Let's speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93?

[edit on 31-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Greetings, this is my first post here so I hope everyone will forgive me if I somehow fail to contribute properly. Flight 93, WTC 1&2 as well as building 7 must be a statistical miracle of astounding proportions. The probability equations would provide very interesting results I'm sure. We here in Canada recently investigated a "conspiracy" of a different kind, that being our lottery systems and probable vendor corruption (stealing winning tickets) The CBC program the fifth estate, contacted a mathematician to work out the statistical probability for what seemed to be a high percentage of vendor wins. The figures were staggering and damning. This in part, prompted changes in the lottery nation wide. Does America believe in cold hard numbers? We know it is a 14,000,000 to 1 shot to win at 6/49; an accepted fact. What would the figures be for buildings collapsing by fire? How about just one building never mind three, on the same day. What is the probability for a total vaporization of a jet aircraft on impact? What statistical analysis could be done to account for a complete lack of usual wreckage OR BODIES? Maybe use all the plane crashes, in all the world (ever) as a base line. Or perhaps just start with crashes where the tail section is left intact as compared to obliterated. Air India. left bodies and seats and luggage it was blown up mid-flight by a terrorist bomb. The wreckage would have impacted the sea at an incredible speed (hard as concrete right?) The recovery was very moving and thorough but not done with tweezers so to speak. My heart/condolences go out to all affected on 911. I believe (affected) includes everyone on this planet ultimately... dark times are upon us.

It is all Gulf-of-Tonkin to me...

But even with that "gut feeling" I think the truth is probably weirder than we would like to imagine possible.

Here is the eyewitness to the crash at Shanksville, PA via a link to YouTube:

Shanskville Eyewitness

reply to post by Dr Love


Dr. Love, this has long been the one issue about that day that has left me wondering. I think people have confused the true value of eyewitness accounts with eyewitness descriptions. Often times, descriptions of perpetrators of crimes, models of cars,etc are difficult to take into account because of the strong presence of variables/ different perspectives. However, when someone says, and there were at least two witnesses (right?) they saw a couple hundred people being led into the NASA building, that seems to me would have very few variables. Did anyone see those people leave that building? I have searched for that answer, anyone have anything to help me along this dark path?

reply to post by Dr Love


They died when the plane crashed in an empty field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, about 150 miles northwest of Washington, D.C. Their body parts were scattered all over the crash site.

Originally posted by jfj123
Their body parts were scattered all over the crash site.

There might have been body parts, but there were no plane parts. I've seen close-up pictures of plane parts, but that doesn't mean they were from that plane or that site. Strangely similar to the wreckage, or lack there of, at the Pentagon.

Peace

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by jfj123
Their body parts were scattered all over the crash site.

There might have been body parts, but there were no plane parts. I've seen close-up pictures of plane parts, but that doesn't mean they were from that plane or that sight. Strangely similar to the wreckage, or lack there of, at the Pentagon.
Peace

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Dr Love]

There were also plane parts at the scene. Even John Lear admits there were plane parts at the scene.

I think it's an incredible insult to the memories of those who lost their lives on flight 93 to "speculate" about what happened when we know what happened. Pretending something different is just wrong.

Why Oh Why is the possibility that America,in its usual arrogant way,thinks that no one,especially "ignorant muslims" would have the balls to plan an attack on American home soil. Just face the facts, the USA was caught with its pants down. Don`t disrespect all the victims of this terrible tragedy, the phone calls recorded were from frightened,yet brave souls saying goodbye to their loved ones. The real curly questions are why Osamas,super wealthy relatives were whisked out of America quick smart, the We can`t find Osama excuse is wearing thin and Lets focus on invading Iraq (we need that oil) and toppling Suddam Hussein. Yes he was a dictator but there a plenty of despots in Africa that seem to go around decimating civilians,but who gives a crap there is no oil reserves. And of course the Georgian /Russia conflict happens to have oil rich territory in dispute. 9/11 was used to gain oil and strengthen militarypower.

You know, I keep seeing this recurring theme about Flight 93. First, CT'ers ask for pictures of plane wreckage. When you post them, then they say, well how do I know where those pictures were taken. From the size of most of the wreckage, any pictures taken that would show the crash site, would then make it unable to tell its wreckage from the plane.........

Like I have told more than one person on here, because you were not taken by the hand on 9/11/01 and shown the crash site, you will never believe it, no matter how much evidence you are shown.

reply to post by ModisOperandi


Few problems with your "odds"

The three buildings collapsed due to extreme damage and fire, not just damage, and not just fire. Each tower had an airliner crash into it at high speed and building 7 was clobbered by tower 1 when it collapsed. (so much for "they fell into their footprints)

Side note, Griff, Ultima, Bsbray etc....do not hop in with your "Well NIST isn't sure exactly what happened" I know that, and NO ONE will ever know exactly which beam failed when that led to the collapses...thats what NIST gets confused on. Ignoring the forest because they are focused on a tree..

