Flight 93

[Hokulele]

I had my grandson on my lap doing a video conference with my wife in San Jose where she is sitting 3 grandsons; I read the posts and thought the post was from jammonius after skimming the horse-trailer photo too big for my screen... and I was eating lunch. No excuse, I have to come down the stairs to fix some disaster with Judah now ...

... disaster was,
he discovered where the kisses were, "asked what's that", we had some, and Dinosaur Train is keeping him occupied until we decide to run in the rain.

My grandson asks what something is and he does not make up delusions about what something is.

Yeah, like I am just going to accept the existence of your grandson. Unless we have verified evidence, not just eyewitness testimony, I will believe that you instead are deliberately trying to frame Jackanory as a government shill operative.




ETA: Jammonius, inside voice, please.

 

[lapman]

dtugg,

While you continue to miss the point that back and forth banter about what little evidence of FL 93 there is is pointless, let's nonetheless take as an example this iconic photo:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/P200061.jpg?t=1267049308[/qimg]

I have said it looks like the piece of a cargo carrier of some sort, I offered as a possibility, a horse carrier as, after all, it was found in a rural and agricultural part of Pennsylvania.

You say this, yet cannot provide a single shred of proof to back it. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument. You can make your claim all you want. However, rational adults have conclusively proven otherwise.

Query, to what source can anyone who proclaims to high heaven and beyond that the piece of metal shown above is a part of a Boeing 757 refer for specific identification of that piece of metal as a part of the Boeing 757 that crashed at Shanksville?

I note, for example, that the Moussaoui trial exhibit list makes only the following claim about that piece of metal:

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Now, since that language does not identify the said piece of metal as a part of a Boeing 757, can the posters here who place so much emphasis on how obvious that photo is of a Boeing 757 please source their claim.

After you fail to do that, can we please move on to the necessary discussion of accountability for the botched investigation of what happened in that field at Shanksville on 9/11, once and for all?

thanks in advance

Rational adults can make the connection between what is shown and what it belongs to based on the full body of evidence. Since nobody, especially you, have provided any proof that an aircraft other than flt 93 crash in that field, you cannot say with any type of authority that it isn't. By your own standard, the onus is on you to provide absolute proof that the piece if wreckage is something other than what is stated. BTW, the important phrases are "airplane part" and "where flight 93 crashed." I even bolded them for you. Nowhere does it state "cargo carrier" or "horse trailer."

 

[TJM]

ETA: Jammonius, inside voice, please.

Which one?

 

[Hokulele]

Which one?

*Ba dump. Tish*

 

[beachnut]

...
I have said it looks like the piece of a cargo carrier of some sort, I offered as a possibility, a horse carrier as, after all, it was found in a rural and agricultural part of Pennsylvania. ...

No you offer lies and delusions like your failed Beam Weapon, and now no Flight 93 is your new moronic lie.

Oops, more fuselage, and you still can't help but make up lies.

Darn the FDR dug out of the crater the exact size of the wing span of 757, from 30 feet down.

FDR shows the exact impact heading. And was surrounded by parts of people identified as the people who were on Flight 93.

What is your next failed idea to apologize for terrorists who murder Americans and you support by making excuses, dumb excuse based on lies.

 

[switchpoint]

dtugg,


"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

So then you stipulate that it is indeed an airlplane part and that flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pa? To that you have no objection.

Fine, then we only need prove that Flight 93 employed a Boeing Model 757-200, correct?

That shouldn't be too difficult, now we are getting somewhere.

 

[jammonius]

Post # 620 does nothing more and nothing less than reference the iconic piece of metal in the actual context of how it was presented at the Moussaoui trial, where the photo of the piece of metal is accompanied by the following statement:

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

Post # 620 then asks of those who are so adamant that the said piece of metal is from a Boeing 757 the following:

"For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Now, since that language does not identify the said piece of metal as a part of a Boeing 757, can the posters here who place so much emphasis on how obvious that photo is of a Boeing 757 please source their claim.

At least 5 ridiculously self-righteous posts have followed since # 620 and not one source identifying the said iconic photo as a part of a Boeing 757 has been posted.

I will give it until, say post #630 before declaring that you folks can't source the claim and that, therefore, the claim that that piece of metal is from a Boeing 757 fails.

 

[BigAl]

How did body parts from all the people that boarded Flight 93 (as shown on the manifest) in Newark get to Shanksville, 120 minutes later (as identified by DNA)?

 

[aggle-rithm]

So then you stipulate that it is indeed an airlplane part and that flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pa? To that you have no objection.

Fine, then we only need prove that Flight 93 employed a Boeing Model 757-200, correct?

That shouldn't be too difficult, now we are getting somewhere.

What I don't understand is that, of all the things that jammonius is made aware of through second- or third-hand information, most of which he no doubt accepts without extraordinary proof, what is special about the crash of flight 93? It's pretty clear that he has his mind made up before evaluating any evidence.

 

[beachnut]

... I will give it until, say post #630 before declaring that you folks can't source the claim and that, therefore, the claim that that piece of metal is from a Boeing 757 fails.

You are not able to identify a jet engine, no wonder you have delusions, real dumb ones.

The FDR was opened up and was from Flight 93, it shows the exact speed and attitude of impact. Sorry, but the FDR is evidence which makes all your posts moronic lies.

