Split Thread What happened to Flight 93?

RedIbis said:
So far every picture of a plane crash looks a hell of a lot more like a plane crashed there than does the ditch in Shanksville.
Click to expand...

Please clarify. What criteria do you use for determining when something "looks like" a plane crash?

You see, to me, they look just like the Shanksville crater, so unless you can come up with some sort of objective criteria, you have to admit that all you really have is uneducated, subjective opinion.
 
RedIbis said:
Instead of scolding me on when and how I post, try dealing with some of what I've already asked. Saudi involvement, whether or not Flight 93 is in the ditch, or are you going to claim you don't have the credentials to address these topics?
Click to expand...


I just watched the National Geographic documentary on 9/11. You frauds like to pretend that the calls from the hijacked planes were faked, although George Papcun has explained why they could not have been. Flesh this out for us. How were the calls faked, and why are the victims' families lying?

Stop running long enough to say something for a change.
 
RedIbis said:
The sickness you're feeling is the reality that the passengers never made it into the cockpit after Beamer yelled "Let's roll."

I don't expect anyone here to believe me, but I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, this is nothing more than cold reality. I'm asking for the most accurate description of what happened based on official reports.
Click to expand...


Given that the hijackers plowed it into the ground, it is certain that the passengers failed to take back the plane. Duh! The passenger revolt was probably thwarted by the hijacker pilot going into a dive. Again, duh!

Now, tell us how the calls described in detail by the victims' family members were faked.

I'd like nothing better than to see you despicable frauds forced to confront the people you smear with your vicious lies.
 
RedIbis said:
So far every picture of a plane crash looks a hell of a lot more like a plane crashed there than does the ditch in Shanksville.
Click to expand...

First of all, it's important to understand that not all crashes are created equal. Size of the aircraft, speed, angle of descent and rate of descent vary wildy between individual crashes. Higher speed and higher angle of descent(say between 45-90 degrees) will lead to an enormous rate of descent, which means teeny tiny pieces. It's silly to think that high speed, high angle of descent crashes would leave alot of wreckage behind, especially when you are familiar with how aircraft are constructed.

Near vertical crashes exceeding 500 mph like the case of flight 93 are very rare. Most crashes occur during takeoff and landing where speeds are 200 mph and below and usually at a lower angle of descent.

Here are some examples, only one of which was a high speed vertical crash like UA93. So it stands to reason that one would expect to see alot less recognizable debris than the examples below.

United 585, 737-200, nearly straight down but low speed



Allegheny 853, DC-9-30, nearly straight down, low speed



Emery 17, DC-8-70, low speed but high angle of descent
http://home.att.net/~emery17now/dayE17.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/sacramento_dc8_feb1602_2.jpg


Aeromexico 498, DC-9, almost straight down following collision
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/am498/2.jpg


American 587, A300, low speed(less than 250 mph) but high angle of descent.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/crashoverhead.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/Nov12Flight587Firemen3.jpg


American 191, DC-10, low speed, high angle of descent
http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/a/aa/aa191-crash-site.png


Valujet 592, DC-9, high speed(almost 500mph, nearly straight down)
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.jpg

Do not hotlink images from other sites.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedIbis said:
So far every picture of a plane crash looks a hell of a lot more like a plane crashed there than does the ditch in Shanksville.

A ditch is a long narrow hole dug out of the ground. If anyone reads some negative, disrespectful connotation in that, I'm not responsible for that nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm curious about what you would think was the reason all the volunteers (I don't think I need to post the list again) that helped pick up all the pieces of plane would lie about this (not being a plane there). Any insights Red?
 
Do not hotlink images from other sites.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles



The one time I get lazy....sheesh. It's like trying to slip daylight past a rooster with the mods around here.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Please clarify. What criteria do you use for determining when something "looks like" a plane crash?

You see, to me, they look just like the Shanksville crater, so unless you can come up with some sort of objective criteria, you have to admit that all you really have is uneducated, subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

Sup Red, just requesting once more that you substantiate your wild assertions.
 
Just trying to lead by example. Don't take this as condescending, folks; I just don't want to see anyone do what Pomeroo - a former poster I really liked having around - ended up doing, which is let his posts get him banned.

Anyway, if a particular truther wants to bring up the old myths about FL93 and Operation Northwoods, it's best to just link and move on.

Flight 93:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page3
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75126
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2040824

Operation Northwoods:
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change#operation-northwoods
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=northwoods

Done. Until a given truther frames his issues with the context available at those links, there's nothing to discuss.
 
Off-topic posts moved to AAH.

Back on topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
This is a question I always ask OJ Simpson deniers, if it wasn't OJ, then who? All the evidence points to OJ. In this case, if not Flight 93, then what? All the evidence points to Flight 93 crashing in Shanksville. Nobody has been able to come up with an alternative in either case with any supporting evidence.
 
