I've let you guys off the hook and have not asked for sources.

So, are we agreed to call it a day?
Click to expand...

Who is this "we" you keep speaking of. Are you off your meds ok?
 
911 was terrorist act; AirDisaster.Com is 'The Aviation Accident Site.'

For example airdisaster.com provides photo proof of most plane crashes that occur. Needless to say, 9/11 was an exception and airdisaster.com did not provide its normal reporting for any of the alleged 9/11 crashes.
Click to expand...

The NTSB does accidents, the police do crime.

... the goal of AirDisaster.Com
AirDisaster.Com began operations in 1996 as a small website dedicated to aviation safety information under the name 'The Aviation Accident Site.'
Click to expand...
They do accidents, not crime. (but do they have 911 stuff? yes, can't trust anyone)

There are currently 2,519 photographs, representing 519 accidents, in the gallery
Click to expand...
Our latest expert was looking for crime photos at an accident web site.
And he missed it.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/12.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/wtc/2.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/2.shtml
They also post photos from crimes.
Aircraft crashes documented at airdisaser.com.

jammonius said:
Your fallacies are showing.

Do you have a photo showing when and where the alleged "fuselage" was found? It does not appear to have been on the scene of that large photo you displayed, why is that?
Click to expand...
It was from Flight 93 crash area; and you can't prove it was not because you can't identify it. Due to your lack of knowledge you say it was horse trailer. That make you not an expert at much more than being wrong about everything. You failed to prove it was horse trailer, and you can't refute it was found near the imapct area. 8 years to put togther your fantasy and you can't identify part of an airliner. Is this your A-game?

It is a fuselage section, either you have knowledge and you agree or you lack knowledge and make up moronic lies and call it a horse trailer. Which is it, are you capable of rational thought or do you make up lies and spread false information? So far you are in the make up lies business, how do you intend to back out of being a poster of pure nut case discombobulated poppycock?

That photo is from Flight 93 the only plane to go down in Pennsylvania on 911 of that size. Only a morons can't identify the aircraft with the evidence available; and I agree you are not a moron, you just post lies about 911. The fact it is Flight 93 is backed up by the FDR, RADAR, and DNA of the passengers is proof it is flight 93. And I know you will never refute the DNA evidence because you can't even find it; so you can't start to refute evidence you can't even find out of ignorance, the judge will laugh you out of court and your the Pulitzer Prize is not granted to the baseless delusions and lies you post.

If you need help with rational questions you can get help here. So far you post lies and poppycock and act like a kid who can't learn.

This is skeptic forum, are you at the wrong place, you don't hold any of the lies you post without evidence to any scrutiny. Do you think you will ever use evidence to bake your claims which are definitely delusions without any evidence. Do you know what evidence is? You know FDR, DNA, RADAR, and the aircraft parts from Flight 93 exactly where the RADAR track stops, and the FDR confirms the speed of impact, which is evident by the damage to the aircraft? Any clues on where your evidence is lost at? Did you dog eat it?


If you have evidence to deny Flight 93 crashed in PA why do you hold it and keep it a secret (you don't have any)? Post your evidence, and stop posting proof of your ignorance by claiming the fuselage is a horse trailer. That was a stupid post.

What do your friends in the Navy call your delusions on 911?
 
Last edited:
the desperation that is jammonius

jammonius said:
What the tuck is that, a part of horse carrier?

See: http://jrhudsonhorsetrans.com/

Normally, airline parts are identified with a part number, right?
Click to expand...


"Horse Carrier" windows slide open. Those of aircraft do not. And you can see that in the image you posted. Don't panic jammonius. You can log off and stick your head in the sand, and tell yourself there were no planes on 9/11 four times.

You bring up incredulity that paper documents and articles of clothing survived the aircraft impacts Jammonius, Tell us. How fast must you throw a document or cloth into the earth to destroy it?

You are troubled that the investigators will not release specific documentation verifying DNA or serial numbers for aircraft parts to your satisfaction. Anyone here can see that you are attempting to use an argument from ignorance logical fallacy to cast doubt on tiny aspects of the events of 9/11 and qualify your 9/11 conspiracy.

Your manifests

Flight 93
Flight93Manifest_a.jpg


Flight 11

Flight11Manifest_a.jpg

Flight11Manifest_b.jpg


Flight11Manifest_c.jpg


Flight 77

Flight77Manifest_a.jpg


Flight77Manifest_b.jpg


Flight 175

Flight175Manifest_a-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom