• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I can't see why they bother with the "Flight 93" conspiracy.

AJM8125 said:
Then there's this video, which demonstrates what happens to airplanes in a high speed crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrT6joi4gco

It is PSA Flight #1771, which is eerily similar to the crash of flight 93, right down to the first responder quotes, to the the impact crater, to the debris field. When I first saw this, I thought I was looking at Shanksville.

Flight 1771 was hijacked and purposely crashed. It went into the ground supersonic.
Click to expand...


Interesting, thanks for posting that. I wonder what our resident truthers will have to say about it.

PhantomWolf said:
Must have been staged in preperation for 9/11, after all they claim that licences, IDs and even a sickbag with a note on it all survived and we all know that things like passports, licences, ID cards and paper bags can't survive an air crash.
Click to expand...


Obviously the sickbag with the note on it and the gun fragment with skin cells attached were planted to incriminate an innocent man. (Reminded me of those who think finding the red bandanna was improbable and therefore it had to have been planted.)

I wonder if the NTSB remembered to include the serial numbers of the CVR and FDR on their report. Because leaving those off would render the whole investigation worthless. :rolleyes:
 
AJM8125 said:
Then there's this video, which demonstrates what happens to airplanes in a high speed crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrT6joi4gco

It is PSA Flight #1771, which is eerily similar to the crash of flight 93, right down to the first responder quotes, to the the impact crater, to the debris field. When I first saw this, I thought I was looking at Shanksville.

Flight 1771 was hijacked and purposely crashed. It went into the ground supersonic.
Click to expand...

Even the quotes of the first responders are similar to Shanksville.

A Call comes in to the San Luis Obispo County, California Sherrif's Office citing a small plane crash in the mountains of southern California. Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-pa1771.shtml
Click to expand...
 
I posted it to another board myself, about as soon as i finished commenting on it here.

Nada.

Which is really wierd, because I usually have a couple Sturmwahrheiter on my case like ugly on a baboon every time I open a thread over there.
 
Red, you've been shown pictures of plane parts at the site, they didn't convince you.

So pictures are not evidence for you, so if you were shown pictures of body parts, it follows that these pictures would also not convince you. ☑

You've been shown testimonies from people on the scene, rescue workers and forensic experts who picked up pieces of human. It didn't convince you either.

So witness testimonies don't convince you. ☑

You've also been shown reports from pathologists who analyzed the DNA from the scraps of human body parts recovered from the scene and they positively identified the crew and passengers. It didn't convince you.

So expert reports and analyses don't convince you. ☑

So again, my question: what kind of evidence will convince you?
 
Pardalis said:
Red, you've been shown pictures of plane parts at the site, they didn't convince you.

So pictures are not evidence for you, so if you were shown pictures of body parts, it follows that these pictures would also not convince you. ☑

You've been shown testimonies from people on the scene, rescue workers and forensic experts who picked up pieces of human. It didn't convince you either.

So witness testimonies don't convince you. ☑

You've also been shown reports from pathologists who analyzed the DNA from the scraps of human body parts recovered from the scene and they positively identified the crew and passengers. It didn't convince you.

So expert reports and analyses don't convince you. ☑

So again, my question: what kind of evidence will convince you?
Click to expand...

A non leading, non obnoxiously bumped direct question will get you everywhere.

You said that there are plane parts at the site. Actually, the pictures that were released immediately after the event do not show these parts. The only part in the ditch is lamely propped (pun intended) in a backhoe bucket, which was released years after the fact. Other than the five or six Mossaui trial photos, what parts are you talking about?

To answer your question more specifically, we would need to first find out where the wreckage (95% by CNN's account) is being stored. Can it be photographed? Can it be analyzed? Do any of the parts have serial numbers?

You may not, but some poster is going to scream, "why should they open up all their evidence to every twoofie who isn't satisfied with the investigation?"

And therein lies the masterstroke.
 
No, you didn't answer the question. What kind of evidence will convince you? You only asked questions, not answered them.

ETA: By the way, how is: "Red, what will convince you that these people died there? " leading? How is it not direct?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
A non leading, non obnoxiously bumped direct question will get you everywhere.
Click to expand...

How is it a leading question? "What kind of evidence will convince you" is pretty straight-forward.

The only reason it got bumped is because you kept ignoring it. I think it's a pretty crucial question in order to understand why you keep doubting when all the evidence is clear.

