the shanksville incident flight 93

Originally posted by antsi
I'd like to see the remnants of Flight 93's tail at the scene and if it was blown-up into a million pieces upon striking the ground, I'd like to the evidence of where struck the ground to cause it to blow-up in a million pieces.

I'm sure that will show up at the same time they show the tail section remains from ValueJet flight 592.

Originally posted by DisclosedI'm sure that will show up at the same time they show the tail section remains from ValueJet flight 592.

What is that supposed to mean?

reply to post by antsi



Perhaps you should look up the crash information for ValueJet flight 592. It will answer your question.

Originally posted by DisclosedPerhaps you should look up the crash information for ValueJet flight 592. It will answer your question.

Isn't that the plane that crashed into a swamp?

reply to post by antsi


Perhaps you should look up the crash information for ValueJet flight 592. It will answer your questions.

Originally posted by monoclear
You're completely missing the point, johnlear argued that there was no plane, yet the evidence clearly shows otherwise, johnlear argued that the tail section always survives "without exception", yet people have provided evidence that clearly shows otherwise.

No, you are the one that completely missed the point.

You brought up the exhibts for the trail, but yet there are no exhibts for the trail that show any of the parts found match any of the 9/11 planes.

You are the one who contridicted yourself whan you cannot post the evidence asked for.



[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, you are the one that completely missed the point.

You brought up the exhibts for the trail, but yet there are no exhibts for the trail that show any of the parts found match any of the 9/11 planes.

You are the one who contridicted yourself whan you cannot post the evidence asked for.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

That is untrue.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, you are the one that completely missed the point.

You brought up the exhibts for the trail, but yet there are no exhibts for the trail that show any of the parts found match any of the 9/11 planes.

You are the one who contridicted yourself whan you cannot post the evidence asked for.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Actually, you are very wrong. Just because the public does not have access to the evidence used in the govt trial, does not mean there is no evidence. If you research the trial at all, you will find evidence "tags" on many items used in the trial.

Are you saying there was no evidence at all, and that the trials were all staged hoaxes?

Originally posted by Disclosed
If you research the trial at all, you will find evidence "tags" on many items used in the trial.

Ok then show me the evidence tags that are for photos or reports on Flight 93 parts. Oh thats right you cannot, because i have done the research and thier is no trial evidence for flight 93's parts or any of the 9/11 plane parts.



[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Disclosed



His goal is by setting his requirements beyond reason so that he can maintain his pre-determined conclusions.

For example if I didn't believe we landed on the moon, I could request that you show me the material from the moon. Or to show me the lunar lander car used on the moon. All I have to do is make sure it's something that you as an individual with no access can provide. It's a pretty cheap tactic. And it also neglects that that evidence is just part of a greater pool of evidence. Another common tactic of divide and conquer. Just address on facet of the evidence as if it's the only evidence.

But you are correct in that now he is implicating the courts, and everyone involved in the trials, the rescue worked, and pretty much everyone else involved in any way.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
If you research the trial at all, you will find evidence "tags" on many items used in the trial.

Ok then show me the evidence tags that are for photos or reports on Flight 93 parts. Oh thats right you cannot, because i have done the research and thier is no trial evidence for flight 93's parts or any of the 9/11 plane parts.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well, let me prove you wrong, again...

www.rcfp.org...


Gee....that looks like Govt exibit P200060 01-455-A

Could that be evidence tagged ?


Follow this link if you wish to acquire the evidence information yourself:
www.rcfp.org...

It has contact information so you can acquire it yourself. The Reporters Committee is managing that website on behalf of the news media as a public service, as called for in the Fourth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Moussaoui

Also....link to the court order discussing the release of much trial evidence:

notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov...:01-cr-00455/docs/71388/0.pdf



[edit on 2-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed

Well, let me prove you wrong, again...

www.rcfp.org...

You have never proven me wrong and you did not this time as usual.

How am i wrong? So its a photo of a part. Where, when and who took it and is it a part from Flight 93 ? I do not see an official report to state it is from flight 93.







[edit on 2-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How am i wrong? So its a photo of a part. Where, when and who took it and is it a part from Flight 93 ? I do not see an official report to state it is from flight 93.

Whaa? ok then, show me evidence that it is NOT representing evidence from Flight 93 used for the trial.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Whaa? ok then, show me evidence that it is NOT representing evidence from Flight 93 used for the trial.

Because there is no official report to match it flight 93. No information on the photo.

So you are telling everyone here that there was no evidence used in the trial of US vs Zacarias Moussaoui....and he was convicted because he looked like a bad bad man?

What about this list of evidenc eused in the trial?

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

This govt court site is lying too?

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
So you are telling everyone here that there was no evidence used in the trial of US vs Zacarias Moussaoui....and he was convicted because he looked like a bad bad man?

What about this list of evidenc eused in the trial?

No i did not say that. I am saying we do not have all the proper evidence and reports to state what happened that day.

I cannot make it any simpler.

ok then, let me ask you this very simple question:

If there wasnt proper evidence, why was he convicted?

Originally posted by Disclosed
ok then, let me ask you this very simple question:

If there wasnt proper evidence, why was he convicted?

Many people are convicted on cirumstantial evidence.

All the evidence and reports have not been released to show what really happened that day. In fact a lot of FOIA request have been denied.

Ultima, to have perspective, can you give us an example of what you think happened since clearly it wasn't a plane to you?

Originally posted by snoopy
Ultima, to have perspective, can you give us an example of what you think happened since clearly it wasn't a plane to you?

I never said it wasn't a plane. I am stating that we do not have all the evidence and reports to prove what plane it was, or if it was something else.