Flight 93

[wargord]

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.

You failed to respond to any of my questions. Why? Do you not have any answers? This paragraph actually proves that the only evidence you think you have is the, what you moronically think, lack of discernible plane parts in photos taken of FL93 crash site. You are basing your moronic claims on what you think a plane crash should look like. Since no two plane crashes are exactly the same, your reasoning is completely garbage. Why should any accept what you claim when you provide no evidence? You only demand that people disprove your claim. That is not how things work. You make the claim, you provide the evidence for that claim. The burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that contradicts the actual facts of the events of that day, 9/11?

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.

This has nothing to do with what I asked. Why can't you just respond to what I posted instead of adding more moronic gibberish?

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.

So are flight manifests the only evidence of a plane crash? How does that even prove a plane crashed?

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.

You are absolutely right(for once, see there is a first time for everything) the myth of 9/11 is entirely false. But people like you keep giving reasons for ae911truth, p4t, Steven Jones et. al., CIT, etc... to keep pumping out the myth of 9/11. Maybe once you get a good education you will be able to realize their myth. Until then, sadly, you, and they, will keep spinning it further and further.

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

We know that. It is you who doesn't understand.

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 why we are here. We show the errors in "truthers" reasoning. We explain the facts. We provide the factual evidence. We do not allow "truthers" to spew their bile onto unsuspecting citizens. Thank you for acknowledging our presence and the hard work that we all do to put the factual truth out their.

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

Wow! You are going to have to prove that one.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Actually there are a few other crashes which are similar to flight 93, which in fact support the common narrative.

PSA 1771 most directly comes to mind. But there have been several others.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I could careless about this theory. If you finally do prove it true, then what?

If the government shot down a hi-jacked plane, yes, its a sad tragedy, but in the end it was probably necessary. I see no problem with it.

Could just be me.

 

[wargord]

Actually there are a few other crashes which are similar to flight 93, which in fact support the common narrative.

PSA 1771 most directly comes to mind. But there have been several others.

I understand that there are plane crashes that are similar. I was just saying that there are no plane crashes that share the exact same parameters. So using one to prove another is pointless. You can use one to explain why it looks that way, but not to prove it. It doesn't matter anyway because they wont accept it even if there was a plane crash exactly like FL93 and showed the exact same aftermath.

 

[TruthersLie]

I understand that there are plane crashes that are similar. I was just saying that there are no plane crashes that share the exact same parameters. So using one to prove another is pointless. You can use one to explain why it looks that way, but not to prove it. It doesn't matter anyway because they wont accept it even if there was a plane crash exactly like FL93 and showed the exact same aftermath.

While your point is valid, there are other crashes which are very similar to flight 93 that can be shown to exist. The the damage from the crash, the wreckage, the debris and remains are consistent with a high speed crash.

But using J's rather stupid ideas... how does he know the leaning tower of pisa is in fact leaning, or the great wall of china exists, or anything else that he himself has not physically witnessed.... it must all be part of the matrix....

 

[dafydd]

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.

I agree.Nobody could be that cretinous.Troll.

 

[twinstead]

One word: COINTELPRO

 

[cyclonic]

jammy jam do you think like dylan avery and expect the crash site to look like this?



if someone explains 911 to you using hand puppets would that help?

 

[Jackanory]

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

Give up folks. Your family would think you as crazy as a twoofer if they knew you indulged in such stupid.

Distinguishing between one twoofer or another is madness in itself. No planer, therm*te, or DEW - all mad as hatters. If you must continue then humour them only or turn your laptop off and spend your time with the family. . This continuous proof supplying and linking to link after link is pathetic.

Continually asking a fruitcake if its a fruitcake is madness and is dafter than 911 inside jobby job conspiracies. I am beginning to wonder who the nutjobs really are. The twoofers or those who continue to feed them and argue with them.

Jamjam or 'Dom' just pulls chain. He/she is a matrix fan. We probably dont exist. Nothing really exists. We are all just the thoughts of a marsh hare and no medication on the planet can help him.

 

[jammonius]

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,

Yes, it is some other sickening accusation that you're missing: That accusation is as follows, and please grasp it once and for all:

As you look at the actual source data concerning things like cell phone calls, how they were communicated to next of kin, how they were reported to next of kin, etc., all such sources are indirect, inconclusive and assumption riddled.

Your starting point is that you already know that hijackings were simulated and that simulation involves make believe scenarios where data, including voice data were false.

No matter how you try, you cannot find a single 9/11 related source for any flight that does not involve data inputs that are unverified.

Let's here stick with FL 93 as that is the subject of the thread. No matter what information you turn to, you will find that the information proves nothing.

We touched earlier on Edward Felt. Go check the source material for his supposed conversation, including the source material involving his family. You will find that the source material does not add up and could not be used as evidence. The reason is this: Felt's family were "allowed to hear an audio tape" by "the FBI." No transcript of what they said is presented, only summaries of what they are supposed to have said as quoted by "the FBI."

