Evidence severely lacking for claim that most of Flight 93 had buried

Something was shot down. Curious, how does a shot down plane bury itself 40 feet down? Maybe Rummy can explain it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0"]Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down." - YouTube[/ame]

 

If it was 'shot down' witnesses would have seen it


they didn't

next

 

Also let me add in this:

Did you forget that you already admitted you now (or was that then LOL) believed that Flight 93 wasn't shot down....probably?

At least you are consistent at being inconsistent; I will give you credit for that.

 

This makes sense. If you're already a believer in a conspiracy that would require a thousand moving parts, what harm could there be by adding United 93 being diverted to a secret location and putting a cap in the passengers? All you have to do then is Fed-ex their dna to the crash site and sprinkle it like fairy dust along with the debris of another plane you've "destroyed" to make it look like crash damage. Viola!

Actually makes complete sense in this Cecil B. DeMille production with a cast of thousands. Only thing missing is a chariot race and the kitchen sink.

 

I'm curious about something 'Fraud concerning the "shot down" possibility. Why would they go to all this trouble to cover it up if they actually did shoot down United 93? I clearly remember how things went down that day and the days following, and I don't think the American public would have been so outraged if they had shot it down, considering what was going on in NYC and DC. Some people would have gotten upset (always happens), but I think the general public consensus would have understood the need to do so at the time.

Not that I think it was shot down, but I thought the possibility did exist in the early days after 9/11.

 

That's a personal attack.

My statement was not. I agreed with this statement:

That would be an error. In fact, this statement is predicated on 2 errors. The first error that it depends on is that there was no plane crash in Shanksville. The second error that it depends on is that the remains found on scene belonged to people who were killed in some other way then a plane crash.

We know who was on the aircraft.
We know where the aircraft in question departed from.
We have tracking from the aircraft to the crash site.
We have audio from the cockpit.
We have audio from passengers on the flight as it was being hijacked.
We have testimony from family members that spoke with their loved ones.
We have testimony from witnesses who saw the crash.
We have testimony from first responders who initiated recovery.
We have testimony from investigators who investigated the scene.
We have physical evidence in the form of aircraft debris.
We have physical evidence in the form of personal effects.
We have physical evidence int he form of human remains.

All of that evidence points to the fact that hijackers hijacked the aircraft, and intentionally crashed the aircraft in a field in PA.

None of the evidence points to missiles and you have not presented any.
None of the evidence shows signs of being planted and you have not presented any.
None of the witnesses have a credible motive to lie and you have not presented any.
None of the alternative theories that truthers present make any sense at all.

Yet

You keep making this same thread over and over again.

And you have the nerve to call me a troll?

 

And why let the other planes reach their targets, but shoot Flight 93 down? this site, http://www.911proof.com claims that

Why let only 3 of the planes reach their target but shoot down the fourth?

Yep. Way too many inconsistencies and way too complicated to coordinate.

 

Candycorn fails to support his ridiculous arguments choosing to just spam personal attacks instead.

No surprise there.

And as far as how pathetic my "movement" is, certainly it can't be as aweful as your pitiful attempt at doing elementary level science and math.

Incidentally, when you claim you weren't bothered to read my post so you didn't, you only show yourself further a liar when you quote something out of it.. How would you have noticed that quote if you didn't read the post? Oops.

We all know you read the post and you're at a loss for words.. You've been shot into pieces and you know it. Other people read it too.. Your intellectual dishonesty has been exposed.. Your ignoring gravitational acceleration because accounting for it wouldn't give you the results you wanted, a.k.a. psuedoscience, has been exposed. You failed, but don't worry, you'll get the last word in I'm sure!

 

I'm not arguing that flight 93 got shot down here.

It's tiring having to spell things out for people who are unable to read plain English.

I was simply refuting your god-aweful "calculations" and telling you that your pitiful post didn't "prove" anything.

I will expose your intellectual fraud every time, regardless my beliefs on the issue, so get to used it.

 

For one, they would have had to explain why they had time to scramble jets to be able to shoot 93 down ,but not enough time for any others (especially 77). Next, simply saying the passengers crashed it lets them off the hook completely of having to answer any further questions about scrambling jets. It's also probable the during the "confusion" of the day, they weren't sure what their story was going to be at that point, and opted to go with the passengers crashed it BS.

They might have been able to get away with saying they shot it down (aside from the first two scenarios), but claiming it was "buried 40 feet down" just sews it up. It couldn't have been 40 feet down. That's why there's NO EVIDENCE of it, because it didn't happen that way. Had anyone been able to examine the wreckage, they likely would have been able to ascertain exactly what happened to 93, be it a crash, a shoot down, whatever. Much easier to just say, oh, it was crashed by the passengers. Then, when asked about the wreckage, simply so, oh, it's buried 40 feet down (except for the bouncing engine). That's why we've never seen wreckage from 93 and never will. That's why there is NO EVIDENCE of 93 being buried, and there never will be. Too many questions to cover.."officially".

 

Anyway, Rummy said it was shot down. Why is it nobody believes him? The man is telling the truth for once in his life.

 

I guess it's the only thing you have left since all of your theories have been proven not only to be false but to be laughable in the first place. You vastly overestimate my interest in what you have to say.

I proved it wasn't shot down. As for the hair splitting, I'll leave that to you; your skills in making distinctions that make no difference are second to none; I will give you that. So you agree 93 wasn't shot down....thanks; thats all I wanted. I get paid extra for recruiting other shills. LOL

I own you.

 

I'm a little confused about the purpose of this thread. Are people arguing that the evidence does not support the crash of 93 in Penn or are people arguing that flight 93 did crash in Penn but the crash was due to offensive actions by the air force?

I certainly think it is important for citizens to be skeptical of the gov't. In my opinion the the gov't has not always been honest with the public in their accounting of the 9/11 attacks. That being said, I have not personally seen any convincing evidence that the gov't was a party to the 9/11 attacks.

I think the conclusion that flight 93 was intercepted and engaged by the US military is not supported by any evidence that I have seen. I think people often make the mistake of assuming that intercepting flight 93 was an easy task. The incomptence of the FAA and NEADS exhibited on the morning of 9/11 has been well documented. The 9/11 commission went so far as to turn over the air forces testimony to the justice dept. for prosecution because contrary to the air forces claims there is no evidence to suggest that the they were capable of intercepting any of the high jacked aircraft on the morning of sept 11. Some people may find this article illuminating:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

I think alternative explanations for the fate of flight 93 suffer from a number of inherent flaws. First, assuming that flight 93 was shot down, what is the gov't motive for lying about this? I don't think the american public would have any problem with innocent lives being lost in the defense of this nation specifically with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Secondly, if 93 was shot down how come their is no direct evidence of the this? As no members of the local, state and federal first responder and investigative agencies have reported finding any physical evidence consistent with 93 being intercepted are we really to believe that all of those individuals who had access to the crash site and subsequent investigation are complicit in the vast conspiracy implied by some elements of the 'truth' movement?

Ultimately, I don't think the US citizenry has gotten the whole truth with regards to 9/11 but at the same time that does not mean that a vast conspiracy exists. I think many people make the mistake of making conclusions about 9/11 and then going through the evidence to find things that support their conclusion- an inherently unscientific process. People need to critically evaluate the evidence in as scientific a manner as possible and then draw conclusions regardless of what their preconceived notions might be.

 

Exactly!!!

 

You do tend to keep responding.

You proved nothing. You couldn't even calculate the fall time, let alone any horizontal displacement. Your fail is right there for all to read.

Makes no difference huh? Your whole backwards "calculation" was entirely based on some delusional notion that the plane parts would fall for 300 seconds.. When in the real world it's closer to 43 seconds.. Go on pretending like the fundamental figure being drastically different wouldn't change anything.

