Flight 93

[TJM]

When did you get appointed arbiter of all?

Apparently there was this strange woman lying in a pond....

 

[leftysergeant]

It was found in the vicinity of a 757 engine. All other debris and the impact mark are consistant with a 757-type aircraft. Th lack of weathering indicates that all the pieces got there at the same time so one may infer therefrom that they are all part of the same aircraft.

You lose, jammonius.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"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?

It comes out and identifies it as aircraft wreckage found in Somerset Country, Pa., but the "quoted language makes no claim the piece of metal is a part of either a Boeing 757 or Flight 93"? At that point, that's not even sophistry, man. Find me another 757 crash in Somerset County on September 11th, 2001 that would have confused the rescue and cleanup workers that day.

I'd be careful of taking stilted court language to indicate what you're trying to argue. You must deliberately ignore all context to even try to make the claim you're making.

 

[jammonius]

It was found in the vicinity of a 757 engine. All other debris and the impact mark are consistant with a 757-type aircraft. Th lack of weathering indicates that all the pieces got there at the same time so one may infer therefrom that they are all part of the same aircraft.

You lose, jammonius.

The above is incomplete, unsourced, inadequate, even if sourced, in the absence of aircraft part serial numbers.

Source or retract, leftsergeant.

By the way, the count up to post #650 is continuing. Posters here are simply incapable of reasoned responses to the issues actually presented here.

In the absence of any challenge whatsoever to the proven assertion that the FBI both did not properly investigate the site of the alleged crash of a Boeing 757 jetliner and then gave away whatever debris of a jetliner they said, but did not prove, they had found, the ability ever to confirm a jetliner crash at Shanksville PA has been irretriveably lost.

That is a catastrophic outcome to any subsequent case where proof of what happened on 9/11 is put in issue.

The only valid thing to do here is to seek accountability from whosoever allowed that catastrophic investigatgory outcome to have occurred.

Posters here have refused to address this issue. Please see to it that whosoever you consider to be your best debunkers know that the FBI has botched the Flight 93 investigation to a such an incredible degree as to raise the issue of criminal negligence.

The only chance you have here is to somehow determine that the report that the FBI did not properly grid the crash site and the report that the FBI gave the plane debris to United and the claim that United did not keep that debris are all false.

Given the lack of any documented information and the need to rely solely on press reports, it is possible the 9/11 myth can be salvaged.

Good luck, posters. See what you can do.

 

[BigAl]

The above is incomplete, unsourced, inadequate, even if sourced, in the absence of aircraft part serial numbers.

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)?

 

[lapman]

The above is incomplete, unsourced, inadequate, even if sourced, in the absence of aircraft part serial numbers.

Ahh, the usual copout. Please provide proof that the serial numbers are always used to identify aircraft.

By the way, the count up to post #650 is continuing. Posters here are simply incapable of reasoned responses to the issues actually presented here.

Translation: They don't agree with me so I will pretend they don't exist.

In the absence of any challenge whatsoever to the proven assertion that the FBI both did not properly investigate the site of the alleged crash of a Boeing 757 jetliner and then gave away whatever debris of a jetliner they said, but did not prove, they had found, the ability ever to confirm a jetliner crash at Shanksville PA has been irretriveably lost.

You have yet to prove that the FBI was required to keep and release any info about the aircraft. Please provide the location of the Cessna that was deliberately flown into the Bank of America building in 2002.

The only valid thing to do here is to seek accountability from whosoever allowed that catastrophic investigatgory outcome to have occurred.

The investigation that proved that flight 93 was hijacked and subsequently crashed in Shanksville? Oh, you think the physical aircraft is necessary. Well, rational adults don't need that when there is a plethora of evidence to support the fact that flight 93 was hijacked and was forced to crash in Shanksville. Only the irrational and delusion require the actual aircraft and ignore everything else.

Posters here have refused to address this issue. Please see to it that whosoever you consider to be your best debunkers know that the FBI has botched the Flight 93 investigation to a such an incredible degree as to raise the issue of criminal negligence.

Rational adults understand that your requirements are not based on reality.

The only chance you have here is to somehow determine that the report that the FBI did not properly grid the crash site and the report that the FBI gave the plane debris to United and the claim that United did not keep that debris are all false.

Since when is it a requirement to grid the crash site? The placement of the debri has no bearing on the crime that was committed. This was not a shooting where bullet and casing placement is needed to figure out who did what. The FBI had the FDR, CVR, radar tracking and ATC recordings. Debris placement is irrelevant to proving who committed the crime. As you have already admitted, they had the passport and wallet of one of the hijackers. They also had the manifest and other intelligence info. The aircraft itself was not needed, so it was returned to its owners. You have yet to prove that the aircraft is a required piece of evidence. You just need something to hold onto in order to keep your fantasy alive.

