1211 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 16 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

It is an interesting question, that of it being shot down; if it had been hit by an AAM, then that would account for it being scattered over a wide area and not hitting the ground in one piece, to be sure (if the pilot was anything like a decent shot). I suppose the question would be, would that be proof of evildoing? i.e. would it have been premeditated? Could a fighter have been directed to intercept it and shoot it down, even knowing that there were passengers on board, if they were in no doubt that it too had been hijacked and was, perhaps, heading for the White House, say?

I agree that it is an interesting question, and as bee pointed out, that was apparently the standing order.  There need not be any premeditation for such an order though.  The natural an prudent response to the initial two plane impacts would be this exact order.  If I were president under this scenario (God help the country if I were ever president...) I would have made the same order.

bee, on 16 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

well...


http://www.guardian....plane-shot-down

Quote

George Bush initially believed the only plane not to reach its intended target during the 11 September attacks had been shot down on his orders, according to leaks from the former president's memoir of his two terms in office.

Bush reveals that he gave the order for any further suspected hijacked planes to be shot down after the first aircraft were flown into the World Trade Centre in New York during the 2001 terror attacks.

He at first thought the crash of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania had resulted from this instruction, although it later emerged that passengers had stormed the cockpit as hijackers flew the plane towards the Capitol building in Washington.

bolded....the orders were given...and that's what I think happened to Flight 93 (and Flight 77)

but because of the trauma that the US was already experiencing with what happened at the WTC...it was

decided to keep the true facts classified.

.

Why bee, look at you!

For the sake of discussion, I'll entertain the possibility that Flight 93 was actually shot down and the fact that it was shot down was hidden for the very hypothetical reason you mentioned.  Given the options between reporting that the flight was shot down or that the valiant efforts of the passengers' revolt brought it down, most people would prefer the latter.  More than anything, the country needed shining examples of heroism in the wake of the attacks.

That being said, I don't personally doubt the heroism of the passengers on 93.  Had I been on that flight and armed with the knowledge of the other crashes, I would have done the same exact thing.  I think that just about anyone capable of mounting such an effort would have done the same exact thing as well.  What was the alternative?  Sit cowering in the back of the plane waiting for inevitable death when it reached the intended target?  At least by taking action you have a chance, however small, of surviving and/or saving hundreds or even thousands of lives.

Of course they would take action.  Of course they would try to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers.

bee, on 16 April 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

this was a reply to booN...but I just want to say that, although 9/11 discussions get polarized into either

the Official Account or the Inside Job conspiracy....there is a third possibility...

that it wasn't an Inside Job, but because of what had to be and/or, was, done on the day....there has been a

cover-up and some things have been classified. This is the position I take re. 9/11.



I think the things that are covered up are.....(in brief)

Some kind of Directed Energy Weapon was used at the WTC to dramatically reduce the rubble and ensure the damaged buildings

fell into their own footprint.

That flights 93 and 77 were shot down as a defensive measure.

I was going to respond to this with some specifics but I decided against it.


[extended pause while I take a deep breath in a failed effort at restraint...]


I will say this though...

WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall into their own footprint.  Not even remotely.  So if the purpose of this hypothetical Directed Energy Weapon was to accomplish a hypothetically small collapse zone, it hypothetically failed with hypothetically huge proportions to achieve this hypothetical goal.  So whoever hypothetically developed this hypothetical weapon should go back to their hypothetical drawing board and tear up their hypothetical papers to focus on more realistic things...


Well, so much for deciding against it.

While I'm at it...  77 wasn't shot down.  I have no idea what makes you think it was and quite frankly I'm afraid to ask...  but no, it wasn't shot down.  It crashed into the Pentagon.  It was all over the news actually.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Why bee, look at you!

For the sake of discussion, I'll entertain the possibility that Flight 93 was actually shot down and the fact that it was shot down was hidden for the very hypothetical reason you mentioned.  Given the options between reporting that the flight was shot down or that the valiant efforts of the passengers' revolt brought it down, most people would prefer the latter.  More than anything, the country needed shining examples of heroism in the wake of the attacks.

That being said, I don't personally doubt the heroism of the passengers on 93.  Had I been on that flight and armed with the knowledge of the other crashes, I would have done the same exact thing.  I think that just about anyone capable of mounting such an effort would have done the same exact thing as well.  What was the alternative?  Sit cowering in the back of the plane waiting for inevitable death when it reached the intended target?  At least by taking action you have a chance, however small, of surviving and/or saving hundreds or even thousands of lives.

Of course they would take action.  Of course they would try to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers.

I wouldn't want to take anything away from the Flight 93 passengers if they did try to regain control....

If they were able to get a real grasp of the situation (and stay on their feet long enough) they would almost

certainly try and do something.

But I still think it was probably shot down. The country WAS in need of an example of heroism in the wake of the attacks and the

Flight 93 story gave this. We don't know what dramas, horrors and fears that the poor passengers had to endure.

Quote

WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall into their own footprint.  Not even remotely.

I'd say that's exactly what they did...they didn't topple over


  

Quote

So if the purpose of this hypothetical Directed Energy Weapon was to accomplish a hypothetically small collapse zone, it hypothetically failed with hypothetically huge proportions to achieve this hypothetical goal.  So whoever hypothetically developed this hypothetical weapon should go back to their hypothetical drawing board and tear up their hypothetical papers to focus on more realistic things...

what I think happened was that the top section of the second tower that was hit was in real danger of toppling over

which would have caused massive damage to the wider area...and maybe caused the other tower to topple over.

And that would have damaged the 'Bath Tub' under the towers...causing flooding of the whole area. Plus widespread damage

to the city.

So a decision was made to make sure this didn't happen. Then it was deemed necessary to do the same to the North Tower.

(which could have been severely weakened by the field effects of the 'Energy Weapon'and/or South Tower coming

down...in spite of molecular disassociation)

WTC7 could also have been severely weakened by field affects and so it too was brought down with DEWs, for safety reasons.

Quote

Well, so much for deciding against it.

  
  

Quote

While I'm at it...  77 wasn't shot down.  I have no idea what makes you think it was and quite frankly I'm afraid to ask...  but no, it wasn't shot down.  It crashed into the Pentagon.  It was all over the news actually.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....there is NO WAY that the Pentagon...the US Defence Headquarters and Command Centre,

was going to be open to attack from the air...especially when America was at that very time UNDER attack...from the air.

[Stundie]

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Well maybe you should pick one, because the two positions you've taken on this aspect don't coincide with each other.

But they do...

If as conspiracy theorist claim that there is no plane in the ground at Shanksville and if the plane was shot down, wouldn't that explain the lack of a plane n the ground??

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

If the plane was shot down, naturally it is going to impact the ground.  If not in Shanksville, then where?

In and around Shanksville, its probably the reason why the FBI cordon off a few miles around the area. (If I remember correctly)

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

If it impacted with the ground, pieces of it will be recovered.

I'm not doubting that pieces of plane were not recovered, I just doubt the 95% claim because I've not seen any evidence to support that notion.

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I've seen pictures of a lot of debris from the crash site in Shanksville.  So have you.  So have we all.

There is no reason to doubt that roughly 95% of the plane was recovered.  It wouldn't vanish into thin air.

I have not seen anything like 95% of it and of course it wouldn't vanish into thin air.

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

So what if it was?  I'm not saying that it was, mind you, but if it was shot down what would that change exactly?  The plane would still impact the ground, the passengers would still be dead, and the intended target would still have been saved.

What do you mean so what if it was?? It's this kind of attitude from so called official story believers that shows me how little they care about the truth or what actually happened to those poor people on board UA93.

What if the passengers had subdued the hijacker and gained control of the plane, do you think it still should be shot down?

What if Bush and co had shot it down after the passengers had gain controlled and they could have potentially survived, do you think that a cover up would be acceptable??

Of course, I do not know what happened, but I would be concerned or want to know what happened or at least have someone held accountable if the passengers had gained control of the plane and the government decided to shoot it down, wouldn't you want to know?? And would you want to know if you lost a loved one on that flight?

Or is it a case of so what??  

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Why assume?  Indian Lake is less than two miles from the crash site.  The early reports of 6 to 8 miles were based on driving distance.  This is one of the reasons that you shouldn't always take the early reports at face value and cite them as gospel.  There was a lot of confusion in those first days, and as a result there were a lot of sketchy reports with sketchy and unconfirmed details.

I'm not citing it as gospel, I have no idea of the geography of the area as I'm not American, so I have no idea whether it is 2, 4 or 6 miles away. My point is that even if it is still 2 miles away, then debris still shouldn't have been found at that distance if the plane had impacted the ground intact.

booNyzarC, on 16 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I'll have to respond to the rest of it later because I have to get to work.

No problems.

Edited by Stundie, 17 April 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

That video is highly flawed. The aircraft circling over the crash site of United 93 was a white business jet that had nothing to do with the crash of United 93, and air-to-air radar was NOT responsible for the flickering lights either.

Perhaps, he made up that strory.

Sorry Skyeagle, I'm going to have to take the position of the person who was near Shanksville and not some internet warrior I'm afraid.

You can pretend everyone is wrong who doesn't agree with whatever you believe, but the fact is it doesn't make you right. So get over it sonshine!  

[Stundie]

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Catching up with the rest of my response from the morning...

Good Morning.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

To accept that human remains were found so far from the impact site requires reliance on a very small number of extremely early and extremely ambiguous accounts.

No, it relies on eyewitness and news reports. Some of them are a few days after the fact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

These references to body parts being so far away are sketchy at best.  For example, look at the most descriptive thing said (that I've found) about what was "possible human remains" at Indian Lake:

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.

So we have something that looked like a rib bone...

How can we even be sure what this was based on such a statement, let alone where it came from?  It washed ashore at the marina.  It could be an animal bone, or not even a bone at all for all we know.

Add onto this the fact that Wally Miller has stated that there were no body parts found in Indian Lake and that all remains were confined to a 70 acre area around the crash site and what do we have?  We have pretty clear confirmation that there isn't much credibility with this claim of remains being found so far away.  And I hope that you don't subscribe to the "Wally Miller changed his story" nonsense because I'll be straight up with you; Most people can smell the BS in that kind of ridiculous claim a mile away.

If you can show me confirmation that any human remains were actually found a significant distance (miles away) from the crash site then we can talk.  Until then, I'm afraid that these very sketchy accounts of "something like" "possible human remains" just don't offer anything substantial to back up the claim and are evidence only of the typical early speculative news reporting that naturally happens when accurate details aren't yet available.

I don't know if Wally Miller looked for human remains at Indian Lake.  

I do not know what body parts were found where but what I do not understand and what can't be exlpained is that debris was being found by many people miles away from where it is supposed to have crashed.

Including an engine which was found miles away from the crash site.

Things that hit the ground including planes do not hit the ground and bounce through the air and land miles away.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

You seem to be interpreting the above quote as though the engine was found miles away.  It wasn't.  It was found beyond the burning treeline in a catchment basin about 300 yards from the impact crater.  I don't know about you, but I consider 300 yards to be a considerable distance.

Not sure where you got your figure from but I agree 300 yards is not a considerable distance, but 2000 yards (Over a mile by my rough guestimation!) is a considerable distance.

Quote

independent - 13 August 2002

1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.

Cached

This is not an early news report. This was reported a year after the fact. If you read the rest of it, the FBI are suggesting that the debris found 8 miles away was blown by the wind. Which as the article points out would mean that debris was floating around in the air for an hour after the impact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I'm not talking about that.  I'm not talking about any of the heavy wreckage that was in the general viscinity of the crash site.  I'm talking about the light weight materials found floating in the lake and that witnesses observed falling from the sky after the crash.  The paper and nylon stuff.

Your link doesn't work for me by the way.

I'm talking about everything, I do not like ignoring things which do not fit with what I believe.

The fact is that even light weight materials shouldn't have been found miles away whether it's 2 or whatever from the crash site. Unless it broke apart somehow in the air.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

This link might help explain some of it though:
http://www.popularme...myths-flight-93

As should this:
http://en.wikipedia....ories#Flight_93

Sorry I don't read psuedo rubbish, especially from Popular Mechanics.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I was refering primarily to the quotes that report Indian Lake being 6 to 8 miles from the crash site.  It simply isn't.  If you have Google Earth this should be easy enough for you to confirm.  If you don't have Google Earth, or if you question this point further, let me know and I can provide a link to sites which reference this distance and/or images showing it graphically.  The above two links actually make reference to it though, so hopefully that is sufficient.

I'#m quote happy to accept that you are correct, but it still doesn't change the fact that the plane hit the ground and we are suppose to believe that debris travels for miles, it simply doesn't unless it breaks apart while in the air.

Of course, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone could post some sort of calculation which shows how the happened.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I hope that all helps to clear some of this up.

Sorry but it doesn't. Posting Popular Mechanic yellow journalism doesn't wash.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when attempting to research this topic from an honest point of view is that many early reports cannot always be relied on for complete accuracy.  There was so much speculation going on in the first few days and a lot of people said a lot of things while the entire world was attempting to make sense of the events.  Confusion and speculation is a perfectly reasonable explanation for many of the early errors.

Of course, but it's important to remember that some of these articles are days, weeks, months and a year after the fact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

This is the same point that Rafterman was making in post 273:
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4266428

I think there is a difference between reporting nowadays than reporting back in 1913, you know with the communications, the internet, video and photographic evidence.
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4266428

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Of course, if your interest isn't in honest research and understanding but rather in clinging to conspiracy claims, no amount of reasoning or explanation is likely to convince you.  I'm using the word "you" figuratively here by the way.

What have I posted that was dishonest?? I'll give you the 2 miles but I wasn't being dishonest, it would be a mistake as I do not know the geography of the Shanksville/Indian Lake area.

The fact is if you have evidence or news reports which counter these claims, then I am all ears but I've looked and I've not seen anything to counter it. Now UA93/Shanksville is not something I've thoroughly researched but I have not seen anything that would explain debris being found over 2 miles away, whether it is body parts, small debris or whatever.

The simple fact is, if the plane was intact when it hit the ground, even at 500 mph, then I would expect the debris to be within the vicinity of the impact area and not drifting off miles away.

The only explanation I can offer is that it either broke apart in it's descent or what shot down as I suspect.

And as Rumsfeld and Stone said and as Bush thought.

Cheers

Stundie

[Stundie]

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Catching up with the rest of my response from the morning...

Good Morning.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

To accept that human remains were found so far from the impact site requires reliance on a very small number of extremely early and extremely ambiguous accounts.

No, it relies on eyewitness and news reports. Some of them are a few days after the fact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

These references to body parts being so far away are sketchy at best.  For example, look at the most descriptive thing said (that I've found) about what was "possible human remains" at Indian Lake:

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.

So we have something that looked like a rib bone...

How can we even be sure what this was based on such a statement, let alone where it came from?  It washed ashore at the marina.  It could be an animal bone, or not even a bone at all for all we know.

Add onto this the fact that Wally Miller has stated that there were no body parts found in Indian Lake and that all remains were confined to a 70 acre area around the crash site and what do we have?  We have pretty clear confirmation that there isn't much credibility with this claim of remains being found so far away.  And I hope that you don't subscribe to the "Wally Miller changed his story" nonsense because I'll be straight up with you; Most people can smell the BS in that kind of ridiculous claim a mile away.

If you can show me confirmation that any human remains were actually found a significant distance (miles away) from the crash site then we can talk.  Until then, I'm afraid that these very sketchy accounts of "something like" "possible human remains" just don't offer anything substantial to back up the claim and are evidence only of the typical early speculative news reporting that naturally happens when accurate details aren't yet available.

I don't know if Wally Miller looked for human remains at Indian Lake.  

I do not know what body parts were found where but what I do not understand and what can't be exlpained is that debris was being found by many people miles away from where it is supposed to have crashed.

Including an engine which was found miles away from the crash site.

Things that hit the ground including planes do not hit the ground and bounce through the air and land miles away.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

You seem to be interpreting the above quote as though the engine was found miles away.  It wasn't.  It was found beyond the burning treeline in a catchment basin about 300 yards from the impact crater.  I don't know about you, but I consider 300 yards to be a considerable distance.

Not sure where you got your figure from but I agree 300 yards is not a considerable distance, but 2000 yards (Over a mile by my rough guestimation!) is a considerable distance.

Quote

independent - 13 August 2002

1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.

Cached

This is not an early news report. This was reported a year after the fact. If you read the rest of it, the FBI are suggesting that the debris found 8 miles away was blown by the wind. Which as the article points out would mean that debris was floating around in the air for an hour after the impact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I'm not talking about that.  I'm not talking about any of the heavy wreckage that was in the general viscinity of the crash site.  I'm talking about the light weight materials found floating in the lake and that witnesses observed falling from the sky after the crash.  The paper and nylon stuff.

Your link doesn't work for me by the way.

I'm talking about everything, I do not like ignoring things which do not fit with what I believe.

The fact is that even light weight materials shouldn't have been found miles away whether it's 2 or whatever from the crash site. Unless it broke apart somehow in the air.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

This link might help explain some of it though:
http://www.popularme...myths-flight-93

As should this:
http://en.wikipedia....ories#Flight_93

Sorry I don't read psuedo rubbish, especially from Popular Mechanics.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I was refering primarily to the quotes that report Indian Lake being 6 to 8 miles from the crash site.  It simply isn't.  If you have Google Earth this should be easy enough for you to confirm.  If you don't have Google Earth, or if you question this point further, let me know and I can provide a link to sites which reference this distance and/or images showing it graphically.  The above two links actually make reference to it though, so hopefully that is sufficient.

I'#m quote happy to accept that you are correct, but it still doesn't change the fact that the plane hit the ground and we are suppose to believe that debris travels for miles, it simply doesn't unless it breaks apart while in the air.

Of course, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone could post some sort of calculation which shows how the happened.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I hope that all helps to clear some of this up.

Sorry but it doesn't. Posting Popular Mechanic yellow journalism doesn't wash.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when attempting to research this topic from an honest point of view is that many early reports cannot always be relied on for complete accuracy.  There was so much speculation going on in the first few days and a lot of people said a lot of things while the entire world was attempting to make sense of the events.  Confusion and speculation is a perfectly reasonable explanation for many of the early errors.

Of course, but it's important to remember that some of these articles are days, weeks, months and a year after the fact.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

This is the same point that Rafterman was making in post 273:
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4266428

I think there is a difference between reporting nowadays than reporting back in 1913, you know with the communications, the internet, video and photographic evidence.
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4266428

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Of course, if your interest isn't in honest research and understanding but rather in clinging to conspiracy claims, no amount of reasoning or explanation is likely to convince you.  I'm using the word "you" figuratively here by the way.

What have I posted that was dishonest?? I'll give you the 2 miles but I wasn't being dishonest, it would be a mistake as I do not know the geography of the Shanksville/Indian Lake area.

The fact is if you have evidence or news reports which counter these claims, then I am all ears but I've looked and I've not seen anything to counter it. Now UA93/Shanksville is not something I've thoroughly researched but I have not seen anything that would explain debris being found over 2 miles away, whether it is body parts, small debris or whatever.

The simple fact is, if the plane was intact when it hit the ground, even at 500 mph, then I would expect the debris to be within the vicinity of the impact area and not drifting off miles away.

The only explanation I can offer is that it either broke apart in it's descent or what shot down as I suspect.

And as Rumsfeld and Stone said and as Bush thought.

Cheers

Stundie

[booNyzarC]

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

But they do...

If as conspiracy theorist claim that there is no plane in the ground at Shanksville and if the plane was shot down, wouldn't that explain the lack of a plane n the ground??
In and around Shanksville, its probably the reason why the FBI cordon off a few miles around the area. (If I remember correctly)
I'm not doubting that pieces of plane were not recovered, I just doubt the 95% claim because I've not seen any evidence to support that notion.
I have not seen anything like 95% of it and of course it wouldn't vanish into thin air.

Is it primarily the figure that you have issue with?  The "95%" part?  Would you be more accepting of "90%" or perhaps "75%" or even "50%" ?

Is the reason you doubt that 95% was recovered because of who reported the figure and that you haven't seen every little piece yourself?

Back to the larger question of whether the two positions you've taken up can actually coincide.  I still don't see how they can, but perhaps you can describe how?

What would be the point of faking one crash site and hiding the actual crash site?  How would they even be able to accomplish such a thing?

You seem to be discounting the people who actually saw the airplane coming down.

This video has been posted before.  Have you ever actually watched it?  What of the witness statements starting around 1:53?




And here is another one from RKOwens regarding the alleged shoot down.




Honestly Stundie, your position on this just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  The plane crashed there in Shanksville.

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

What do you mean so what if it was?? It's this kind of attitude from so called official story believers that shows me how little they care about the truth or what actually happened to those poor people on board UA93.

What if the passengers had subdued the hijacker and gained control of the plane, do you think it still should be shot down?

What if Bush and co had shot it down after the passengers had gain controlled and they could have potentially survived, do you think that a cover up would be acceptable??

Of course, I do not know what happened, but I would be concerned or want to know what happened or at least have someone held accountable if the passengers had gained control of the plane and the government decided to shoot it down, wouldn't you want to know?? And would you want to know if you lost a loved one on that flight?

Or is it a case of so what??  

Don't misinterpret "so what" to mean that I don't care about the passengers.  I made it very clear what "so what" meant in my original response.  It means that the end result would still be the same.

The FDR and cockpit voice recording confirmed that the passengers never succeeded in seizing full control of the plane, and that the result of their uprising was that the hijackers intentionally crashed the aircraft into the ground.

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

I'm not citing it as gospel, I have no idea of the geography of the area as I'm not American, so I have no idea whether it is 2, 4 or 6 miles away. My point is that even if it is still 2 miles away, then debris still shouldn't have been found at that distance if the plane had impacted the ground intact.

So you can't imagine that light weight materials like insulation, paper, and nylon can be blown high into the air by an explosion and then carried to the south east by the wind?

[booNyzarC]

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I do not know what body parts were found where but what I do not understand and what can't be exlpained is that debris was being found by many people miles away from where it is supposed to have crashed.

Including an engine which was found miles away from the crash site.

Things that hit the ground including planes do not hit the ground and bounce through the air and land miles away.

Not sure where you got your figure from but I agree 300 yards is not a considerable distance, but 2000 yards (Over a mile by my rough guestimation!) is a considerable distance.

Quote

independent - 13 August 2002

1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.

Cached

This is not an early news report. This was reported a year after the fact. If you read the rest of it, the FBI are suggesting that the debris found 8 miles away was blown by the wind. Which as the article points out would mean that debris was floating around in the air for an hour after the impact.

I really should be taking a shower right now to get ready for work, so I'm not going to be able to get to your whole post right away.  But I did want to briefly address this portion.

What exactly is the source for this "2,000 yards away" figure?  And don't say it was Wally Miller.  He was there to recover and identify human remains, not engines.

Whether this article was written a year later or ten years later, it still should source specifically where that "2,000 yards" number comes from.  Where exactly was this alleged engine found?  Can you point to the location on a map for me?

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Cheers.

[Stundie]

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Is it primarily the figure that you have issue with?  The "95%" part?  Would you be more accepting of "90%" or perhaps "75%" or even "50%" ?

Is the reason you doubt that 95% was recovered because of who reported the figure and that you haven't seen every little piece yourself?

I suppose so, but if the photo of the crash site shown debris strewn on the ground rather than a ditch with virtually no signs of a plane, then I might be more accepting.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Back to the larger question of whether the two positions you've taken up can actually coincide.  I still don't see how they can, but perhaps you can describe how?

As I said, if the plane was shot down, then depending on where it hit, then there wouldn't be much wreckage to see if it broke apart and was scattered across the Shanksville/Indian Lake area.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

What would be the point of faking one crash site and hiding the actual crash site?  How would they even be able to accomplish such a thing?

I never claimed it was faked?? lol

I believe the plane probably crashed there but I think that it was shot down and wasn't crashed into the ground by terrorists. Hence the lack of debris at the crash site and it strewn and foudn miles away.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

You seem to be discounting the people who actually saw the airplane coming down.

I'm not discounting them at all because the I believe the plane came down, what I doubt is that the terrorist downed the plane and that the plane came down because it was shot at.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

This video has been posted before.  Have you ever actually watched it?  What of the witness statements starting around 1:53?

And they describe a plane going down, I do not doubt that for a second.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

And here is another one from RKOwens regarding the alleged shoot down.

Again, I'm sorry but I have spoke with RKOwens over the internet and I can safely say from personal experience, he's not a very honest guy.

I would take the time to debunk his video, but I really have no interest.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Honestly Stundie, your position on this just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  The plane crashed there in Shanksville.

It might well have done, however I doubt how it crashed their I'm afraid. The crash site doesn't look like any other crash site I have witnessed and although I'm no expert, there is definitely a lack of debris at the site.

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Don't misinterpret "so what" to mean that I don't care about the passengers.  I made it very clear what "so what" meant in my original response.  It means that the end result would still be the same.

The end result would be very different as it would be a cover up so the result would not be the same.

It would mean the official story is incorrect, would it not??

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

The FDR and cockpit voice recording confirmed that the passengers never succeeded in seizing full control of the plane, and that the result of their uprising was that the hijackers intentionally crashed the aircraft into the ground.

The cockpit voice recording was originally missing the final 3 minutes and then those last 3 minutes changed over the years.
http://whatreallyhap...ght_93_cvr.html

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

So you can't imagine that light weight materials like insulation, paper, and nylon can be blown high into the air by an explosion and then carried to the south east by the wind?

Not really, other plane crashes don't scatter debris miles away unless they are breaking apart or explode while they are airborne.

Remember the FBI claimed that some of the debris flew at 10 miles an hour and they claim was found 8 miles away, meaning that the debris took just under an hour to float down.

It doesn't make sense.

Edited by Stundie, 17 April 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[Stundie]

booNyzarC, on 17 April 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

I really should be taking a shower right now to get ready for work, so I'm not going to be able to get to your whole post right away.  But I did want to briefly address this portion.

What exactly is the source for this "2,000 yards away" figure?  And don't say it was Wally Miller.  He was there to recover and identify human remains, not engines.

Whether this article was written a year later or ten years later, it still should source specifically where that "2,000 yards" number comes from.  Where exactly was this alleged engine found?  Can you point to the location on a map for me?

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Cheers.

It is in the article and it says it was Wally Miller, not me.

I would ask you for your source your claim that it was 300 yards away, but that is not a considerable distance, so it must have been further or a surprising distance for them to have suggest it was a considerable distance in one article and 2000 yards away in another article.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Sorry Skyeagle, I'm going to have to take the position of the person who was near Shanksville and not some internet warrior I'm afraid.

You had better listen to what I say because I know much more than you do. About the white jet. "There was such a jet in the vicinity—a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."—not 34,000 ft.

"They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly. "

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 April 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 17 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

I believe the plane probably crashed there but I think that it was shot down and wasn't crashed into the ground by terrorists. Hence the lack of debris at the crash site...It might well have done, however I doubt how it crashed their I'm afraid. The crash site doesn't look like any other crash site I have witnessed and although I'm no expert, there is definitely a lack of debris at the site.

Look at this crash site of a Topolev airliner of similar size of a B-757. Just like at Shanksville and I might add that no one piece of a missile was recovered from the crash site of United 93.








Tupolev 154

Quote

l and it strewn and foudn miles away. I'm not discounting them at all because the I believe the plane came down, what I doubt is that the terrorist downed the plane and that the plane came down because it was shot at.

Where's you evidence?

Quote

l
other plane crashes don't scatter debris miles away unless they are breaking apart or explode while they are airborne.Remember the FBI claimed that some of the debris flew at 10 miles an hour and they claim was found 8 miles away, meaning that the debris took just under an hour to float down.

It doesn't make sense.

It does if you uderstood why they also found material from PSA 1771 up to 8 miles away from the crash site and it wasn't shot down either.

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 April 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 15 April 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Well Rafterman, the guess you might hazard would be wrong, regarding my never having seen the results of high speed crashes.  I have viewed from above, not on the ground, the crash of an F-16 doing about 300 knots in level flight, and I have viewed the entry hole made by an F-18 in perpendicular flight doing something over Mach 1, probably over Mach 2, according to the investigators, to whom I talked briefly.

As to what happened to the pax, I don't know.  Investigation of the biographies of the pax indicates that the majority of them were employed within the defense industry.  I doubt they were taken out and executed, because good standing in the defense industry is a desireable quality for the most likely candidates for who planned and executed the hoax.

My guess is they are living lives of quiet frustration, right in the heart of america, with very comfortable checking account balances.

Regarding the ValuJet crash, the Wiki entry is fairly accurate.  What it does not mention is that the trajectory of the aircraft was fairly shallow relative to penetration.  I'm not sure about that claim to it having struck 'bedrock'.  It struck the water of the Everglades, and they eventually could not retrieve most of the wreckage.

If you check my previous posts regarding this topic, I always mention that accident as a case of there being no visible debris field.  The surface was clearly disturbed, so it did not take long to find the site, but they got what they could to determine the cause of the accident.  It was not feasible to recover everything.  As I recall they could not even recover the bodies of the passengers or crew.

The differences between the terrain of the Everglades and Pennsylvania coal country are considerable, don't you think?

Hard to keep up with this thread because it's moving so fast, but two points to my good friend Babe:

Regarding the passengers - utter and complete baloney.  My buddy was not an employee of the defense industry and knowing him the way I did, can tell you with 100% certainty that he's not hiding somewhere with his bank account - which was already pretty good before this happened to him.  And the fact that he was vehemently anti-war (a bleeding heart lib if you will) there is no way he would sit back and allow a decade of war to be justified by his death.

Regarding the crash site - from what I've read, the site in Shanksville was comprised of fill on the site of a former mining operation.  Not exactly the "Pennsylvania coal country" you were hoping we would envision from your comment.  Besides, there is ample evidence of similar crash sites in recent years - some of which are posted in this very thread.

And while this may have been brought up in the pages I haven't read through yet - how does your theory gel with your fellow conspiracists who believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that a 757 was SHOT DOWN and crashed in Shanksville?

You can't both be right.

Edited by Rafterman, 17 April 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Regarding the shootdown of 93, does anybody claiming that to be a fact have any evidence regarding that?  Would anybody hazard a guess as to what kind of missle would have been used, and what part of the airplane was struck by that missle?  

[Babe Ruth]

Rafterman

I am certain that your friend was what he was, as you say.  And he might be dead.  Obviously I don't know.  Obviously my theory is EXACTLY that, a theory.  It is possible that some on the list were killed, it is possible that they were all killed, but I doubt it.

One of the flight attendants onboard was from my home town.  I know at least 3 people who knew her in high school.  Whether she is dead or not, I don't know.  I do know that her widower took the kids and moved away.

OK, copy you don't like the term "pennsylvania coal country". Don't know why, but can imagine.  Call it what you want.  The site was in PA, and it was the site of a coal mine.  Have it your way on the semantics.

I certainly know quite a few people who understand the official story to be a damn lie, but I would not really call them conspiracists.  Most of those people SIMPLY understand it to be a lie, from WTC to the Pentagon.  Nobody else I know off hand holds any sort of theory as to what became of the 'passengers'.  Understanding that we are the victims of a hoax DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that one must have some airtight theory about what actually happened.

It's quite enough for the average person to simply understand that a hoax was played out on the american people, which brought 2 wars with no end and a brutal assault on the US Constitution.

Most folks have no opinion about the pax.  Mine is just a theory.