You may relive this failure and remind the readers how pathetic your little calculation was as many times as you like.

By all means reply and we'll go over this again for you.

 

Well, when have you gotten the "whole truth" about anything you're not intimately close to? I mean, do you think you know everything about Steve Job's disease to his death? If so, how do you know you know "everything"

But back to this thread: I'm curious myself. Nobody on the twoofer side of the argument has the manhood to state what they think.

 

Okay, prove it was shot down using mathematics then. We'll all wait for your brilliant calculations.


Can't do it can you?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

I'm right about this and you know it. I know....I know....it's okay girl. You've had a bad year with your Al Queda buddies getting killed. First OBL then this current #2 guy and some of the other leaders. You're frustrated that the nation is killing terrorists whom you seem to admire and that the US isn't on it's knees. Too bad; so sad.

 

So you won't provide YOUR calculations despite the fact that YOU claimed to have made the calculation and I asked you many times, yet I'm supposed to show you calculations, when I never even claimed I had done so?

You failed. Get over it.. You got the fall time dead wrong, and did NOT show the calculation for, or even specify how, you derived a 20 mile debri spread.. You just LIED about how long it took the plane to fall, based on a 700% exaggeration, and then claimed that this figure somehow proves a 20 mile minimum debri spread.. Because a car slows down a bit when you take your foot off the gas!

So I never claimed to have calculations.. YOU proved to have disproved a shot down using math.. The only calculations I need to show are the ones I have done, and that is the one that demonstrates clearly you were WRONG by a WHOPPING 700% with your calculation.

So here's a calculation for you, the guy who chickens out of proving his argument and must shift the burden of proof instead because he has nothing:

YOUR claim: 300 second fall time meant 20 mile debri field. Swop in 43 seconds instead.. Thats 1/7.. 1/7 of 20 miles is less than three miles. Within the range of observed evidence.

You my friend actually are the one who disproved your own case.

I never argued to have proven anything with math, other than disprove you with math.

YOU are the one who can't do it.

YOU are the one who failed over and over and over again to show a revised calculation with the real world fall time, not your fantasy world fall time where gravity there is less than that of the moon, or show how you derived an horiziontal displacement of any falling objects from the plane.

So, can't do it can you?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'm reporting any further personal attacks.

 

What proof do you have that either of those you mentioned are dead?

Oh wait a minute...I forgot, you believe every f******* thing the government tells you.

I wish I could do that, go through life believing those people in DC have my best interests at heart.


******!

 

I provided my calculation, stipulated that they were general in nature, that I didn't factor in gravitational acceleration due to the widely varying masses of the bodies in question. It rules out a shoot down scenario.

More of the same, "I know you're wrong, I just can't prove it". You're like a broken record.

I simply asked you to man-up and try to show me where I'm wrong using your calculations. You can't.

What personal attacks? You're a friend of terrorists who want to do this nation harm. You've proven that time and again. When your hatred of the USA is highlighted, you swear that you didn't but every single post you make does just that.

Then you're proven wrong about it, you cop to it, then come back in a few months swearing you never said it.

Rumsfeld--you said he shouldn't be brought up on charges...now you say he should.

Flight 93. You said it was shot down, then admitted that it wasn't, now you're saying it was I guess?

Pick an arguement, summon some manhood and stick to it.

 

I'm sorry, you're looking for the Paranoid Schizophrenia Convention; it's down the street.

**********! Back at you. LOL

 

You probably counted the asterisks in my post, and tried to figure out what I
wrote.

 

Just makes me laugh when someone keeps writing something and nobody will read it or care; much like the movement.

 

thats candys way of saying they only have bs for a rebuttal!

How do you spell ZERO?

 

Stipulated they were general? They weren't even in the ballpark as any general estimation should be.. The crap about the car was 10,000% irrelevant and you wound up off the mark by 700%.. You should have stipulated you were WRONG and that you just pulled random crap out of your ass, anything but a coherent calculation, sat on your high horse like you've proven something.. If you stipulated that you'd have been right. No shoot down scenario was ruled out by you with that crap you posted, rather you only ruled out your credibility.