Given the lack of any documented information and the need to rely solely on press reports, it is possible the 9/11 myth can be salvaged.

You do understand that evidence is not supposed to be released to the public before a trial?

 

[beachnut]

How many airplanes were crashing in Somerset that day?

On 911 four aircraft were missing. Two 757, and two 767. On 911 zero horse trailers were taken by cutting the drivers throat and crashed into large office buildings or fields in Pennsylvania.

It takes the mentality of a moron in failing to identify which planes crashed where.

 

[sylvan8798]

Rough interiors of some Boeing 747 and 757's:

 

[aggle-rithm]

The above is incomplete, unsourced, inadequate, even if sourced, in the absence of aircraft part serial numbers.

Pretty please, show me an aircraft, mobile home, or any other structure with windows that fit the debris BETTER than this:

In the absence of any challenge whatsoever to the proven assertion that the FBI both did not properly investigate the site of the alleged crash of a Boeing 757 jetliner and then gave away whatever debris of a jetliner they said, but did not prove, they had found, the ability ever to confirm a jetliner crash at Shanksville PA has been irretriveably lost.

In your uninformed and worthless opinion.

The only valid thing to do here is to seek accountability from whosoever allowed that catastrophic investigatgory outcome to have occurred.

Absolutely wrong. You are trying to skip ahead without showing your work.

Besides, there are many valid things to do here. Showering you with ridicule is one. Moving the entire thread to AAH is another.

By the way, is it true that, for all your bluster, you are afraid to answer this question?

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)?

Don't tell me you haven't seen it, because I know you have.

 

[tfk]

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:

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

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.

You forgot to say, "I Hosey..."

Everyone knows it doesn't count unless you say "I Hosey" first.

Geesh, didn't anyone teach show you how to debate properly?

Tom

 

[tfk]

EMH,

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

I'd be careful of taking stilted court language to indicate what you're trying to argue. You must deliberately ignore all context to even try to make the claim you're making.

We have lawyers here who can explain the procedures, but I strongly suspect that, if someone identified this as "Part of Flight 93", the opposing lawyer would object that this hadn't yet been established.

In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses.

Just my guess...

Tom

 

[Fourbrick]

The distance, between the windows shown on the 757 (assuming it is a 757) above in post 649, is approximately the height of each window. On the debris shown in post 620, the distance between the windows is approximately 2/3rds the height. Anybody know why this should be? Is the distance between windows standard on all 757's or does it vary with model?

 

[jammonius]

EMH,

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




We have lawyers here who can explain the procedures, but I strongly suspect that, if someone identified this as "Part of Flight 93", the opposing lawyer would object that this hadn't yet been established.

In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses.

Just my guess...

Tom

tom,

We're beyond post #650, but within what might be considered a reasonable "grace period" or a "wink, blink and nod" situation or a "who's counting" conundrum or something. True, posters have failed to source the claim that the iconic photo is a part of a Boeing 757 and have likewise failed to address the need for accountability for the FBI's total botching of the Flight 93 investigation.

However, tom in post # 651 can be seen as having achieved a partial and a worthy breakthrough in recognition. That post contains a very significant statement, for which tom deserves congratulations. "Congratulations" it is, then.

tom states:

"In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses."

BINGO!

It cannot be assumed the photograph shows a part of the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed in Shanksville, absent proof at trial with expert witnesses [and valid documentation, like serial numbers of specifically identified parts].

With the FBI having failed to investigate and having given away the plane parts, with no indication they were ever identified, it is not possible for the prosecution to establish either that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville or that parts of a Boeing 757 were found.

Thank you, tom and congratulations once again.

I here extend the time to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's wanton destruction of the FL 93 investigation up to post # 675.

It is important to recognize that it is now impossibile to prove a jetliner crashed in PA and that, therefore, the whole story of 9/11, via the common myth, has failed.

Side note to Big Al: Your DNA evidence suffers from similar defects in how it was handled and in the particulars of the story about the DNA as well. You would do well to look that information up yourself before repeating your mantra about "...bin Laden and 19Arabs and boxcutters..." that you are so fond of posting up time and time again, as if you are having a hard time trying to convince yourself.

 

[bill smith]

Good man T. I knew you would do the right thing in the end.

 

[TJM]

tom,

We're beyond post #650, but within what might be considered a reasonable "grace period" or a "wink, blink and nod" situation or a "who's counting" conundrum or something. True, posters have failed to source the claim that the iconic photo is a part of a Boeing 757 and have likewise failed to address the need for accountability for the FBI's total botching of the Flight 93 investigation.

However, tom in post # 651 can be seen as having achieved a partial and a worthy breakthrough in recognition. That post contains a very significant statement, for which tom deserves congratulations. "Congratulations" it is, then.

tom states:

"In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses."

BINGO!