RedIbis said:
The Commission Report states explicitly that a passenger yelled out, "Roll it" because that's what was on the transcript. "Let's roll" never appears in the report.



The passenger "counter-attack" and "Let's Roll" are the two most indelible images of Flight 93. If the reality is that the passengers never made it inside the cockpit and Beamer never yelled "Let's roll," you can see why the Bush administration wouldn't exactly publicize this. I've read the report, and I had trouble finding it's brief discussion of the passenger revolt.

This is relevant to an Inside Job discussion because this exaggeration combined with a lack of evidence in the ditch further casts doubt on the official story of Flight 93.

I've heard many people say that they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but they think the plane was shot down, an unfortunate but necessary act. If this is true than the "crash scene" was certainly faked.
Click to expand...

Well Red, you owe me a new keyboard. When I read this pathetic analysis I spit my coffee on the Screen.

The evidence for the "lets roll" comment is not the cockpit voice recorder!!! It is based on an in flight call Beamer placed to an operator and he used a phrase that was corroborated by his widow.

The "roll it" comment WAS picked up on the CVR, and clearly related to the passengers attack on the cockpit that you don't think happened.

The fact that "lets roll" and "roll it" coincidentally contain the same word DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SAME! I can hardly believe that truthers post such fraudulent comments

Everything in this post can be confirmed with 5 minutes of objective analysis.

Of course, this is the same freaking truth movement that thinks that "pull" means that the FDNY was told to blow up WTC7.
 
Based on, among other things, the lack of wreckage in the "crater" no smell of jet fuel, and on site Fox news reporter early on stating there is no evidence a plane crashed here, witness reports and other issues...its extremely likely no jetliner crashed in Shanksville....If the evidence is weighed for and against a crash their evenhandedly, its pretty undefendable to go along with the OCT.

DOM at CIT has visited the site, spoken with a number of witnesses, and come to the conclusion flight 93 didnt crash there. Go to the CIT site to find his super informative info regarding this. As far as i know, he has done more independant on site research than anybody on the planet regarding 93


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0


1:15 in is the Fox news report................
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Based on, among other things, the lack of wreckage in the "crater" no smell of jet fuel, and on site Fox news reporter early on stating there is no evidence a plane crashed here, witness reports and other issues...its extremely likely no jetliner crashed in Shanksville....If the evidence is weighed for and against a crash their evenhandedly, its pretty undefendable to go along with the OCT.

DOM at CIT has visited the site, spoken with a number of witnesses, and come to the conclusion flight 93 didnt crash there. Go to the CIT site to find his super informative info regarding this. As far as i know, he has done more independant on site research than anybody on the planet regarding 93


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0

1:15 in is the Fox news report................
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

(forward to 2:25)

CIT avoids this like the plague. You ever wonder why , Roundhead?
 
roundhead said:
Based on, among other things, the lack of wreckage in the "crater" no smell of jet fuel, and on site Fox news reporter early on stating there is no evidence a plane crashed here, witness reports and other issues...its extremely likely no jetliner crashed in Shanksville....If the evidence is weighed for and against a crash their evenhandedly, its pretty undefendable to go along with the OCT.

DOM at CIT has visited the site, spoken with a number of witnesses, and come to the conclusion flight 93 didnt crash there. Go to the CIT site to find his super informative info regarding this. As far as i know, he has done more independant on site research than anybody on the planet regarding 93


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0


1:15 in is the Fox news report................
Click to expand...

good thing you found news footage from 9/11/01
im sure they found every piece and had the entire pit unearthed by the time these reports went on the air :boggled:
 
Justin39640 said:
good thing you found news footage from 9/11/01
im sure they found every piece and had the entire pit unearthed by the time these reports went on the air :boggled:
Click to expand...


Yeah, the 2 huge wings just went 100 feet underground and didnt break off:D


Their wasnt anything to unearth...the hole was maybe 15 foot deep, there was nothing under that 15 foot...

There was no 93 crash there, pople who think so are misguided fools(or something much worse)
 
Toke said:
Roundhead,



Is that how you imagine a airplanecrash?
Click to expand...



I imagine a plane crashing head first into soft ground to leave huge parts, start a fire and cause a huge crater.

Not a small little ditch that has nothing in it.....At least the perps could have dumped the contents of a 55 gallon drum of kerosene in the hole to make the crash somewhat more plausible.


There is no more evidence of 93 crashing there than it having crashed in my backyard

They should have also rented the backhoe longer and dug a bigger hole with it, 20 minutes wasnt enough
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Their wasnt anything to unearth...the hole was maybe 15 foot deep, there was nothing under that 15 foot...
Click to expand...
Because I know you will not watch that video that AJM posted.

530200913123pm.png


roundhead said:
There was no 93 crash there, pople who think so are misguided fools(or something much worse)
Click to expand...
So, would this also imply that anyone who thinks a plane crashed in our other example is either "a misguided fool (or something much worse)"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom