Flight 93

[wargord]

There is no information you can point to that meets proof standards. We've seen what happens when you go the cell phone route. You are intercepted by the military exercises and the inherent unprovable assumptions assoicated with telephonic or radio transmission; namely, the inability to establish where the conversations came from.

Which standard of proof are you referring?

Why are you using "military exercises" as a means to discredit the cellphone evidence? You have already established, in your mind, that General Arnold was lying. That means the exercises weren't happening. So you can't use them for anything.

I would say the conversations came from two or more participants. Since one participant can not have a conversation alone, this proves the conversations came from two or more participants.

The DNA data are equally unpersuasive based on the content of the reports and upon the irrational disconnect between the claim, on the one hand, that the plane vaporized and nothing was left, and the claim of DNA identification on the other. The coroner found no bodies and he and others said there was no blood.

The plane didn't vaporize. It exploded on contact of the engines and the ground. There was lots left as can be seen in the various pictures of the debris. You can even use what the first people on the scene said they saw, but you only think they are lying. The coroner found no complete bodies, you are correct, but he has stated that he found body parts and patches of skin and bone. Another moron like yourself, DVD of CIT(he's a no plane crash asshat too), claims to have even viewed the photographs of these body parts that the coroner took and wont release, for his own reasons. But we all know you wont accept that at all. Your last sentence seems to imply that the only way to test DNA is through the blood. You don't even know how wrong you are on that one.

Our body's cells each contain a complete sample of our DNA.

Did you read that? Every cell in our bodies contain DNA. You don't need blood.

The Univ of Colorado study shows how deception was a factor in making sure the locals didn't see any more than they had already seen; namely, that there was nothing there to see.

The one paragraph you quoted shows the natural reactions of local law enforcement when federal law enforcement takes over a scene that is the locals jurisdiction. You have yet to show how it shows this deception.

One has to reclaim the capacity for rational thought and the ability not to allow the emotional need to believe in the common myth to cloud one's capacity for reason before doing any of this.

You seem to know why you are delusional, and how to fix it, yet you continue posting your fictional stories.

 

[sylvan8798]

You seem to know why you are delusional, and how to fix it, yet you continue posting your fictional stories.

Perhaps his health insurance doesn't cover psychotherapy?

 

[jammonius]

2 aspirins, and lots of margaritas will help me get my filing complete.


[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/impact1.jpg[/qimg]

Where is the plane, a USAF plane impacted at high speed; Someone was posting how Flt 93 crash was unique, and it is. But the USAF has accidents that are similar in speed and destruction of the aircraft where only small parts are left and the engines and pilot have to be dug out of the ground. Flight 93 hit at 600 mph, usually crashes in the airlines are at slower speeds where large parts remain. Also if planes fall apart in the air, large parts do make to the ground.

To have wallets, or passports survive a 600 mph impact is not an anomaly. The small light weight objects can survive if ejected away from any fire.

beachnut,

OK, your post at least makes an attempt at a reason based comparison. I, however, will offer one that I think is more apt and more directly comparable for the reasons set out below.

In my view, a more apt comparison to FL93 would be the tragic loss, via disintegration, of the Space Shuttle Columbia occurring, as you know, in modern era of color photography and the 24hr. news cycle and not occurring during the era of b&w pictures.

Here, for reference is Columbia as it was being destroyed:

1--Several posters have claimed FL93 would have crashed at over 600mph, but do not point to either witnesses or crash inferno photos showing any such thing. But, in comparison, Columbia disintegrated at over 12,000mph and thus crashed at a speed that dwarfs that of what is claimed for FL93.

2--Columbia resulted in photographic evidence of the crash itself that was clear and unambiguous, not to mention the normal collection and display of the remnants.

Here is one remnant, being a part of stabilizer, something that seems to survive in almost all plane crashes, with the notable exception of all 4 alleged 9/11 crashes where not one tail section survived:

3--While one can claim that a wallet and passport of the hijacker could survive a crash where nothing else did, and where it was found by someone who wasn't searching for it, and where it was the first thing found. But, while one can make that claim, it can also be challenged as being "too good to be true."