It cannot be assumed the photograph shows a part of the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed in Shanksville, absent proof at trial with expert witnesses [and valid documentation, like serial numbers of specifically identified parts].

With the FBI having failed to investigate and having given away the plane parts, with no indication they were ever identified, it is not possible for the prosecution to establish either that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville or that parts of a Boeing 757 were found.

Thank you, tom and congratulations once again.

I here extend the time to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's wanton destruction of the FL 93 investigation up to post # 675.

It is important to recognize that it is now impossibile to prove a jetliner crashed in PA and that, therefore, the whole story of 9/11, via the common myth, has failed.

Side note to Big Al: Your DNA evidence suffers from similar defects in how it was handled and in the particulars of the story about the DNA as well. You would do well to look that information up yourself before repeating your mantra about "...bin Laden and 19Arabs and boxcutters..." that you are so fond of posting up time and time again, as if you are having a hard time trying to convince yourself.

The only problem is nobody but a small number of Internet trolls doubts that UAL 93 crashed in Shanksville.

 

[sylvan8798]

I here extend the time to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's wanton destruction of the FL 93 investigation up to post # 675.

Why do you think you are now running this board? or at least this thread? You're not the boss of us, nanner nanner...

It is important to recognize that it is now impossibile to prove a jetliner crashed in PA and that, therefore, the whole story of 9/11, via the common myth, has failed.

Therefore impossible to prove did not. Since you, yourself, have stated that it is impossible to know what happened, it is impossible to rule out the "official story".

 

[tfk]

Jamm,

Par for the course, you missed my point entirely.
And please, child, spare me your adolescent word games.

tom states:

"In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses."

BINGO!

Yes. "Bingo".

My comment is my supposition that pieces of evidence must be identified for trial in such neutral terms. My supposition, if true, completely destroys your vacuous argument that "because it was identified in such terms, there was some question as to its authenticity".

"Bingo" is right.

It cannot be assumed the photograph shows a part of the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed in Shanksville, absent proof at trial with expert witnesses [and valid documentation, like serial numbers of specifically identified parts].

No one argued that it be "assumed". If someone simply presented me with this picture, and told me that it was from Flt 93, I would not assume that they were correct.

So now we are in the discussion of "what constitutes meeting the burden of proof". A US Federal court has one standard.

And the FBI & the prosecutors, not being abject amateurs at this game, were IMO without doubt completely prepared to prove the origin of all those pieces of evidence from Flight 93.

But since Moussaoui pled guilty, we'll never know, will we?

But you seem to be MASSIVELY confused about something. You appear to be suggesting that, if it hasn't been proven in a courtroom, then it cannot be stated as a true fact.

Sorry, pumpkin. The truth of any matter happens as it occurs. Not when it is brought to trial later. The truth of any matter doesn't depend on a verdict.

Finally, my standards of proof are MUCH different than a US federal court's standards. I don't exclude any evidence. And I don't need a sworn affidavit to establish the authenticity of that piece of fuselage as belonging to Flt 93.

I do accept that that piece is from Flt 93. Because I accept the professionalism of the FBI & NTSB agents who were combing that field in Shanksville. And gathered up that piece, plus about 90+% of the rest of the plane. Plus the remains of a whole bunch of unfortunate people.

Now, I will listen to any reasonable argument that you might offer as to how & why all those people have lied about all those plane parts. And the other evidence. But until then, that piece is authentic, as far as I am concerned.

With the FBI having failed to investigate and having given away the plane parts, with no indication they were ever identified, it is not possible for the prosecution to establish either that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville or that parts of a Boeing 757 were found.

You forgot "I Hosey..." again.

Keep dreamin', kid.

I here extend the time to start dealing with the issue of accountability for the FBI's wanton destruction of the FL 93 investigation up to post # 675.

With your delusions of deadlines, you "hereby" make a complete imbecile of yourself.

It is important to recognize that it is now impossibile to prove a jetliner crashed in PA and that, therefore, the whole story of 9/11, via the common myth, has failed.

I don't think everyone is convinced. Maybe if you stamp your feet REALLY hard. Or if you threaten to "hold your breath until you turn blue..."

Yeah, that'll probably do it...

Tom

PS. Do you get the picture yet? You ain't clever enough, you ain't smart enough, and you sure ain't a sufficiently cunning linguist to pull off this Merry Pason act of yours.

You're making a fool out of precisely one person.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

EMH,

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




We have lawyers here who can explain the procedures, but I strongly suspect that, if someone identified this as "Part of Flight 93", the opposing lawyer would object that this hadn't yet been established.

In other words, I suspect that such bland language is required when introducing & identifying evidence. And that it's being part of Flight 93 is something that the prosecutor needs to establish in the course of the trial with expert witnesses.

Just my guess...

Tom

That's one of my guesses too. The other one is that such language is simply habit for whomever on the prosecution team was delegated the task of preparing and submitting the evidence. Regardless, we obviously both agree that Jammonius's interpretation is tortured, at best.

