http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html Flight 93 left 3 debris fields. Why was that? The link contains eyewitness accounts of the incident being consistent with a missile strike, as opposed to a plane being flown into the ground. Why is that? Part of the engine apparently "bounced" (as I've pointed out previously) 300 yards from the (supposed) crash site. Why is that? How did the red bandana survive the crash when apparently nothing else did? Here are just 4 simple, direct questions I pose to those that accuse me of "running" from information. Help educate a poor stupid truther, will you please? Thanks.
Flight 93 left 1 debris field. The debris was distributed from a single point of origin; the aircraft. Thus the pattern of debris is dependent on the method by which the aircraft was divided into debris, and the speed of that divided material. 1. How would 3 debris fields be consistant with an aircraft that was shot down? 1. What makes these eyewitness accounts consistent with a missile strike? At first you infer that the missile vaporizes the plane, but each of these witnesses describe an intact plane banking and or plummeting to the ground. Angular momentum. The turbines within the engine spin at a very high rate. The momentum of these turbines most likely caused the engine to spin along the ground to its final resting place. The witnesses in the link you referenced described multiple types of debris that were recovered. In fact, you just referenced an engine that survived and was found 300 yards from the crash site. Which is it? Was only a bandana recovered, or was debris recovered from 3 different debris fields?
The engine "survived" and was found 3 football fields away because that's where it fell after 93 was shot out of the sky IN MY OPINION. That seems to make much more sense to me than a "bouncing" engine out of supposedly softened earth. (or any other kind of earth for that matter). The bandana surviving intact seems strange at best to me. Again, coupled with the other "inconsistencies" of this particular aspect of discussion, it seems to not pass the "smell test" (IN MY OPINION). There DIFFERENT fields....I believe I indicated that already.
Angualr momentum is what causes rocks to skip on water...4 tons of jet engine traveling at over 500mph would skip for a great distance after it sheared off the wing. And you've never seen clothingScattered among plane debris after a crash? a bandanna surviving isn't a stretch
If it was a missile strike why were there telephone calls from passengers reporting that guys with knives and bombs had taken over the plane?
3 football fields??? From supposedly "softened earth"? Okay, but I think that's a bit much. Is it completely impossible for a bandana to survive? No. But, as I say, coupled with everything else, I think it warrants pointing out.
The phone call angle is somewhat complex, but, in short....voice morphing. It's a technology that's alive and real today as it was then as well. Google it.
So things cant roll and skip over softened earth?....why not?...we're talking about 8 tons of momentum here..........and the bandanna is irrelevant,an anoimoly
Voice morphing doesn't cut it. You can make someone sound like someone else, but you lose the mannerisms and idiosyncracies two people have. Everyone talks differently. But hey. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the guy who came up with voice morphing technology: Source article
Voice morphing does "cut it", very easily. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=blog&blogid=3134&showentry=24549 Educate yourself.
So do we believe David Ray (Theologian and seller of an agenda) or do we believe George Papcun, Ph.D (the guy who invented the technology)? Educate yourself indeed.
Actually, it doesn't. And more lies and distortions from Griffen's book doesn't cut it either. Only 2 calls were made from cell phones when the plane was at around 5,000 feet. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1
You said that the crash site was prepared after the fact because the plane was shot down with a missile, and that this was not part of the original plan. This premise conflicts with the idea that voice morphing technology was used because this technology requires preparation. Voice samples are required. Speech patterns are required. In order to use this technology they would have had to: Know who would be on the plane. Sample the person's voice and speech habits without the person's knowledge. Know who that person would call. Develop a free flow script that could anticipate what the two participants would talk about. This does not happen in real time. So you should probably pick one or the other. Either: 1. The plane didn't exist, and the whole situation was planned and determined before hand. or 2. The plane did exist, something went wrong, and the plan had to be changed by shooting it down with a missile. Either way, there's a lot of loose ends in your description of events that don't make a whole lot of sense.
You said that the crash site was prepared after the fact because the plane was shot down with a missile, and that this was not part of the original plan. This premise conflicts with the idea that voice morphing technology was used because this technology requires preparation. Voice samples are required. Speech patterns are required. In order to use this technology they would have had to: Know who would be on the plane. Sample the person's voice and speech habits without the person's knowledge. Know who that person would call. Develop a free flow script that could anticipate what the two participants would talk about. This does not happen in real time. So you should probably pick one or the other. Either: 1. The plane didn't exist, and the whole situation was planned and determined before hand. or 2. The plane did exist, something went wrong, and the plan had to be changed by shooting it down with a missile. Either way, there's a lot of loose ends in your description of events that don't make a whole lot of sense.
Can we get more than trolling post replies from you? You make claims in your posts, then your posts whine that nobody responds point for point when several people have replied point for point, then your posts only contain trolling responses like above. Your posts are getting very predictable.
All three debris sites are consistant with a crash and explosion due to controlled flight into terrain. The impact crater is the right size and shape for being made by an inverted aircraft coming in nose-down at a relatively sharp angle. The angle of the imprint made by the vertical stabilizer indicates that the tail had separated at least partially,leaving the rear of the fuselage open at the time that the fuel exploded, so that light debris such as papers and ID cards and light items of clothing would be launched into the air. This would account for one of the debris fields up-range of the crash site. Since the plane was still in a roll when it hit the ground, it is not unexpected that one engine might break loose while the other got buried. That it bounced is no surprise. Watch someone skimming stones across a pond some time. That involves a lot less momentum in relation to weight. All the heavy debris was found down-range of the impact point, exactly as one shoud expect. There is nothing the least bit strange about the debris fields or the crater, given the described sequence of events. Given the vegetation surrounding the crater, there is no way that the crater could have been made by other means, such as heavy excavating equipment (which would leave tire tracks in the vegetation) or hand excavating (feet would trample the vegetation) nor explosives (which would neccessarily spread fresh dirt and gravel back up-range and to the sides.) The dirt is pushed up on the down-range side and there is fresh dirt and gravel down-range. There was no vegetation inside the crater, so it could not have been made a long enough time ahead so that the vegetation would grow back to cover tire or feet tracks. The bandana would probably have come off during a struggle with the passengers who tried to re-take the aircraft. The aircraft would have to be very finely shredded in order to damage it in that case. That is just the sort of thing that one finds at a crash site where the aircraft is not consumed in a fire. (Just my professional opinion as a former military fire fighter with some college-level training in arson investigations.)
Yes...do we believe the one who aligns itself with the military agenda and profits from it, or one who can take an objective stance? Indeed sir.
Ah, so now George Papcun is complicit also? Naturally, if he disagrees with the religion of "9/11 Truth", he must be demonized.
Is that what I said? Oh..okay. If anybody disagrees with the "official" BS story, they must be demonized. Naturally!
Well, I think it's interesting to note which threads are fought most vigorously by.....folks. When the team congregates, I write that down. Same players...same mode of operation. Perhaps modification of this exhibition of predictable behavior would be in order? What do you think?
