Why Flight 93?

[gumboot]

ok that was my mistake about that conversation its in the 9/11 comission report pg 31.....neads and faa(DC). Sorry about that error...

You haven't answered my question. How were the people in the White House tracking the aircraft that was "fifty miles out, thirty miles out..."?

The answer to this question is vital to understanding the conversation Norman Mineta witnessed.

-Gumboot

 

[wtcconspiracy]

Wrong, it is you who needs to provide the physics, calculations and other evidence that the damage was inconsistent with what would be expected under those circumstances. Your personal incredulence doesn't count.

UMM did you read this post by DGM.....I was told to pick one and i would be given in depth explanation of it which is why i asked.....read this first

wtcconspiracy:
Tell you what, Pick one of that list and if we can explain it to you in depth, will you believe that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville and there was no conspiracy involved?

Read that quote, then you might see why i asked for what i did

Ben

 

[funk de fino]

Read that quote, then you might see why i asked for what i did

Ben

I think Gravy's post sums it all up nicely. You should take some time to read and digest and realise you have been conned by stupid liars.

Then come back and admit it like a man

 

[wtcconspiracy]

You haven't answered my question. How were the people in the White House tracking the aircraft that was "fifty miles out, thirty miles out..."?

The answer to this question is vital to understanding the conversation Norman Mineta witnessed.

-Gumboot

Well I dont know how they were, I dont work in aviation, But I am sure the white house had communication with someone who could track a plane headed towards them.

Ben

 

[Gravy]

Well I dont know how they were, I dont work in aviation

Yet more evidence that you didn't read the 9/11 Commission report. Why did you lie about that, Ben?

 

[gumboot]

Well I dont know how they were, I dont work in aviation, But I am sure the white house had communication with someone who could track a plane headed towards them.

Ben

It appears from above that you're accepting that it's feasible that no one in the White House was using radar to track the aircraft. Would you also accept that it is feasible that there was a delay in information being updated?

So for example it's possible that, for argument's sake, a plane crashed, but the people at the White House didn't get told it had crashed until some time after it had actually crashed?

If we take the example of United 93, NEADS (who were in constant direct communication with multiple radar tracking centres) weren't even told the aircraft was missing until four minutes after it had crashed, and it was a further eight minutes (a total of 12 minutes after the aircraft had crashed) that the "oh he's down, down" conversation you mentioned occurred.

So if we have a 12 minute delay in information between the FAA and NORAD, do you think it's possible that there could be a similar (perhaps even longer) delay between the FAA and the White House?

-Gumboot

 

[JimBenArm]

my sources are various books I have read...I can provide full list but the two i quote from tonite are 9/11 synthetic terror by Webster Griffin Tarpley and The 9/11 conspiracy by James H. Fetzer, PH. D

Well, there's your problem!

 

[DavidJames]

UMM did you read this post by DGM.....I was told to pick one and i would be given in depth explanation of it which is why i asked.....read this first




Read that quote, then you might see why i asked for what i did

Ben

I understand, but my point stands, regardless of others willingness to try and explain things to you.

 

[wtcconspiracy]

Yet more evidence that you didn't read the 9/11 Commission report. Why did you lie about that, Ben?

Ok for the record. I have read the 9/11 comission report. I have actually read it front to back twice and am always browsing through to enhance my knowledge....For once and all I am also not totally convinced 9/11 was conspiracy....I am just discussing points I have read along the way and want to learn more....I came here for that reason....I go on forums to learn the truth....and whatever that truth is I just want to learn.....

Ben

 

[wtcconspiracy]

It appears from above that you're accepting that it's feasible that no one in the White House was using radar to track the aircraft. Would you also accept that it is feasible that there was a delay in information being updated?

So for example it's possible that, for argument's sake, a plane crashed, but the people at the White House didn't get told it had crashed until some time after it had actually crashed?

If we take the example of United 93, NEADS (who were in constant direct communication with multiple radar tracking centres) weren't even told the aircraft was missing until four minutes after it had crashed, and it was a further eight minutes (a total of 12 minutes after the aircraft had crashed) that the "oh he's down, down" conversation you mentioned occurred.

So if we have a 12 minute delay in information between the FAA and NORAD, do you think it's possible that there could be a similar (perhaps even longer) delay between the FAA and the White House?

-Gumboot

I will except any feasible explanation. If I can be shown proof that is proven then I will except that what I have learnt from truth movement may not be all truth....But like I say I am learning still, So anyone willing to help me and be patient I appreciate it. If not then oh well....

Ben

 

[T.A.M.]

wtc:

You seem legit in your attempt to get clarification on areas of the attacks you find "suspicious". There is nothing wrong with this.

What I want from you, as mentioned above, are references, but not just those books. The people who wrote those books had to obtain there info from somewhere, and it should be listed in footnotes or a bibliography in the book...these are the references I am seeking...if they do not provide them, then the quotes are nothing more then their opinion and conjecture.

Thanks.

TAM

 

[wtcconspiracy]

wtc:

You seem legit in your attempt to get clarification on areas of the attacks you find "suspicious". There is nothing wrong with this.

What I want from you, as mentioned above, are references, but not just those books. The people who wrote those books had to obtain there info from somewhere, and it should be listed in footnotes or a bibliography in the book...these are the references I am seeking...if they do not provide them, then the quotes are nothing more then their opinion and conjecture.

Thanks.

TAM

I will definatly compile a list of references from the bibliography of those books....I may take me a couple of days as I am working a lot at the moment, But I will get it...

Ben

 

[uk_dave]

wtcconspiracy,

do you entertain the notion that the people who wrote the books you have based your questioning of the 911 commission report and the NIST report upon may be ....telling you fibs?

 

[wtcconspiracy]

wtcconspiracy,

do you entertain the notion that the people who wrote the books you have based your questioning of the 911 commission report and the NIST report upon may be ....telling you fibs?

of course I do....that is why I came to this forum....to seek more information

Ben

 

[T.A.M.]

of course I do....that is why I came to this forum....to seek more information

Ben

Excellent. And provided you stick to this, most people here will be helpful to you.

Now what I would like, if you are game, is for you to provide for each of the points you asked us to consider, the reference that your authors (Fetzer and Tarpley) used to garnish this information from...side by side with the info itself, as they have published it in their work.

Thanks

TAM

 

[Gravy]

What about Susan McElwain who saw the small plane fly at roughly 40-50 feet above her minivan.... Has her quote been debunked....

To death.

Use the forum search function.

The plane was silent, no larger than her van, was traveling at high speed, made a physically impossible maneuver to clear the trees that were straight ahead, and went down right at the spot where she saw the big explosion. There was no other explosion. No one else saw another plane at the spot where flight 93 crashed, when it crashed. She caught a fleeting glimpse of flight 93, was startled, and thought it was closer than it was. She said she believed it was a jet until conspiracists kept telling her it wasn't. This is very, very simple stuff, Ben. Watch the video linked above and see how confused she is. The people who are taking advantage of her confusion are despicable creeps.

Use the forum search function.

 

[Gravy]

of course I do....that is why I came to this forum....to seek more information

Ben

That's good. Please do not insult us by lying to us. It's obvious that you haven't read the 9/11 Commission report. Will you do so now, and report back with your questions and objections?

 

[wtcconspiracy]

That's good. Please do not insult us by lying to us. It's obvious that you haven't read the 9/11 Commission report. Will you do so now, and report back with your questions and objections?

ok Please stop saying I didnt read the report as i did.....

Ben

 

[Gravy]

And I choose this one

4. A view of the crater shows the plane plunged into the soft ground almost vertically....Yet the hole is only about 20 feet wide but the plane has a 125 ft wingspan

No.

Note the burn marks leading from the wing tanks, and the charred grass and blasted and charred trees, which you say didn't exist.

Be aware I need indepth....I need proof....and would like to know a bit about why there was no damage to surrounding area of crater.....I know thats kinda 2....but hey i need a lot of convincing....

Absolute nonsense. Before I spend my valuable time posting more photos and quotes, I need to know where you got this false information and why you believe it.

Ben, I gave you contact information for many people who worked at the crash site. Will you contact them? Yes or No?

 

[Slayhamlet]

ok Please stop saying I didnt read the report as i did.....

Ben

Did you speed read it? Because it doesn't look like you comprehended much of what you read, if you did indeed read it.