originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux
Such nonsense. You sir, are no longer worth responding to.
Has nothing to do with me.
You only have sensationalized speculation and innuendo.
Can you form and provide a counter argument. You are the one making allegations. Its your job to provide the argument.
a reply to: Informer1958
Here are some items that are fact.
Why do you choose to not give the complete details of the flight 93 crash? You completely rely on the suppression of facts to try to push your false
Ignore the fact the impact area of buried wreckage was actually 85 feet by 85 feet wide. Up to 40 feet deep.
Ignores the fact the soft ground was conducive to the force of impact pushing the wreckage deep into the ground, then being back filled by the
unstable soild. The ground was able to absorb the impact instead of being carved out by the fractured fuselage.
Title: Memories of Flight 93 crash still fresh at 5-year anniversary
Veteran FBI agent Michael Soohy had been to airplane crash scenes before, and he thought he knew what to expect: chaos, bodies, a hulking wreck of a
"I don't think anyone expected to see what they didn't see," said the 50-year-old who grew up near Johnstown. "It's almost like a dart hitting a pile
of flour. ... The plane went in, and the stuff back-filled right over it."
How did all the wreckage, DNA, and personal items end up at the flight 93 crash site? Right number of engines and correct nomenclature.
How did the flight recorders end up at the site buried 15 and 25 feet deep.
What created the fire damage and extensive debris field of passenger plane wreckage.
Recognizable piece of fuselage ended up 900 feet from crash site.
Where did flight 93 and the passengers end up in the no crash narrative.
Ignoring that the position of flight 93 was visually verified by other flights and tracked by radar to the crash site.
Eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet on collision course to crash site. Accounts verified by physical evidence of crashed passenger jet.
Claims the crash site was caused by an object rogue from a live fire military exercise. You will not name a live fire exercise that included a cruise
missile or missile. You will not state what live fire range the object originated from. The investigations that would result from a missile leaving
and / or missing its target on a live fire range. No missile parts or missile engines found at the flight 93 crash site.
The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have had their inquiries answered by frank and transparent responses. Information based on citing
sources and physical evidence.
The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have only provided:
Quotes out of context from persons that concluded flight 93 crashed at Shanksville.
Giving false dimensions concerning the crash site and will not acknowledge the extensive impact area revealed by the excavation of buried wreckage.
Will not provide answers to questions concerning the eyewitness who said the object that crashed was to small for flight 93.
Personal favorite. Individual stating they had to correct what "debunkers" believed were wing trenches are drainage ditches. This is truely a
statement of ignorance. One, the official account was flight 93 hit nose and right wing first and the drainage ditches were never thought to be caused
by the wings. Two, the individual would not reply if wreckage / buried wreckage was recovered from the ditches. Three, person never provided quotes
and sources of "debunkers" who were confused about the nature of the ditches. Four, my internet search only revealed persons trying to prove flight 93
did not crash referring to the ditches as wing scars.
Quotes by Miller greatly taken out of context. It's expected that a high speed jetliner crash will fragment and leave human remains almost impossible
to ID by sight, not whole bodies. Please give a Miller quote that the wreckage of flight 93 held not human remains or victims.
edit on 29-11-2016 by neutronflux because: Fixed sentence.