Flight 93

[jammonius]

That photo makes you see what an eggshell the whole thing was.

Hey bill,

It might be useful to remind posters here that while jetliners are lightweight, hollow aluminum tubes, they are, nonetheless fairly long, wide, especially with wings included, and capable of making holes a lot larger than that found in Shanksville. Since this is a thread where superimposed images are ok, I post this for illustration purposes and those purposes only:

 

[jammonius]

Idiot,

The windows in the debris are A) distorted by being in a plane crash, and B) viewed from an angle.

The spacing and width are the two aspects that are important here.

Keep digging, agglerithm. You posted a photo that shows the debris from a cargo carrier visibly doesn't match the jetliner. Your attempt at explanation and at making excuses for why there's no visible match is just that:

excuses

 

[aggle-rithm]

Finally, I'd ask you to take a look at that fake picture that clearly shows that the apparent windows of what I think is a cargo carrier do not come close to having the same shape or size as the jetliner windows in that fake photo?

Please post a picture of this cargo carrier that has windows that are warped and twisted as if they had been in a plane crash.

 

[Hokulele]

Moussaoui proceedings took place in the District Court in Virginia. No trial took place, as Moussaoui copped a plea. The judge, Judge Brinkema, almost suspended the trial numerous times because of various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and who was highly critical of the conduct of the prosecution. In the end, however, Moussaoui got a life sentence and the prosecution got to list trial exhibits that show just how weak the information supporting the common myth of 9/11 is.

So all one has to do is plead guilty and suddenly it isn't "a regular court" or "a true trial"? That will come as a surprise to the American Bar Association, not to mention the jury that deliberated over the evidence concerning his sentence.

 

[beachnut]

Hey bill,

It might be useful to remind posters here that while jetliners are lightweight, hollow aluminum tubes, they are, nonetheless fairly long, wide, especially with wings included, and capable of making holes a lot larger than that found in Shanksville:

Funny, first you say aircraft are hollow and can't damage the WTC, now you say they make big holes! Good job you debunked yourself again.

The crater is exactly the wingspan of a 757, 124.5 feet wide. You forgot to research again and you fail with another idiotic delusion of woo.

Next idiot ideas is what? Got another failed post to make today?

The hole is exactly right!

 

[jammonius]

Source? Where is the source for your stuff?

Moussaoui said he was guilty, so you say he is innocent. Good job, Moussaoui says 911 happened, and you say BEAM WEAPONS.

You terrorist supporters need to get on the same page with your terrorists buddies, they are proud they did 911 like you are proud of posting lies like a jet engine is a wheel cover.

beachnut,

Sources, you're asking for sources? Tell you what beachnut, you answer the questions and the issue I presented back on pg. 12 and recalled in the first post on this page and then, after that, since my questions were posed first, I will then source the post you ask about.

I should like to also thank you in advance for ceasing with the dirty, underhanded attempt to link me to terrorists, indirect and therefore snide though your attempt may be.

As you know, 9/11 is an emotional issue, frought with a tendency to bring out jingoistic, xenophobic and other distortions. It is best to keep emotion under check as much as possible. You're losing it here beachnut. Compose yourself.

 

[jammonius]

Funny, first you say aircraft are hollow and can't damage the WTC, now you say they make big holes! Good job you debunked yourself again.

The crater is exactly the wingspan of a 757, 124.5 feet wide. You forgot to research again and you fail with another idiotic delusion of woo.

Next idiot ideas is what? Got another failed post to make today?

The hole is exactly right!
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1EMC2einstein.jpg[/qimg]

beachnut,

The empty hole in Shanksville is not at all consistent with a jetliner crash in all respects except one: The emotional need to find any way one can to cling to the common myth. Physics are the last thing that matter to the common myth.

Your distortion of the way in which I have pointed out that the lightweight tubes could not have glided through the WTC, as the videos show, is not at all inconsistent with what I have said about FL 93.

On the other hand, Iratant's description of jetliners on this page is about as good a rebuttal of the WTC videos as you are likely to find from anyone who otherwise supports the common myth.

I think I forgot to openly thank iratant for his post. I do so here.

 

[PB2007]

Finally, I'd ask you to take a look at that fake picture that clearly shows that the apparent windows of what I think is a cargo carrier...

Wow.

So when the USG planned 911 instead of planting debris from real (scrapped?) planes they used an old cargo carrier instead and hoped the whole world wouldn't notice.....

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,

The empty hole in Shanksville is not at all consistent with a jetliner crash in all respects except one:

Source for your opinion please.

 

[beachnut]

... The empty hole in Shanksville is not at all consistent with a jetliner crash in all respects except one: ...