At a minimum, questions have to be asked here. You know what they are, so why don't you find out why they have never been asked.

Mind you, this is just an example. The disconnects are present with respect to each and every claim, at whatever level of detail you care to reach for, with regard to all facets of 9/11 without exception.

And, you know this.

So stop with the self-delusion. It's no longer a viable approach to message board discussion, folks.

Either give up or come forward with something that is valid in the way of proof and don't come forward with photo copies of photo copies or with someone's graphic chart, let alone an enlarged photograph of an empty field contgaining pink sun-spots as its most prominent feature ever again.

 

[jammonius]

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!

beachnut,

You can do this. You can come to your senses. You're a pilot, so you can a) distinguish a fuselage from a jetliner from a cargo carrier of some sort; and b) you also know how jetliner parts are identified for investigation purposes; namely with serial numbers; and c) you don't use field photos to identify plane parts, you use validated reports.

Come on beachnut, i am counting on you to come to your senses. You're getting close, now please achieve breakhtough. Come on beachnut, come on.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

jimbenarm,

Yes, it is some other sickening accusation that you're missing: That accusation is as follows, and please grasp it once and for all:

As you look at the actual source data concerning things like cell phone calls, how they were communicated to next of kin, how they were reported to next of kin, etc., all such sources are indirect, inconclusive and assumption riddled.

Your starting point is that you already know that hijackings were simulated and that simulation involves make believe scenarios where data, including voice data were false.

No matter how you try, you cannot find a single 9/11 related source for any flight that does not involve data inputs that are unverified.

Let's here stick with FL 93 as that is the subject of the thread. No matter what information you turn to, you will find that the information proves nothing.

We touched earlier on Edward Felt. Go check the source material for his supposed conversation, including the source material involving his family. You will find that the source material does not add up and could not be used as evidence. The reason is this: Felt's family were "allowed to hear an audio tape" by "the FBI." No transcript of what they said is presented, only summaries of what they are supposed to have said as quoted by "the FBI."

At a minimum, questions have to be asked here. You know what they are, so why don't you find out why they have never been asked.

Mind you, this is just an example. The disconnects are present with respect to each and every claim, at whatever level of detail you care to reach for, with regard to all facets of 9/11 without exception.

And, you know this.

So stop with the self-delusion. It's no longer a viable approach to message board discussion, folks.

Either give up or come forward with something that is valid in the way of proof and don't come forward with photo copies of photo copies or with someone's graphic chart, let alone an enlarged photograph of an empty field contgaining pink sun-spots as its most prominent feature ever again.

And here lies the irreducible delusion: That none of the evidence which exists is "verified".

We'll ignore the fact that truther incredulity is by no means a refutation of whether something is verified or not. We'll also ignore the fact that verification of the legitimacy of the evidence is given by the first responders to the crash site, as well as the victims families themselves. We'll also ignore that the legitimacy of other evidentiary materials has been established, for example the airphone calls, verified by GTE themselves for the 9/11 Commision (and further supported by the airfone operators themselves). All that matters to the truther is that he can make the spurious claim of "verification", whether or not the evidence in question has truly not been verified. It doesn't even matter that the truther is wrong about his claim (see my links to the NTSB studies above); it only matters that he offers the claim.

There's nothing to analyze here. Jammonius can impugn the sources all he wants, but he ends up at a dead end by denying the facts of the day. Facts which are most definitely verifiable.

 

[jammonius]

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

​

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": 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,


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:

​

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

elmondo,

What are we to do with you? Your post doesn't point to proof of jetliner crashes. Your post points to the paltry, insufficient information that has been put out for public consumption and for purposes of distraction.

Jetliner crashes are not hard to prove and they are not vague events.

Yet, everything you or anyone else tries so mightily to point to results in uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction.

Give up, elmondo, and come to grips with the plain impllications of what you, yourself, are posting; namely: Information that is too indefinite to constitute proof of a jetliner crash. Proof of something as monumental as that does not require making exduses about governmental agency involvment. Yet, that is, in essence, what your post does.

 

[jammonius]

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

It's not a belief. There is no evidence of flights, let alone crashes. Go look at the data, yourself. Start with the military exercises that simulated hijackings and crashing planes into buildings and go from there.

 

[switchpoint]

It's not a belief. There is no evidence of flights, let alone crashes. Go look at the data, yourself. Start with the military exercises that simulated hijackings and crashing planes into buildings and go from there.

Oh my God you're right!

I went back and looked at all the data and.....ooops, sorry, Flight 93 did crash in Somerset County, Pa. on September 11, 2001.

Did you mean go back and ignore all the data?

 

[Jackanory]

jimbenarm,


Go check the source material for his supposed conversation.
.

Why? The Felts family can verify this for you if you approach them direct.