The DNA also exposes you as a person who posts idiotic delusions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How did body parts from all the people that boarded Flight 93 (as shown on the manifest) in Newark get to Shanksville, 120 minutes later (as identified by DNA)?

Can we assume you have been stumped by this question, jammonius?

Come on. I'm sure you can weasel your way through some sort of other-worldly response.

 

[jammonius]

We are beyond Post # 630 and there has been no attempt by posters to source the claim the this is a part of a Boeing 757:

Therefore, posters have failed to source a fundamental claim they want to be seen as making.

Do better on the next issue posters; namely, the consideration of accountability for the complete botching of the investigation of alleged Flight 93. I will give it until, say, post # 650 to see if consideratin of the issue of accountability for the botched investigation can take hold.

 

[DGM]

We are beyond Post # 630 and there has been no attempt by posters to source the claim the this is a part of a Boeing 757:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/P200061.jpg?t=1267049308[/qimg]

Therefore, posters have failed to source a fundamental claim they want to be seen as making.

Do better on the next issue posters; namely, the consideration of accountability for the complete botching of the investigation of alleged Flight 93. I will give it until, say, post # 650 to see if consideratin of the issue of accountability for the botched investigation can take hold.

It was sourced, you did it. Or would you like us to prove flight United 93 was a 757? Do you think there was more then one plane crashed there?

 

[wargord]

dtugg,

While you continue to miss the point that back and forth banter about what little evidence of FL 93 there is is pointless, let's nonetheless take as an example this iconic photo:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/P200061.jpg?t=1267049308[/qimg]

I have said it looks like the piece of a cargo carrier of some sort, I offered as a possibility, a horse carrier as, after all, it was found in a rural and agricultural part of Pennsylvania.

Others say that it is something else.

Query, to what source can anyone who proclaims to high heaven and beyond that the piece of metal shown above is a part of a Boeing 757 refer for specific identification of that piece of metal as a part of the Boeing 757 that crashed at Shanksville?

I note, for example, that the Moussaoui trial exhibit list makes only the following claim about that piece of metal:

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Now, since that language does not identify the said piece of metal as a part of a Boeing 757, can the posters here who place so much emphasis on how obvious that photo is of a Boeing 757 please source their claim.

After you fail to do that, can we please move on to the necessary discussion of accountability for the botched investigation of what happened in that field at Shanksville on 9/11, once and for all?

thanks in advance

This all comes down to simple logic.

FL93 exists as shown by all the evidence to this fact.

Since FL93 exists it is a Boeing 757.

FL93 was hijacked as shown by all the evidence to this fact.

FL93 was flown into the ground in Somerset County, Pa as shown by all the evidence to this fact.

That picture was taken the day of the crash as shown by the evidence to that fact

Locals in the area have not reported that, prior to FL93 being flown into the ground there, any other plane had crashed in that spot or had left any existing visible plane debris.

Since FL93 was flown into the ground in Somerset County, PA, and that no other existing visible plane debris existed in that area prior to FL93 being flown into the ground there, the picture is of a piece of FL93 a Boeing 757.

Unless you can logically disprove any of that, you are wrong.

 

[BigAl]

We are beyond Post # 630 and there has been no attempt by posters to source the claim the this is a part of a Boeing 757:

How did body parts from all the people that boarded Flight 93 (as shown on the manifest) in Newark get to Shanksville, 120 minutes later (as identified by DNA)?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I think if Jammonious wants to prove it was from a horse trailer, he should prove it by posting which trailer it came from. I doubt he will, though.

 

[tsig]

Post # 620 does nothing more and nothing less than reference the iconic piece of metal in the actual context of how it was presented at the Moussaoui trial, where the photo of the piece of metal is accompanied by the following statement:

"Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

Post # 620 then asks of those who are so adamant that the said piece of metal is from a Boeing 757 the following:

"For those of you for whom English is either your first, second, third or fourth language, do any of such persons fail to grasp that the quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93?

Now, since that language does not identify the said piece of metal as a part of a Boeing 757, can the posters here who place so much emphasis on how obvious that photo is of a Boeing 757 please source their claim.

At least 5 ridiculously self-righteous posts have followed since # 620 and not one source identifying the said iconic photo as a part of a Boeing 757 has been posted.

I will give it until, say post #630 before declaring that you folks can't source the claim and that, therefore, the claim that that piece of metal is from a Boeing 757 fails.

How many airplanes were crashing in Somerset that day?

 

[tsig]

We are beyond Post # 630 and there has been no attempt by posters to source the claim the this is a part of a Boeing 757:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/P200061.jpg?t=1267049308[/qimg]

Therefore, posters have failed to source a fundamental claim they want to be seen as making.

Do better on the next issue posters; namely, the consideration of accountability for the complete botching of the investigation of alleged Flight 93. I will give it until, say, post # 650 to see if consideratin of the issue of accountability for the botched investigation can take hold.

When did you get appointed arbiter of all?

 

[tsig]

I think if Jammonious wants to prove it was from a horse trailer, he should prove it by posting which trailer it came from. I doubt he will, though.

With serial numbers. and we'd need to know what breed of horses it was hauling.

 

[dtugg]

Judy Wood fanboy/girl, FWI I am not interesting in engaging you in discussion because you have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are psychologically incapable of reason, thus the whole exercise would be futile. I will, however, poke fun at you as I see fit. So please continue.