Prove it with physics! Your lies have the support of your talk, the impact crater is supported by physics.

You have no skills at physics, so you fail and spew lies.

Your terrorist buddy confessed and told the truth, you spew lies to apologize for terrorists. You are trying to get terrorists off by saying there is no evidence you support terrorists. Why?

Now present with math and physics to support your lie or retract it.

 

[TJM]

beachnut,

The empty hole in Shanksville is not at all consistent with a jetliner crash in all respects except one:

Please describe the inconsistencies.

 

[TJM]

delete.

 

[TJM]

Then after that, please describe the inconsistencies with Flight 1771's crater.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You are playing fast and loose here. However, you may have posted the above before I clarified the post so as to make sure it couldn't be read in the way you are interpreting it.

Understood now. My other post above applies then.

Now, let me ask you this, elmondo:

Do you think the FBI could not have deduced that shoot down claims and/or no-plane claims might arise and that, as a result, it might be a good idea to preserve evidence?

Mu.

Evidence has been preserved: The radar data, FDR, and CVR, are on record. On top of that, witness testimony (from the links I gave earlier) is available. The radar data places the jet in Shanksville. The FDR data recorded normal functional parameters, most notably in the cabin pressure (normal), engines (running at 70% RPM), hydraulics (normal), etc. The CVR does not contain any recordings of any explosions, nor anything at the end other than one of the hijackers chanting the standard Takbir. Those two things negate any shootdown claims. The presence of identified human remains and airliner parts in conjunction with the statements from witnesses of both the jet and the debris negate any no-plane claims. It is not the fault of the FBI, the NTSB, local Somerset County authorities, or anyone else involved that there are those who refuse to account for electronic, physical, and eyewitness evidence.

 

[DGM]

dgm,

Supporters of the common myth do not bother to either answer questions or deal with contradictions. On pg12, alone, common myth supporters refused to give a clear answer to:

1--Does United have FL93 wreckage?

After contacting United (a couple years ago) and having several responses back and forth, I can confidently say, they HAD it. Why don't you contact them so you don't have to take our word for it?

(I'd look-up the email I got but there would be no way to prove it's authentic, so why bother)

2--Is wreckage available for inspection?

No.

Supporters also refused to deal with FBI as a criminal investigation moving NTSB aside on one hand and disposing of evidence improperly on the other.

Stop lying! The reason for this has been explain to you several times. The NTSB investigates ACCIDENTS to improve transportation safety. No one disposed of anything "improperly". How about you source where this was done.

So, with those queries and issue, respectively, sitting out there unanswered and unaddressed, there is little point in asking you, dgm, to source your claim that:

Your refusing to except the answers does not mean they weren't

"(t)he recorded radar tracks are independent of [military exercises and simulated hijackings]"

While my request you source that claim is almost certainly not going to be answered, I will put it out there anyway:
Source your claim, dgm, and post up relevant excerpts from the source(s).

If you bother to read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

Don't be lazy, maybe you'll learn something

Just to add: http://www.radomes.org/museum/showsite.php?site=Bedford+AFS,+VA

Current Use: Active FAA site, now operating an ARSR-3 search radar. Site also now known as Roanoke. This now-FAA long-range radar site is now data-tied into the Joint Surveillance System (post 9/11).

 

[wargord]

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

This is it?! This is all you have as a response to my post to you. You have to ask someone else to prove your points?!

If you are not capable of actually responding to my posts or answering my questions then just admit it. Don't ask someone else to help you out.

I thought you were the one with all the answers and now we all know, not that we didn't before, that you have nothing and are just grasping at anything that will give you at least some modicum of human contact.

 

[wargord]

beachnut,

As I think you know, I enjoy discussion back and forth with you It is not my practice to engage in personal put downs, especially those that question the sanity of others, and I am not going to do so now, either.

I do want to point out, however, that the need to confirm and support the common myth has certainly taken a strong hold on you. This is evident in your ability to see jetliner debris in a photograph that shows none. You have now extended this to being able to see a jet engine that can fit inside a small cherry-picker and to see titanium where only rust, consistent with a worn out wheel cover can be seen.

Needless to say, the normal way of resolving such matters is for NTSB to analyze the wreckage and post findings. That was not done in re FL 93, so the argument here is just between us citizens. Those who represented Zacarias Moussaoui apparently did not contest the way the content of the cherry picker photo was described, let alone post obvious objections to it, but that doesn't turn a wheel cover into a jet engine, beachnut.

Let's assume you will continue to see a jet engine where I see a wheel cover. Would you agree with me that neither of us has a source we can turn to that has already officially resolved that issue?