 

[jammonius]

tom,

Your post does not appear to "connect the dots" as it were. Let me ask for sake of understanding whether you understand that the FBI is said to have given to United the debris it had collected?

Our very own poster, DGM, claims to have corresponded with United and to have learned that United has no such debris and that such debris is not available for further inspection.

There are almost no reports of official validation of any plane debris based on serial number identification for any of the alleged 9/11 jetliner crashes, not merely FL 93.

The information quoted below summarizes the FL 93 debris collection process information, of which there appears to me to be precious little. However, what may fairly be said about the handling of the alleged crash site is that the FBI seems to have done everything it could possibly do to make sure no one would ever be able to say what happened at Shanksville. This is why I assert that what is described about FBI handling does not sound like the FBI. They are not incompetent, inherently. But, their handling of the FL 93 site seems to have been designed to thwart, rather than further, investigation, based on the quoted and sourced report.

It is within this frame of reference that it appears to me there is no hope of there being admissible evidence proving a jetliner crashed in Shanksville on 9/11.

History Commons splurb on Flight 93 and links (such as they are)

(September 11-27, 2001): FBI Leads Examination of Flight 93 Crash Scene; Supposedly Recovers 95 Percent of Plane The first FBI agents arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene soon after it goes down. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 60] Due to the criminal nature of the crash, the FBI becomes lead authority for the investigation of the site. Attempts are made to have the area declared a federal disaster, but these are unsuccessful. [DMORT National News, 1/2002] For about two weeks, the FBI’s evidence recovery team of about 150 agents goes over the site with sifters, filtering evidence from the soil. It recovers about 510 pounds of human remains. [Longman, 2002, pp. 259; Age (Melbourne), 9/9/2002] Despite the lack of wreckage reported by those first at the crash scene (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001), the FBI claims that it recovers 95 percent of the plane. The largest piece found, it says, is a seven-foot-long piece of the fuselage skin, including four windows. With the exception of the two black boxes, all wreckage is passed on to United Airlines. Asked what United will do with this, a spokeswoman says, “I don’t think a decision has been made… but we’re not commenting.” [CNN, 9/24/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/25/2001] While conducting its investigation of the crash site, the FBI overrules a plan to carefully map the area and mark the positions of debris so as to determine exactly how Flight 93 crashed, claiming this would be too time-consuming (see September 16, 2001). [Longman, 2002, pp. 262] After it completes its work, the site becomes the responsibility of the county coroner, who continues the search for remains. [Longman, 2002, pp. 258-259]

 

[TJM]

tom,

Your post does not appear to "connect the dots" as it were. Let me ask for sake of understanding whether you understand that the FBI is said to have given to United the debris it had collected?

Our very own poster, DGM, claims to have corresponded with United and to have learned that United has no such debris and that such debris is not available for further inspection.

There are almost no reports of official validation of any plane debris based on serial number identification for any of the alleged 9/11 jetliner crashes, not merely FL 93.

The information quoted below summarizes the FL 93 eebris collection process information, of which there appears to me to be precious little. It is within this frame of reference that it appears to me there is no hope of there being admissible evidence proving a jetliner crashed in Shanksville on 9/11.

History Commons splurb on Flight 93 and links (such as they are)

(September 11-27, 2001): FBI Leads Examination of Flight 93 Crash Scene; Supposedly Recovers 95 Percent of Plane The first FBI agents arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene soon after it goes down. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 60] Due to the criminal nature of the crash, the FBI becomes lead authority for the investigation of the site. Attempts are made to have the area declared a federal disaster, but these are unsuccessful. [DMORT National News, 1/2002] For about two weeks, the FBI’s evidence recovery team of about 150 agents goes over the site with sifters, filtering evidence from the soil. It recovers about 510 pounds of human remains. [Longman, 2002, pp. 259; Age (Melbourne), 9/9/2002] Despite the lack of wreckage reported by those first at the crash scene (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001), the FBI claims that it recovers 95 percent of the plane. The largest piece found, it says, is a seven-foot-long piece of the fuselage skin, including four windows. With the exception of the two black boxes, all wreckage is passed on to United Airlines. Asked what United will do with this, a spokeswoman says, “I don’t think a decision has been made… but we’re not commenting.” [CNN, 9/24/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/25/2001] While conducting its investigation of the crash site, the FBI overrules a plan to carefully map the area and mark the positions of debris so as to determine exactly how Flight 93 crashed, claiming this would be too time-consuming (see September 16, 2001). [Longman, 2002, pp. 262] After it completes its work, the site becomes the responsibility of the county coroner, who continues the search for remains. [Longman, 2002, pp. 258-259]

The only problem is nobody but a small number of Internet trolls doubts that UAL 93 crashed in Shanksville.