Flight 93

[jammonius]

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.

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

Source your claim concerning flight data recorders and who analyzed them.

Source your dna claims and do not use freakin' newspaper accounts in doing so, either.

Also, do not use Dmort propaganda and please do not use the dna "experiment" and call that official dna reporting. That is especially true since the experiment confirmed it couldn't be certain of what it was identifying.

Source the other things you are saying that amount to some sort of claim that FL 93 was investigated and produced investigatory reports.

Now we're making some headway here.

You've made your claims, now source them.

 

[jammonius]

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it? Take a look at this and get back to us.



Thanks Walter Ego.

Oh boy, I'm afraid we're going to get involved here in another FLAMMABLE - COMBUSTIBLE flap.

Let me ask, does anyone here consider it odd that the first people to arrive at a jetliner crash site could find paper, but no debris and no remains? Anyone at all?

As paper is thought to burn easily and to be easily destroyed in comparison with say, aluminum other forms of metal, hard plastic, not to mention alloys used for engines and so on, it can be considered odd that the main debris found was paper.

Jetliner crashes are not noteworty for producing paper as the first and most prominently mentioned form of debris.

Those who are not just a little bit nonplussed by the fact that paper was found, but not much else, should probably NOT be posting at a forum for skeptics, or so one would think.

However, there's an explanation for that, isn't there.

What posters here are really doing is trying to hold on desparately to the common myth of what happened on 9/11. Your capacities for skepticsm are probably fully intact, otherwise.

The emotional attachment to thei common myth of 9/11 is very strong, isn't it, posters?

 

[jammonius]

I'd be curious as to exactly what jammonius would accept as "PROOF" that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, because there sure is a hell of a lot of evidence that it did, everything from eye witnesses to DNA evidence to radar evidence to first responder evidence.

What the hell does he want?

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want. Keep in mind, until I showed up, the best evidence produced in the first 4 pages of this thread was a cnn clip that referenced "paper and nylon" and, apparently, not one poster found it necessary to question that source and that information for its reliability in proving a jetliner had crashed.

Is it asking too much to suggest that you think about whether proof of a jetliner crash is being offered up? (paper and nylon?)

 

[TJM]

Oh boy, I'm afraid we're going to get involved here in another FLAMMABLE - COMBUSTIBLE flap.

Let me ask, does anyone here consider it odd that the first people to arrive at a jetliner crash site could find paper, but no debris and no remains? Anyone at all?

As paper is thought to burn easily and to be easily destroyed in comparison with say, aluminum other forms of metal, hard plastic, not to mention alloys used for engines and so on, it can be considered odd that the main debris found was paper.

Jetliner crashes are not noteworty for producing paper as the first and most prominently mentioned form of debris.

Those who are not just a little bit nonplussed by the fact that paper was found, but not much else, should probably NOT be posting at a forum for skeptics, or so one would think.

However, there's an explanation for that, isn't there.

What posters here are really doing is trying to hold on desparately to the common myth of what happened on 9/11. Your capacities for skepticsm are probably fully intact, otherwise.

The emotional attachment to thei common myth of 9/11 is very strong, isn't it, posters?

That's a long way to go to dodge the question isn't it?

Who said nobody found debris or human remains?

 

[BigAl]

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want.

Can someone call up the links to all the Flight 93 pictures that were accepted by both the the defense and prosecution as real in the Moussaoui trial?

 

[Garb]

So jam, were the cell phone calls faked?

If we ignore the "paper trail" (no pun intended) regarding the pieces found at the crash site and assume the crash didn't happen (and they just took some debris and buried it into the ground and mainly scattered burnt paper around the site thinking "if we put paper people will definitely buy a plane crash!") how could they fake a phone call from the plane to their loved ones? And why would they want to?

 

[beachnut]

I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper) for what you consider to be the best example of each kind of evidence you mentioned above. That is what I want. Keep in mind, until I showed up, the best evidence produced in the first 4 pages of this thread was a cnn clip that referenced "paper and nylon" and, apparently, not one poster found it necessary to question that source and that information for its reliability in proving a jetliner had crashed.

Is it asking too much to suggest that you think about whether proof of a jetliner crash is being offered up? (paper and nylon?)

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.

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?

 

[jammonius]

You are a troll. You a first-class troll with oak leaf clusters awarded for ignorance and arrogance as demonstrated to a panel of experts.



You can't explain away the fact that parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found and DNA identifying most bodies with it. You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash. You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since.

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

Big Al,

As you know, the drill is if you make a claim, you have to source it.

You claim:

"...parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found..."

Please source those claims.

You claim:

"...DNA identifying most bodies with it..."

Prove it with validly sourced information.

You claim:

"You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash."

Prove that claim, keeping in mind the FAA's deceit.

You claim:

"You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since..."

That is a double dose of pure fallacy and here's why. People disappear for all sorts of reasons. You cannot presume jetliner crashes because people are said to have disappeared.

You have not proven what planes were involved by any identified plane part for any of the alleged crashes. Accordingly, you cannot presume what planes have not been seen. You must first prove what planes were involved.