Unless you have proof showing that all the pictures of the debris aren't actually debris of a plane crash then you have nothing. You don't understand that at all, but that is how it is. It doesn't matter what you think you see. A plane crashed, these pieces of debris were photographed at the site of the plane crash, logic tells us that they are parts of the plane. Though somehow you think they are something else. You really need to explain your logic.

Using actual logic, these photographs either show plane wreckage or they don't(excluded middle).

Using logic, the plane either crashed or it didn't(excluded middle, again)

Using logic, the plane either existed or it didn't(excluded middle, catch my drift?)

Now, using logic show how the plane never existed, that it never crashed, and that the photographs do not show plane wreckage. I really can't wait to see how you work this out. Just remember, it can only be one of two ways, you can't have it both ways.

 

[switchpoint]

Hey bill,

It might be useful to remind posters here that while jetliners are lightweight, hollow aluminum tubes, they are, nonetheless fairly long, wide, especially with wings included, and capable of making holes a lot larger than that found in Shanksville. Since this is a thread where superimposed images are ok, I post this for illustration purposes and those purposes only:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/planeintocrater0.jpg?t=1266957002[/qimg]

Don't you have to credit the original poster, killclown, to use that piece of nonsense?

 

[DGM]

Funny, first you say aircraft are hollow and can't damage the WTC, now you say they make big holes! Good job you debunked yourself again.

I just thought this point needed to be shown again.

 

[jammonius]

dgm,

Thank you for your reply. I respond, bit by bit, as follows:

After contacting United (a couple years ago) and having several responses back and forth, I can confidently say, they HAD it. Why don't you contact them so you don't have to take our word for it?

(I'd look-up the email I got but there would be no way to prove it's authentic, so why bother)

Your response is, in part, informative and, in part, vexing. The informative part is that which appears to indicate United does not have the remains of the jetliner said to have been FL 93. I take it, then, the answer to my question, according to you, is 'no'.

While on the one hand that response is appreciated for its factual nature, I am afraid that response devastates the common myth. Destruction of that wreckage means that evidence has been destroyed. In that circumstance, negative inferences can be drawn in connection with the truthfulness of the common myth.

While supporters of the common myth may not like this and may seek, energetically, to counter it, excuse it, explain it away, and so on, the fact remains, the validity of the common myth is undermined by the failure to maintain that wreckage.

So, the outcome here is clear: The truthfulness of the common myth that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville PA has been undermined by failure to properly preserve wreckage.

No.

So, the outcome here is clear: The truthfulness of the common myth that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville PA has been undermined by failure to properly preserve wreckage.

Stop lying! The reason for this has been explain to you several times. The NTSB investigates ACCIDENTS to improve transportation safety. No one disposed of anything "improperly". How about you source where this was done.

You would do well to maintain a civil tone. Explanation of a false or flimsy reason several times does not make it less false or less flimsy. Your attempt to distinguish "accident" from a "crime" is disengenuous, false and stupid, not necessarily in that order.

Look, grasp this: The NTSB investigates catastrophic crashes. The distinction between accident on one hand and crime on the other does not result in a difference in terms of investigating and determining WHAT happened. Not only that, the main difference between an accident and a crime is that the evidence has to be treated with, if anything, even more care and precision. Yet, in this instance, the fact that it was deemed a crime resulted in the destruction of the evidence.

That is so preposterous, on its face, as to defy any attempt at explanation; and, even worse, to justify the claim that the entire story was false to begin with and then covered up.

When you add your admission that the NTSB did not investigate 9/11, inclusive of FL 93, to the fact that the wreckage for alleged FL 93 has gone missing, you have done nothing other than further undermine the common myth.

Thus, before we are half-way through your post, we have here in front of us, dgm and all other posters, two very serious deficiencies that go right to the heart of the common myth re FL 93:

1--There is no jetliner wreckage.

2--The NTSB conducted no investigation.

Based on those 2 items, the common myth regarding FL 93 cannot be proven neither now, henceforth nor ever. And that, posters, is a travesty.

Your refusing to except the answers does not mean they weren't

If you bother to read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

Don't be lazy, maybe you'll learn something

Just to add: http://www.radomes.org/museum/showsite.php?site=Bedford+AFS,+VA

Current Use: Active FAA site, now operating an ARSR-3 search radar. Site also now known as Roanoke. This now-FAA long-range radar site is now data-tied into the Joint Surveillance System (post 9/11).

The above adds nothing in particular. What you've done in just providing links to another thread, not a post, another thread and a website dealing with some radar installation proves nothing and adds nothing to the discussion. You are, in effect, spamming and seeking to take credit for providing information. You have done no such thing.

Posters, the situation in connection with the common myth as it relates to FL 93 has been hopelessly tarnished and compromised by the information provided to us by dgm.