Cut the ******** and the showboating on JREF and go direct to the real source! Do it now! Cut out the source at the FBI and go direct to the family. This is important. Go do it now! Get off JREF and go do it now! Bypass all internet investigoogling and go direct to the family. They will surley want to hear what you have to say. Do it now. Keep it to yourself. Dont tell anyone what ypour upto. Do it now!

 

[jammonius]

Greetings elmondo,

I don't know if you're getting close to achieving breakthrough to reality or not. I do know that you are digging a deeper hole for yourself, however. Let's engage:

And here lies the irreducible delusion: That none of the evidence which exists is "verified".

Verifiable information for an event like 9/11 is essential. It is only in an emotionally driven, psyop world, where verified data is dispensed with. The most common way in which this was done for 9/11 was to respond to a legitimate question by saying "Oh, think about the victims" which served to squelch legitimate inquiry. Come to think of it, that tactic has been used in this thread, hasn't it?

We'll ignore the fact that truther incredulity is by no means a refutation of whether something is verified or not. We'll also ignore the fact that verification of the legitimacy of the evidence is given by the first responders to the crash site, as well as the victims families themselves.

That claim is a) not true; and b) in any event, the first responders are among the best sources of information that contradicts the claim of a jetliner crash, could you but look at what the first responders actually said. The victims families are, likewise, among the best sources for casting doubt on the cell phone claims. Once again, I am recommending people look at the Felt family evidence; and, I am also suggesting that Big Al show the Felt family my posts.

At some point, Big Al is going to have to realize that it is he who is afraid of what they might say, not me.

We'll also ignore that the legitimacy of other evidentiary materials has been established, for example the airphone calls, verified by GTE themselves for the 9/11 Commision (and further supported by the airfone operators themselves). All that matters to the truther is that he can make the spurious claim of "verification", whether or not the evidence in question has truly not been verified. It doesn't even matter that the truther is wrong about his claim (see my links to the NTSB studies above); it only matters that he offers the claim.

The claim, as articulated above, is not confirmed by the source document it relies on:

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00217.pdf

That document does contain what it claims are the times of GTE calls made, but it contains no information at all from GTE; and, instead, only "thanks GTE" for technical assistance, which, llinguistically, means that GTE had no input into that 3 pg. document at all.

There's nothing to analyze here. Jammonius can impugn the sources all he wants, but he ends up at a dead end by denying the facts of the day. Facts which are most definitely verifiable.

Hey, elmondo, perhaps you are getting closer than may have appeared at first glance. Read carefully elmondo's final thought in his post, as quoted above, posters and tell me what do you notice?

This is crucial, posters, don't screw up.

 

[jammonius]

Oh my God you're right!

I went back and looked at all the data and.....ooops, sorry, Flight 93 did crash in Somerset County, Pa. on September 11, 2001.

Did you mean go back and ignore all the data?

switchpoint,

Your post is one of polar opposite possibilities.

You are either very far from reality in one scenario; or you are right on it, in another scenario. We shall call these Scenario A and Scenario B.

Scenario A -- You are far from reality:

My post, to which you reply was posted at 6:36am, board time.

You say that you "I went back and looked at all the data" and then you replied to my post of 6:36am at 6:43am.

You did not have time to look at all the data, switchpoint, so your claim is not accurate, to put it no more harshly than that. Or is your claim accurate after all?

This leads us to;

Scenario B

If by "data" you mean actual verified data of a plane crash, there is none with respect to FL 93, so maybe you did have enough time to post your reply. However, if that is the case, then your final declaration, where you claim: "ooops, sorry, Flight 93 did crash in Somerset County, Pa. on September 11, 2001..." is false.

So, switchpooint, what part of reality are you willing to acknowledge here? Will you acknowledge you did not look at all the data; or, will you acknowledge you looked at all the data (i.e., there is none) and still chose to espouse the existence of a non-proven jetliner crash?

Or, does your particular form of denial go deeper, still?

 

[switchpoint]

The claim, as articulated above, is not confirmed by the source document it relies on:

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00217.pdf

That document does contain what it claims are the times of GTE calls made, but it contains no information at all from GTE; and, instead, only "thanks GTE" for technical assistance, which, llinguistically, means that GTE had no input into that 3 pg. document at all.

And what, pray tell is your astute linguistic interpretation of the phrase "this information is derived from an exhaustive search of GTE airphone records"?

 

[jammonius]

Why? The Felts family can verify this for you if you approach them direct.

Cut the ******** and the showboating on JREF and go direct to the real source! Do it now! Cut out the source at the FBI and go direct to the family. This is important. Go do it now! Get off JREF and go do it now! Bypass all internet investigoogling and go direct to the family. They will surley want to hear what you have to say. Do it now. Keep it to yourself. Dont tell anyone what ypour upto. Do it now!

jackanory,

I set up a viable procedure to do just that. Big Al says he knew Felt. I have already done exactly what you are suggesting, namely: requested contact with the Felt family. Big Al refused to do his part. As for what else I might do in that respect, I will get back to you.

At this point, I am still holding out for the possibillity that Big Al might cooperate.