 

[jammonius]

Can someone call up the links to all the Flight 93 pictures that were accepted by both the the defense and prosecution as real in the Moussaoui trial?

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

Let me get this straight. Is Big Al about to offer up Zacarias Moussaoui as his source for what happened on 9/11, via his freakin' stipulation with the prosecution?

Say it ain't so, Big Al. You wouldn't reveal how weak your claim is by doing that, would you?

 

[BigAl]

Source your claim concerning flight data recorders and who analyzed them.

Source your dna claims and do not use freakin' newspaper accounts in doing so, either.

Also, do not use Dmort propaganda and please do not use the dna "experiment" and call that official dna reporting. That is especially true since the experiment confirmed it couldn't be certain of what it was identifying.

Source the other things you are saying that amount to some sort of claim that FL 93 was investigated and produced investigatory reports.

Now we're making some headway here.

You've made your claims, now source them.

9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1, plus the million or so pages of staff investigator's interview notes that have recently been released. MikeW, I believe is the expert on this. Sen him a PM.

 

[jammonius]

So jam, were the cell phone calls faked?

If we ignore the "paper trail" (no pun intended) regarding the pieces found at the crash site and assume the crash didn't happen (and they just took some debris and buried it into the ground and mainly scattered burnt paper around the site thinking "if we put paper people will definitely buy a plane crash!") how could they fake a phone call from the plane to their loved ones? And why would they want to?

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.

 

[dtugg]

So what you're saying is that everybody is lying? Literally thousands of people. Yeah, that makes much more sense than that the plane actually crashed there. If you're crazy.

 

[jammonius]

9/11 Commission Report Chapter 1, plus the million or so pages of staff investigator's interview notes that have recently been released. MikeW, I believe is the expert on this. Sen him a PM.

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.

 

[beachnut]

Please source those claims.

You claim:

Prove it with validly sourced information.

Prove that claim, keeping in mind the FAA's deceit.

That is a double dose of pure fallacy and here's why. People disappear for all sorts of reasons. You cannot presume jetliner crashes because people are said to have disappeared.

You have not proven what planes were involved by any identified plane part for any of the alleged crashes. Accordingly, you cannot presume what planes have not been seen. You must first prove what planes were involved.

 

[dtugg]

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?

Nope, that must have been in entirely in your imagination. I am sure that sort of thing happens all the time to you.

 

[jammonius]

So what you're saying is that everybody is lying? Literally thousands of people. Yeah, that makes much more sense than that the plane actually crashed there. If you're crazy.

dtugg,

As I said before, your posts reveal a lot about you. In this instance, you appear to be relying on the "everybody believes..." fallacy.

I thought we were a little bit beyond that, dtugg.

Earth to dtugg: I know damn well everybody believes the 9/11 myth. The whole point of this exercise is to engage in rational recognition that the proof of the assertion of jetliner crashes is lacking.

I am here daring posters, not daring, I am here requesting posters come forward with their best proof and best sources for their claims a jetliner, a Boeing 757, desginated Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pa. I am saying that I expect to be able to refute the claims that can be made with information that will, at a minimum, cast doubt on the reliability of the sources or the information that those claiming a crash occurred can show.

So far, very little sourced information has been provided.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, given the level of righteous indignation normally expressed by supporters of the common myth. I would have thought you folks would be ready to come forward with your best shots a bit faster than you are.

I'm waiting patiently, posters

 

[BigAl]

You are a troll, first class with oak leaf clusters.

Big Al,

Wait a minute. I thought we had all agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report has been repudiated

What do you mean "we", loon.

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.

You can't point to a single fault in the report. Find the page and show us. Don't forget your precious citations.

www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

Until you can, go away.

 

[TJM]

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it?

I vaguely recall asking a question....

 

[dtugg]

dtugg,

As I said before, your posts reveal a lot about you. In this instance, you appear to be relying on the "everybody believes..." fallacy.

I thought we were a little bit beyond that, dtugg.

Earth to dtugg: I know damn well everybody believes the 9/11 myth. The whole point of this exercise is to engage in rational recognition that the proof of the assertion of jetliner crashes is lacking.

I am here daring posters, not daring, I am here requesting posters come forward with their best proof and best sources for their claims a jetliner, a Boeing 757, desginated Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pa. I am saying that I expect to be able to refute the claims that can be made with information that will, at a minimum, cast doubt on the reliability of the sources or the information that those claiming a crash occurred can show.

So far, very little sourced information has been provided.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, given the level of righteous indignation normally expressed by supporters of the common myth. I would have thought you folks would be ready to come forward with your best shots a bit faster than you are.

I'm waiting patiently, posters

Honestly, I am not interested in having a rational discussion with you because you have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are not capable of reason. After all, you believe that some giant spaced based laser destroyed the WTC. And honestly that is one of the top three craziest things I have ever heard.

 

[TJM]

And honestly that is one of the top three craziest things I have ever heard.

Holy carp. what are the other two?