4--In fact, the passport claim is better suited, in my view, for assessment of the nature of psyops than it is as evidence of a jetliner crash. To me, the wonder is how few people even question the tremendous good luck that a wallet and passport of the hijacker would survive, when nothing else did and be the first thing found, no less. But, as I have said, proof of 9/11 isn't required; rather, there exists a need, couched in the phenomenon of "denial" that requires uncritical support of anything and everything said that supports the 9/11 myth.

 

[jammonius]

Hey beachnut,

Do me a favor please. wargord's need to rely on the common myth of 9/11 extends all the way out to the realm of his seeing things that aren't there. wargord says: "There was lots left as can be seen in the various pictures of the debris..." Would you please repost your "3-pink-sun-spot" picture showing wargord there was no debris left at the claimed site of the FL 93 crash?

Look, posters, I think carlitos may at least recognize that it is not automatically crazy to quesiton 9/11 in the manner that is being done here. Although carlitos' statement at pg.11 was indirect or, perhaps, "lefthanded" as the saying goes, I think there may be a growing recognition in some quarters that there problems with the official version of events.

So, would posters here be, say, less inclined to use personal epithets about who's crazy and who isn't if we were to refer to problems of believability of certain claims about FL93 as "concerns"?

You folks didn't believe me when I said, "no one can point to any official explanation about what happened on 9/11 because none was done." Unlike, say, the Space Shuttle Columbia, there is no place where the debris of FL93 is being kept either for purposes of evidence or even museum purposes, with very few exceptions. One would have thought that given the magnitude of the common myth of 9/11, an attempt would have been made to reassemble all the planes, just as was done for TWA 800, for example and, before that, for Space Shuttle Challenger, as well as Columbia.

Some posters use the odd claim that the 9/11 flights weren't investigated by NTSB because it was a crime rather than an accident. That claim needs to be examined a bit. First of all, the NTSB has the expertise in examining jetliner crashes. The FBI doesn't. The FBI does, however, have expertise in collecting evidence for criminal trials, but did not use that expertise, or, rather, the procedures for collecting evidence, in connection with 9/11 for if they did, they never would have returned 95% of the plane to United, as claimed by media sources. Note that phrasing: "media sources."

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,

OK, your post at least makes an attempt at a reason based comparison. I, however, will offer one that I think is more apt and more directly comparable for the reasons set out below.

In my view, a more apt comparison to FL93 would be the tragic loss, via disintegration, of the Space Shuttle Columbia occurring, as you know, in modern era of color photography and the 24hr. news cycle and not occurring during the era of b&w pictures.

We could have not a single picture or video of any of the events of 9/11 and yet still have mountains of evidence for what happened; 19 Arab Islamists led by bin Laden hijacked 4 jets and crashed them into 3 buildings and a corn field.

You are a troll.

 

[TJM]

beachnut,

OK, your post at least makes an attempt at a reason based comparison. I, however, will offer one that I think is more apt and more directly comparable for the reasons set out below.

In my view, a more apt comparison to FL93 would be the tragic loss, via disintegration, of the Space Shuttle Columbia occurring, as you know, in modern era of color photography and the 24hr. news cycle and not occurring during the era of b&w pictures.

Here, for reference is Columbia as it was being destroyed:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_cc446da666f00ac48e3f8aa9896b4bb6.jpg[/qimg]

1--Several posters have claimed FL93 would have crashed at over 600mph, but do not point to either witnesses or crash inferno photos showing any such thing. But, in comparison, Columbia disintegrated at over 12,000mph and thus crashed at a speed that dwarfs that of what is claimed for FL93.

2--Columbia resulted in photographic evidence of the crash itself that was clear and unambiguous, not to mention the normal collection and display of the remnants.

Here is one remnant, being a part of stabilizer, something that seems to survive in almost all plane crashes, with the notable exception of all 4 alleged 9/11 crashes where not one tail section survived:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_news-020104u.jpg[/qimg]

3--While one can claim that a wallet and passport of the hijacker could survive a crash where nothing else did, and where it was found by someone who wasn't searching for it, and where it was the first thing found. But, while one can make that claim, it can also be challenged as being "too good to be true."

4--In fact, the passport claim is better suited, in my view, for assessment of the nature of psyops than it is as evidence of a jetliner crash. To me, the wonder is how few people even question the tremendous good luck that a wallet and passport of the hijacker would survive, when nothing else did and be the first thing found, no less. But, as I have said, proof of 9/11 isn't required; rather, there exists a need, couched in the phenomenon of "denial" that requires uncritical support of anything and everything said that supports the 9/11 myth.

I summarily handwave your Columbia example away. You've obviously been duped by the mainstream media. There is no evidence that Columbia burned up in the atmosphere, or in fact, ever existed at all. Clearly because there was an Israeli aboard and it "crashed" near Palestine TX, it was a joo conspiracy to make it look like Arab terrorism. All Chenney had to do was get his buddy Bush to clear some airspace over Texas and let the magic of TV do the rest. You bought it hook, line and sinker.

Let me know when you're ready to join us in the real world.

 

[switchpoint]

Hey sylvan,

I'm easy. If what you describe were to happen and the gents in the suits and shades were to escort me to, say, the FBI's evidence locker or warehouse where evidence that must satisfy a "chain of custody" process in order to be admitted as evidence in a regular court is kept, I'd be well on my way to considering it reliable. One double checks the details, of course.

Chain of custody

Every time I see this from a troofer I almost convulse from laughter. It is such a riot! The contradiction is monumentally stupid. The same government agents that they accuse of being top secret "fixers" all of a sudden would be credible if they filled out the right forms.

 

[dtugg]

Does the Judy Wood fanboy/girl (or is it Judy Wood herself?) actually not understand the difference between a craft breaking up in midair and one crashing into the ground. Too funny.

 

[TJM]

Does the Judy Wood fanboy/girl (or is it Judy Wood herself?) actually not understand the difference between a craft breaking up in midair and one crashing into the ground. Too funny.

I'm sorry, but do you exist?

 

[aggle-rithm]

One would have thought that given the magnitude of the common myth of 9/11, an attempt would have been made to reassemble all the planes, just as was done for TWA 800, for example and, before that, for Space Shuttle Challenger, as well as Columbia.

Listen, troll, for I will only say this one time.

No one knew why Challenger blew up until they reassembled it.

No one knew why TWA broke up before they reassembled it.

No one knew why Columbia broke up before they reassembed it.

EVERYONE knew why the hijacked planes on 9/11 broke up. It was obvious. They hit buildings and/or the ground.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh, and one more thing:

Look, posters,

Stop trying to lecture people who are your intellectual superiors in every way.

 

[jammonius]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

One never knows what will cause a sudden raft of 'put-down' posts. In this instance from 445 to 451, nothing but playground banter, one post after another.

Did the two questions posed in #444 cause that descent into stupid territory?

When the thread returns to reason from the posting of epithets, will someone kindly reply to the questions asked of those who support the common myth?

thanks, again

 

[BigAl]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

Assume it's not.

So what?

We have mountains of evidence that shows that Flight 93, 77, 11 and 175 were hijacked by 19 Islamist Arabs and crashed into three buildings. Flight 93 was crashed into a cornfield in Shanksville.

You are an intentionally ignorant troll.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

The only thing that is known is that the wreckage was returned to United Airlines. So if anyone knows where it's at today, they haven't told me. I don't know where the pieces would be or whether it's even still available or has been recycled.

The question is, how can its location today be relevant? I sure as heck don't know where the jet's remains are now, but I can point you at a list of people who sure as hell knew where it was on September 11th, as well as for the duration of the crash site cleanup.

 

[aggle-rithm]

When the thread returns to reason

RETURNS to reason? The whole thread is a ridiculous waste of time.

Nevertheless, it will happen as the result of one of these three events:

1. You leave the thread voluntarily.
2. You are banned for sock-puppetry.
3. The entire thread is sent to AAH.

 

[aggle-rithm]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

Ooh, that's a toughie. Let's ask Ghost Cat!

 

[Jackanory]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

One never knows what will cause a sudden raft of 'put-down' posts. In this instance from 445 to 451, nothing but playground banter, one post after another.

Did the two questions posed in #444 cause that descent into stupid territory?

When the thread returns to reason from the posting of epithets, will someone kindly reply to the questions asked of those who support the common myth?

thanks, again

What do you expect here?

If you want the truth then when are you going to see the Felt family? Still unanswered and still waiting for you to get back to me on that one.

If you have found the truth then when are you going to take it to whoever can open a new investigation for you? Still unanswered!

What evidence do you have to convince us that 911 was an inside jobby job? Still unaswered and awaiting your response.

Would you like the address for the Felts family now or ya gonna get back to us? Coward.

You got nothing. Never have . Never will. Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Blah, blah, blah ,blah, blah. Same same.

 

[TJM]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

One never knows what will cause a sudden raft of 'put-down' posts. In this instance from 445 to 451, nothing but playground banter, one post after another.

Did the two questions posed in #444 cause that descent into stupid territory?

When the thread returns to reason from the posting of epithets, will someone kindly reply to the questions asked of those who support the common myth?

thanks, again

"Playground banter"? Hardly.

I just simply pointed out that you were shown a fireball and some wreckage from TV and pictures in the news, and you bought what the government spoon fed you. So the government and the media lies and misleads only when it supports your daft theories.

Got it.

Thanks.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

We have mountains of evidence that shows that Flight 93, 77, 11 and 175 were hijacked by 19 Islamist Arabs and crashed into three buildings. Flight 93 was crashed into a cornfield in Shanksville.

This bears repeating with emphasis: Jammonious's tactic so far has been to find any reason whatsoever, no matter how minute or silly, to use as an excuse to dismiss the evidence. Need I remind anyone of this?

"... 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.

Anyway, Jammonius seems to be displaying a distinct interest in ignoring the mountain of - as well as the convergence of - all the evidence. He also seems bent on pushing all of that off the latest page by posting inanities. Due to both, I choose to repost what I've written in the past. It, too, bears repeating with emphasis:

• 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

On top of that, I'll add:

• http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
• http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
• http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3

(Note that Gravy's pages are merely lists of links to information; the 3 links above actually represent dozens of pointers per page to UA93-centric information)

• http://911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
• http://911myths.com/html/more_flight_93_photos.html
• http://911myths.com/html/epa_report_photos.html

The bottom line here is that BigAl's point bears remembering: The evidence firmly establishing FL93 crashing at Shanksville is both voluminous and mutually supporting. It all converges on the same conclusion, and that conclusion is not the conspiratorial one.

 

[DGM]

From post #444:

Posters, let me ask two questions:

Where does the common myth say the wreckage of FL 93 is located?

Does the common myth say whether or not the FL 93 wreckage is available for public viewing?

thanks

One never knows what will cause a sudden raft of 'put-down' posts. In this instance from 445 to 451, nothing but playground banter, one post after another.

Did the two questions posed in #444 cause that descent into stupid territory?

When the thread returns to reason from the posting of epithets, will someone kindly reply to the questions asked of those who support the common myth?

thanks, again

Why would you ask these questions? Even if we showed you the wreckage you would claim it was fake.

So my questions to you are:

What are you doing to prove your claim that no-plane crashed in Shanksville?

Are you talking to the workers that cleaned up the site and collected evidence?

Are you showing how the radar data was faked and who did it?

Are you proving the chain of custody in the DNA evidence was broken?

If not, Why?