Each aircraft left pieces of itself in each of the crash sites. Whoever said "vaporized" first, did a great injustice.....only because CT'ers jumped on it.

In addition, personal effects belonging to passengers on the four jets were recovered from the crash sites.

And while the people going through the wreckage did not use tweezers (actually in some cases they did, but I wont confuse the issue), the wreckage WAS gone through.

So, what gives you better odds...19 terrorists crashing planes into buildings and causing them to collapse...or a vast conspiracy of thousands that manages to wire three buildings for demolition (in record time btw) with no one notices, and no one has a conscience attack and talks???????

My thoughts are that there was no actual plane there. According to Loose Change, Flight 93 was landed in Cleveland following the 1989 flight, unloaded, and everyone sent home. CaptObvious posted some attributed letter from a guy who knew a guy...yeah, I would have to say that Loose Change sounds more trustworthy at this point by far.
Now, the purpose of interviewing people? According to Loose Change, advanced voice modulation was used to simulate people in the phone calls, which would have all been made from the same location on the ground by a special team with pre-prepared scripts. In order to work, you need ten minutes of voice data from the person you want it to sound like. Therefore, that's what the interviews would be for. Also, if you want to leave them alive, you need to put gag orders on them. So there you go.
Land the plane, empty it, get it back in the air with a different flight number, headed to a new airport to pick up the next flight of passengers, substitute the drone or whatever plane you're going to use.
If United did indeed confirm that flight 93 landed in Cleveland due to a bomb threat, then there you go, that's enough for me. That pretty much says that yes, the flight is going to be simulated.

And about conspiracy, if your demolition team is also in close proximity to a large store of gold, you load that gold onto trucks and get it out, then make sure they are well paid, would YOU talk under those conditions?
How would you not know what just happened then? Also, knowing what would happen to you...
Why would someone lease a building (Silverstein) which is guaranteed to lose money unless it gets destroyed, then make sure the insurance has a terrorism clause? Why would put options be placed on the exact airlines that would be involved in the days leading to the attacks with such a statistical anomaly - 3x/4x regular levels?
Further, why do you have Bush family (brother) involved in directing on-site security for the towers? Why did Bush fly Bin Laden's family out immediately following the attack, and why haven't we found the guy?
Why did Guilliani ship the rubble out of country? That's really strange.
Packed the whole shebang and shipped it right out of country.

Tell me that there aren't red flags all over this mess. I'll just turn around and call you a #ing jackass.

Final reply for now. Prove the high-tensile strength steel loses 50% of its strength under said heat. All the people saying that are not the material experts, that's for sure. That's a political sound bite, nothing more.
If the Empire state building can withstand hours of fire from a B25 crash without its steel degrading, then there's no reason to expect that a building that was specifically engineered to withstand exactly that kind of crash, also having a high-tensile steel would not react the same way. It should've been able to burn for hours, with nothing left but the skeletal structure (steel beams) of the building left on those top floors, but instead you have some explosive noises and then a fast collapse, the likes of which has never been seen for those types of buildings, except in controlled demolition.
Further, what of the letter from the underwriters lab specifically bringing up those same points following 9/11? What of Springstein's quote about "deciding to pull the building"? That might have referred to the other building that shouldn't have collapsed due to not getting hit by a plane, but still, it fell in exactly the same manner as the first two.
Got any more bull# to try to sell today guys?

Maybe they were the 'off' tererestrial officers that the McKinney guy from England found out about.

I'm just saying. ;-)

[edit on 3-12-2009 by pizzanazi75]

What happened to them?

They all died of course when the plane crashed.

Originally posted by diginess
My thoughts are that there was no actual plane there. According to Loose Change, Flight 93 was landed in Cleveland following the 1989 flight, unloaded, and everyone sent home. CaptObvious posted some attributed letter from a guy who knew a guy...yeah, I would have to say that Loose Change sounds more trustworthy at this point by far.
Now, the purpose of interviewing people? According to Loose Change, advanced voice modulation was used to simulate people in the phone calls, which would have all been made from the same location on the ground by a special team with pre-prepared scripts. In order to work, you need ten minutes of voice data from the person you want it to sound like. Therefore, that's what the interviews would be for. Also, if you want to leave them alive, you need to put gag orders on them. So there you go.
Land the plane, empty it, get it back in the air with a different flight number, headed to a new airport to pick up the next flight of passengers, substitute the drone or whatever plane you're going to use.
If United did indeed confirm that flight 93 landed in Cleveland due to a bomb threat, then there you go, that's enough for me. That pretty much says that yes, the flight is going to be simulated.

Loose Change is where you "get your facts" uh?

I'll just add you to my ignore list now then. Thanks for the heads up.