You clearly have NO CLUE what the math and science are about in order for you to ever be able to get your head around what happened to the pieces of the plane let alone prove something about it.

Mass is a factor in gravitational acceleration? Did you even read the formula to determine time of fall or elevation fallen from? There's no letter "m" in it!

Except for a mass that is extemely spread out over a relatively large surface area, like a feather, that will be disproportiontly affected by air resistance, everything falls to the Earth at the same rate.. Remember Galileo dropped different masses off the leaning tower of Pisa? They hit the ground at the same time.

Still though... Nice copout! I didn't factor in gravity even though gravity exists in the real world and affects things, because varying mass would be a factor. Give me a break.

Brush up on the basics now:

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sfall.htm

I proved it.. I showed the real science formula invented by Gallileo which when your specified altitude was plugged in showed you wrong by 700%.

I already did.. I already showed you the real calculation for drop time using the real world scientific formula which proved you wrong..

I then showed you the calculation where if you exaggerated the number you based yours on by 700%, then your result of 20 mile debri spread should be exaggerated as well by the same rate, so the debri field should be at least just under three miles, not 20 like you said.. That would fit into the observed data of the crash recovery.

And you don't have the balls to even show YOUR calculation that the figure 20 came from (can't tell us what times what plus what or whatever produced 20 when you hit the = button) but you want to have the audacity to say I don't have the guts, when first I DID show you calculations, secondly YOU didn't, and most importantly you're shifting the burden of proof because YOU were the one who climbed onto your high horse claiming you proved something using mathematics.

You showed a total of two calculations:

1) Based on the insanely stupid method of multiplying the time it took the twin towers to fall, you calculated 300 seconds of fall time at 30k feet altitude.. The real time is 43 seconds, you were off by 700%.

2) A car driving at 70 m.p.h. will slow down to like 50 m.p.h. after 10 seconds when the foot is off the accelerator.. Hell that one's not even a calculation, just something you guessed at/pulled out of your ass.

Nonsense, I've never said any of those things, and that's why you never produce a quote of me saying them.

You're just deluding yourself that just because I expose you and your government's arguments against certain alleged terrorists as unproven, this means I'm their best friend.. If some idiot says that Hitler was green and was fifty feet tall, just because I dispute their claim doesn't mean I love Hitler.

Go on though.. Show a quote of me wishing America harm.

As always, you won't.. You'll just blather on again lying about how you've done something which you haven't, suchas basic mathematics.

I've NEVER argued whether or not Rumsfeld should be brought up on charges..

YOU lied and claimed I did.. You said I said it even though I NEVER mentioned even the concept of criminal charges.

I then TOLD YOU I never made any argument about criminal charges. To this date, you NEVER posted the alleged quote of mine which prompted your accusation that I wanted him brought up on charges.

You then later, in a truly disingenious move, took THAT quote of me saying I'd not actually made that argument to correct your lie, as my apparent argument that I don't think he should be brought up on charges! Try to contradict me asking somebody ELSE what THEY think should happen about him having been DISCIPLINED (not necessarily the same thing as criminally charged).

By all means post my closest quote to saying Rumsfeld ought to be charged, or not.

What I'm saying, is that your post was complete and total horsecrap. The most delusional science and math I've ever seen.

You've simply mixed up my pointing out how retarded your post was with me making my own argument..

If some moron were to say that they've proved the existence of string theory in order to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, and they've proved this by pouring a bottle of Aunt Jemima pancake syrup in their underwear and counting how many ants it attracted after three days, me telling them that they are being an idiot is not the same thing as claiming string theory does not exist. It might exist, but they're both a fool and a poser to pretend about proving it.

Yeah like you've just stuck to yours? You can't even show us a calculation.