have you seen the FDR and the exact agle the plane went down?
Yes. But you find a problem with it, so be specific. What's wrong?
soon as you find the angle at wich it crashed, tell me if it looks right to you.
Looks fine to me. What's the issue? Shoul dit have looked differently? Why?
notice the unburned grass around the crater? and notince the burned trees, off to the side?
Yes, I notice. What is the problem with this? What should it have looked like?
witness reports backed by physical evidence? you are basically saying they pick and choose witnesses...going to a ladies house and TELLING her she didnt see a jet sounds kinda fishey to me.
Just a person saying they say a plane 40' off the ground that made no noise looks fishy to anyone with knowledge of basic physics, and is easily explained by the average persons lack of understanding of how distantce is judged.
By the way, have a source on the "Tell a little old lady she didn't see a jet" bit, or are you just throwing out dirt and hoping it'll stick?
well, human remains found up to 8 miles away,
Source? Because they weren't.
clothes found 8 miles away
Source? And assuming this is true, what, specifically, is the problem?
Source? And again, if true, what's the issue here?
one burrowd into the earth
And again, what's wrong with that?
...bandana that survives a vaporized plane crash.
Again, what, specifically, is wrong with this? Are you familiar, at all, with the dynamics of chaotic events? Explosions and exflagrations?
Yes, the ones you choose to lend credence to are. Unless you have any meaningful support for this, it's a bald assertion on your part. They went with the witnesses who represented the majority of the stories told, in general.
FAA, and norad reports are inconsistant with the 9/11 commisons report.
IN minor details, mostly, a fact that's already been looked into, and was initially uncovered, by the Commission itself and is fairly well resolved. How does this prove Flight 93 was shot down, again?
i guess its a question of faith.
No, it's a question of reasonable evidence. ON one side, the vast majority of evidence supports the official story. Reams of physical evidence, multiple investigations, the majority of witness testimony, timelines, official documents, phone records, FDR data, etc, etc, etc.
On the other side, a minority of witnesses make conflicting statements, and a LOT of people point to the minor inconsistencies (common in any reporting of a complex event) and a lot of speculation/supposition.
Which would you consider sufficient evidence to put you away for a murder charge?
