Skeptic's dilemma regarding alleged UA93 wreckage

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, so please show your facts and what theory they evidence.

I have already shown several, also waiting for a government document that will prove reasonable doubt in the official sotry and will hold up in court.

Stated what?

You have stated many times, (and i have posted a few of your posts in the other thread) that flight 93 parts are stored.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

I have already shown several, also waiting for a government document that will prove reasonable doubt in the official sotry and will hold up in court.

But right now you have nothing to back up what you are saying ergo, by your own definition you must be....

You have stated many times, (and i have posted a few of your posts in the other thread) that flight 93 parts are stored.

No, I pointed you to a media report about the storage of the remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 AT AN IRON MOUNTAIN (NAME OF THE COMPANY, NOT THE LOCATION) FACILITY.

Originally posted by hooper
No, I pointed you to a media report about the storage of the remains of the airplane involved in Flight 93 AT AN IRON MOUNTAIN (NAME OF THE COMPANY, NOT THE LOCATION) FACILITY.

So make up your mind, are the flight 93 parts stored in what is refered to as Iron Mountain or not? If so please show proper evidence.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by REMISNE


You still need to prove your point that flight 93 crashed there and where the parts are now that you have stated.

What an odd request.

You have made claims that you believe that 93 was shot down.

Therefore, it stands that you also believe that the crash site is from 93.

Bumpity bump.....

You claim that 93 was shot down in Shanksville. You claim to have seen an NSA CRITIC that confirms this.

How can you now ask for evidence that 93's parts were actually there in Shanksville.

Care to address this?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How can you now ask for evidence that 93's parts were actually there in Shanksville.

Please read the posts befoire responding.

Hooper has stasted that flight 93 parts are stored in what is refered to as Iron Mountain, i have asked him for proof of this which he has failed to do.

Why don't you do some research instead of demanding all others do it for you. Your tactics are getting old.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How can you now ask for evidence that 93's parts were actually there in Shanksville.

Please read the posts befoire responding.

Hooper has stasted that flight 93 parts are stored in what is refered to as Iron Mountain, i have asked him for proof of this which he has failed to do.

You said this:"You still need to prove your point that flight 93 crashed there and where the parts are now that you have stated. "

So you're asking for 2 things in one senyence:
1-You still need to prove your point that flight 93 crashed there

and

2-where the parts are now that you have stated


I'm referring only to part 1.

How can you ask for proof that 93 crashed there when you believe that 93 was shot down there?

Doesn't your belief that 93 was shot down in Shanksville rely on the site being where 93 hit the ground?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Doesn't your belief that 93 was shot down in Shanksville rely on the site being where 93 hit the ground?

As you yourself state its only a belief its not a fact since we do not have all the evidence and official reports yet.

Just like you and others on here only have opinions and beliefs in what happened since you do not have all the evidence and reports.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Doesn't your belief that 93 was shot down in Shanksville rely on the site being where 93 hit the ground?

As you yourself state its only a belief its not a fact since we do not have all the evidence and official reports yet.

But you have stated as fact - not belief - that you have seen the NSA CRITIC report that proves that 93 was in fact shot down. You have made the claim that this is so solid that you know for a fact that it would stand up in court as evidence that the guv was covering up the issue about 93's demise.

So you NOW claiming that it your belief is a gross falsehood.

Are you now backtracking regarding your previous statements about the CRITIC?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But you have stated as fact - not belief - that you have seen the NSA CRITIC report that proves that 93 was in fact shot down.

Well since i do not have all the documents, as stated by others on here i cannot post them yet to support my post.

Are you now backtracking regarding your previous statements about the CRITIC?

No, because i have read the Critic and know that it contridicts the official story from the 9/11 commission.

reply to post by REMISNE


Since you have read the "critic", exactly what did it say? Or approximately.

Originally posted by hooper
Since you have read the "critic", exactly what did it say? Or approximately.

Well i cannot quote it word for word since it is classified.

Basically it states that at least 1 plane on 9/11 was intercepted. This contridicts the official story from the 9/11 commission report that states no fighters were near any of the planes on 9/11.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


And what does intercepted mean? Does it necessarily mean "shot down"? Or could it have other meanings? Did it say who or what "intercepted" flight 93? Was it military? Or civilian?

Originally posted by hooper
And what does intercepted mean? Does it necessarily mean "shot down"? Or could it have other meanings?

Intercepted means that a plane was close enough to physically see the plane and to try to make contact with the plane.

Did it say who or what "intercepted" flight 93? Was it military? Or civilian?

Well it had to be military, only military planes do interceptions of planes off course or no contact as ordered by NORAD.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Why did it have to be military? I mean I see the logic in assuming that only the military or law enforcement would be purposely sent to intercept an off course plane - but what if the location of the off-course plane is visually confirmed and reported by civilian aircraft - would that not count as a reported intercept? I would think that "accidental" reporting would get as much attention as a purposeful interception.

In fact, if I remember correctly, didn't the Cleveland ATC request that a private civilian plane in the vicinity look for Flight 93 and then reported back that they saw smoke coming from the ground?

Originally posted by hooper
Why did it have to be military?

Becasue NORAD is Military. Also aircraft sent are usually armed in case they do have to shoot down the plane

would that not count as a reported intercept?

But we are not talking about a reported intercept, we are talking about an actual intercept by military planes

I would think that "accidental" reporting would get as much attention as a purposeful interception.

Again we are not talking about a reported intercept, we are talking about an actual intercept by military planes.

In fact, if I remember correctly, didn't the Cleveland ATC request that a private civilian plane in the vicinity look for Flight 93 and then reported back that they saw smoke coming from the ground?

I suggest you do some research and find out the difference in a report of a location of a plane and an actual intercpet by military planes from NORAD.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

I suggest you do some research and find out the difference in a report of a location of a plane and an actual intercpet by military planes from NORAD.

I did - I asked you and you said "Intercepted means that a plane was close enough to physically see the plane and to try to make contact with the plane". Don't know why one civilian plane can't see and make contact with another civilian plane.

Reported vs. Actual

Please there is no difference here. I do not need to do "research", I speak the langauge. The plane makes the actual physical intercept, i.e. it sees the other plane and makes contact, and then reports it. The report is simply a reference to the actual intercept.

Originally posted by hooper
Don't know why one civilian plane can't see and make contact with another civilian plane.

But that is not an INTERCEPT by NORADS protocol.

Just reporting a location IS NOT an intercept

911research.wtc7.net...
Any time an aircraft deviates from its course, air traffic controllers request a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. Intercept times are especially short in the east-coast corridor where there are numerous bases with combat-ready aircraft on continuous alert.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Don't know why one civilian plane can't see and make contact with another civilian plane.

But that is not an INTERCEPT by NORADS protocol.

Just reporting a location IS NOT an intercept

911research.wtc7.net...
Any time an aircraft deviates from its course, air traffic controllers request a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. Intercept times are especially short in the east-coast corridor where there are numerous bases with combat-ready aircraft on continuous alert.

Any chance you have some reference to that better than a conspiracy website? Also notice that the reference was made to "unknown" aircraft, not just any aircraft that deviate from its course.

Originally posted by hooper
Any chance you have some reference to that better than a conspiracy website? Also notice that the reference was made to "unknown" aircraft, not just any aircraft that deviate from its course.

That site is not a conspiracy site. People like you just like to state things like that to make it sound like you know what your talking about oir to make it sound like sites you use are better.

If you think it is a conspiracy site prove it wrong. Look up NORADS protocal it will bascially state the same thing.