You said that there are plane parts at the site. Actually, the pictures that were released immediately after the event do not show these parts. The only part in the ditch is lamely propped (pun intended) in a backhoe bucket, which was released years after the fact. Other than the five or six Mossaui trial photos, what parts are you talking about?
Click to expand...
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3

To answer your question more specifically, we would need to first find out where the wreckage (95% by CNN's account) is being stored. Can it be photographed? Can it be analyzed? Do any of the parts have serial numbers?
Click to expand...
Surely you can investigate that. Why don't you go and ask the proper authorities?

Are you so incredulous for every plane crash? Are you going to ask to physically see the plane parts of every accident that happens?

You may not, but some poster is going to scream, "why should they open up all their evidence to every twoofie who isn't satisfied with the investigation?"

And therein lies the masterstroke.
Click to expand...
What about the DNA? The FDR?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
A non leading, non obnoxiously bumped direct question will get you everywhere.

You said that there are plane parts at the site. Actually, the pictures that were released immediately after the event do not show these parts. The only part in the ditch is lamely propped (pun intended) in a backhoe bucket, which was released years after the fact. Other than the five or six Mossaui trial photos, what parts are you talking about?

To answer your question more specifically, we would need to first find out where the wreckage (95% by CNN's account) is being stored. Can it be photographed? Can it be analyzed? Do any of the parts have serial numbers?

You may not, but some poster is going to scream, "why should they open up all their evidence to every twoofie who isn't satisfied with the investigation?"

And therein lies the masterstroke.
Click to expand...
WRONG. Why are you wrong all the time on everything about 9/11?
On that day there was video showing all the debris and it was enough for most people who understand high energy impacts to see 93 had impacted!

You are showing how little you try to understand 9/11. How long have you been displaying this level of ignorance on 9/11 topics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc Oops, you are wrong, the debris was shown on 9/11! OOPS.
The funny part is, these news dolts say there is no much of the aircraft there, but show video of thousands of pieces of aircraft! Funny how the news quotes become the slogans of brain dead truthers, repeating the stuff they hear from news on the day, that means zero! This video is used by truther to say there are no parts, but the video shows thousands of parts. How pathetic.


Your truth movement has no evidence, but you sure make up fake ideas about the real evidence. How do you prove the DNA was faked? Who are your experts? You don't have one graduate of an aircraft accident investigation course do you?
 
Last edited:
And BTW Red, if you were allowed to see the debris in some hangar in Pennsylvania, who says they would the the actual plane parts found on the site seven years ago?

You don't believe photos because they could have been made up.

You don't believe in witnesses, because they could have been paid.

You don't believe in the debris, because they could have been planted.

You don't believe in debris because you're not allowed to see them in person.

You don't believe in experts and pathologists' words, because they could be paid.

So you're putting yourself in a position of constant deniability. That's not skepticism, it's denialism.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
And BTW Red, if you were allowed to see the debris in some hangar in Pennsylvania, who says they would the the actual plane parts found on the site seven years ago?
Click to expand...


That's the whole point of independent forensic investigation, to make this determination.
 
RedIbis said:
That's the whole point of independent forensic investigation, to make this determination.
Click to expand...

Notice you snipped the rest cause it was too close to the bone?

You are so desperate you want the 911 CT to be true. You want it so bad you ignore everything and deny everything that shows CT claims to be false. What is it that has made an obviously intelligent person like yourself turn into this illogical and irrational persona we see here? I see the usual trolls and morons here, some of whom are mentally deficient, some just plain thick and some quite deranged and it is obvious you are not one of them. When the NTSB analyze the FDR do you think the govt have told them what to put out? When Wally Miller did his tests did he toe the party line? Did all those thousands of people who attended the crash site not notice there were no aircraft parts there? Did the people who saw it crash there not actually see a plane crash? Where is the plane Red? Where are the people? Are the airline keeping it secret that they do not in fact have the remains of their aircraft? Is the CVR recording fake? Did the phone calls not happen?

Why do you want the CT to be true so much? Have you invested too much into it you cannot lose face now?
 
Update on my quest to find the disposition of the wreckage:

So far no one at United Airlines can confirm they actually accepted the offer of the return of the parts (the offer was made). I am filing a FOIA request to the FBI, FAA and the NTSB to finally clearify (hopefully) what became of the wreakage.

I'll post the results when I find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom