It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!

Originally posted by RipCurl
again putting words into other people's mouths when that is not the case.

I aske you again to stop speaking for skeptics when you have no clue what they believe.

So most skeptics believe most of Flight 93 buried itself and then the soft dirt fell back in and covered the hole up?

reply to post by sensfan



Its a conspiracy website. You are in the thread titled >>9/11 Conspiracies>> It wasn't Flight 93 in Shanksville!!>>Post Reply.

NOT

>>9/11 Center for those with bags on their heads & blinders on who follow whatever the government throws at them>>No post or replies wanted other than what we say.

I actually have information not reported elsewhere about this. A friend of mine has grandparents who live about a mile or so from Shanksville.

None of them are prepared to come forward, but I convey what he noted.

The grandfather was actually in the USAAF bombing Germany during the Second World War and he saw many aircraft shot down. What happened in Shanksville, he says, did not look like any crash that he had ever seen.

Normally there would be a compact crash site, but the debris came down over a wide area and the Police were busy sealing off a huge area right from the get-go.

My own conclusion is that it must have been blown to bits well above ground level.

Originally posted by aristocrat2
I actually have information not reported elsewhere about this. A friend of mine has grandparents who live about a mile or so from Shanksville.

None of them are prepared to come forward, but I convey what he noted.

The grandfather was actually in the USAAF bombing Germany during the Second World War and he saw many aircraft shot down. What happened in Shanksville, he says, did not look like any crash that he had ever seen.

Normally there would be a compact crash site, but the debris came down over a wide area and the Police were busy sealing off a huge area right from the get-go.

My own conclusion is that it must have been blown to bits well above ground level.

So, a friend of yours has a Grandfather that lives near Shanksville. Your friends claims that his Grandfather shot down aircraft in WWII.

You posted this:

"he saw many aircraft shot down"

then you said he stated this:

"What happened in Shanksville, he says, did not look like any crash that he had ever seen"

So, your claiming that a WWII bomber witnessed "many" shot down airplanes. Then he is stating that the crash scene in Shanksville looked like nothing he has seen. You then draw the conclusion that the plane was shot down, AFTER a bomber in WWII told his grandson it did not look like anything he has seen! See where I am going with this?

Please keep in mind that the debris that was found far away from the crash scene was lightweight debris. Nylon, paper, etc. The NTSB said this is consistent with the type of crash it was.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
This is your claim. You have failed to back it up. Admit that you are wrong or back it up.

If you go back you will see that i posted the agencies. NEADS, NORAD, and the 9/11 commission.

reply to post by mikelee

After the Space Shuttle disaster in which those bodies were subjected to far greater speeds & forces than that of the mysterious "flight 93" ever could reach and then crashed into the ground, investigators found skulls, bones (some intact) and aircraft (a space ship actually) parts etc.

Another apples to oranges comparison in the making. The impact of Flight 93 was vastly different from the impact of what was left of Columbia after it had ripped apart coming through the atmosphere. However, both did leave parts of the fuselage and body parts behind.

removed

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
However, both did leave parts of the fuselage and body parts behind.

Please show us the parts of fuselage and body part w/sources left by flight 93

Originally posted by ATH911
OK, so what do you skeptics believe on how much of Flight 93 supposedly buried as opposed to remaining above ground?

What I'd like to know is eactly where is anyone saying that the majority of flight 93 buried itself. From my understanding, it took a nose dive more or less straight on into the ground, and it shattered all over the place like glass.

Originally posted by aristocrat2
My own conclusion is that it must have been blown to bits well above ground level.

The problem for this scenario is that NORAD specifically testified to the 9/11 commission report that they received presidential authoriation to shoot down flight 93, they were actively hunting it, and they definitely would have shot it down, if they had found it. Norm Mineta even believed at first that flight 93 had been shot down, when he first heard it went down. Noone was being secretive at all about their intentions toward flight 93.

It makes no sense whatsoever to admit all that and then turn around and deny they destroyed it. You're simply listening to some creative quote mining by these damned fool conspiracy web sites to get people all paranoid over shadows. Those snake oil peddlers could make the weather report look like it was neo-nazi hate literature.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


It makes no sense whatsoever to admit all that and then turn around and deny they destroyed it. You're simply listening to some creative quote mining by these damned fool conspiracy web sites to get people all paranoid over shadows. Those snake oil peddlers could make the weather report look like it was neo-nazi hate literature.

You keep referring to "those damn fool conspiracy sites "

Which sites are those , me personally , I belong to ATS , and I do my

own searching on the web.

You guys in your arguements are making me more informed about 911

Not changing my mind , as I am learning more to prove that it

was indeed a INSIDE JOB

TY DAVE

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee

 

After the Space Shuttle disaster in which those bodies were subjected to far greater speeds & forces than that of the mysterious "flight 93" ever could reach and then crashed into the ground, investigators found skulls, bones (some intact) and aircraft (a space ship actually) parts etc.

Another apples to oranges comparison in the making. The impact of Flight 93 was vastly different from the impact of what was left of Columbia after it had ripped apart coming through the atmosphere. However, both did leave parts of the fuselage and body parts behind.

The shuttle disaster was worse than the aircraft that crashed in PA. But by some miracle the shuttle remains even included many large body parts as well as shuttle pieces.

But, Shanksville PA did not. It doesn't take any vast amount of professional training or knowledge to see thru the smoke & mirrors on this topic.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by mikelee]

reply to post by REMISNE


Im not playing your game....again. You should have absolutely no problems finding stories in newspaper archives and other places online that will talk about body parts and pieces of the aircraft found at Flight 93's crash site.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


It makes no sense whatsoever to admit all that and then turn around and deny they destroyed it. You're simply listening to some creative quote mining by these damned fool conspiracy web sites to get people all paranoid over shadows. Those snake oil peddlers could make the weather report look like it was neo-nazi hate literature.

You keep referring to "those damn fool conspiracy sites "

Which sites are those , me personally , I belong to ATS , and I do my

own searching on the web.

You guys in your arguements are making me more informed about 911

Not changing my mind , as I am learning more to prove that it

was indeed a INSIDE JOB

TY DAVE

Sean48,

You see man, Dave gets mad when his agency fears anyone may be in the neighborhood of lies regarding the OS. The CIA (or is it the DIA) sends their pigeons into forums like ATS to assist with the continuing of the OS. And yes, you'll learn more every time they open their soup coolers but sh** does indeed run downhill.

reply to post by mikelee


Really? Columbia's main engines were still delivering thrust upon impact with the ground? Columbia broke apart coming through the atmosphere, spilling its contents into the air to fall to the ground. As those contents were subjected to first, heat, then atmospheric pressures, they gradually came apart, losing speed as they did so. In retrospect, a rib cage falling from 200,000 feet would have most likely been subjected to less trauma upon impact with the ground than a human being inside an airplane slamming into the ground at high speed.

But, Shanksville PA did not. It doesn't take any vast amount of professional training or knowledge to see thru the smoke & mirrors on this topic.

No, it just takes some common sense and some basic knowledge of the facts to see that Flight 93 and Columbia were much different in a lot of ways.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Sean48

Not changing my mind , as I am learning more to prove that it

was indeed a INSIDE JOB

I think Dave made a very good point.

Why not address that part of it, and compare it to the "story" (or "stories", there are so many conflicting conspiracies out there)?

It is undisputed that, had it been located before it was intentionally crashed by the hijackers, that the intent of the U. S. Government auhorities was to SHOOT DOWN United 93.

(BTW, I think that what's been presented in this thread is quite evident; that the suggestion by the OP was flawed, based on an interpretation of a typo...!)

SO, United 93, which actually DID exist (also verifiable).

Recapping:

---Authorization had been handed through chain of command to shoot down, once located, because as should be obvious to those of us looking into those events, the intent of the hijackers was painfully clear by the time this decision was made.

---Vast amount of corroborated data exist to confirm the existence of United flight 93, on 11 September 2001. Operated as described, and in the manner put forth.

---Further verification regarding the intent of this OP is flawed by researching the existence of a scheduled United flight 98, for later that day, (subsequently cancelled) that was intended to operate between Los Angeles, CA and Philadelphia, PA.

Therefore:

The OP has mistaken a common typo for some sort of "smoking gun" evidence.

The reasoning put forth by conspiracy theorists regarding some sort of "cover-up" in the case of United 93, because of a wish by Government sources to hide a "shoot down" is also flawed, based on the fact that it is admited publicly by the Government that the airplane would have been shot down, if it had not crashed prior to being intercepted.

This further shows that the OTHER complaints (and associated theories) about the crash site, coming from people who "Just don't think it looks right", are based not on facts, but on "gut" feelings. And, an apparent desire to refuse to look at ALL the facts, and only focus on certain aspects that are constantly repeated...certain INCORRECT aspects, passed of as "facts", by conspiracy sites, generally from web sources that are dubious, at best.

How's that?





[edit on 31 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


How's that?

My Bad .

I was not referring to the original OP at all, These 911 threads sometimes veer

off course a tad , Im guilty of that.

I was referring to Daves inference of information being used,

from "those damn fool conspiracy sites" .

I asked which sites those are ?

And Thanked Him, for deepening my resolve .

The OP has mistaken a common typo for some sort of "smoking gun" evidence.

No not at all. I have stated that it "could be" a typo. However I'll reiterate my reason for posting it:

Flight "93" (or 98) was the only aircraft disputed to have even existed that day. This is well documented and I feel no need to "prove" or reference any source as it is common knowledge for those in doubt of that statement and sources are readily available on the internet and in other resources as well. The other scenario is that it was shot down. I also consider that a plausible occurrence also for many reasons.

I think this thread has run it's course at least for me anyway. All of you have made good points on both sides. Some have even provided myself with new understandings both factual and speculative. For that, thank you. I'm done with this thread.

And to all of you, have a good New Year! I'm heading to the beach house for a few days.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

No, it just takes some common sense and some basic knowledge of the facts to see that Flight 93 and Columbia were much different in a lot of ways.

Thank you, Dave. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I can expand on this, though, by pointing out the fact that most of these conspiracy theories initally are rooted within a very poor understanding of basic science and physics and aeronautics. (To name only three disciplines).


But, because some of us enjoy beating our heads against a brick wall, we attempt to impart a bit of wisdom and dispel misconceptions absolutly for FREE!!!

There is no greater reward for a teacher than to have a student "get" something, finally.

And, to think for a moment how abysmal the pay for teachers (at least in the USA) is, every one of us should thank the good ones for what they try to do. (Oh, and certainly some aren't that swift, because there's ample evidence for some students having fallen by the wayside...)

To finish with the Columbia disaster (which is painful enough, without dragging it into this inane discussion), it is more apt to compare that with the Pan Am 103 over Scotland. NEITHER of those two examples compare in ANY way to United 93.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Would that be because "body parts " were available for identication?

Seems this is what MikeLee said