The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

Has the NSA taught you to read yet? Look at the post where you quoted me. Does it say "ULTIMA?" no, it says IVAN.

If you would like me to post all the false statments Ivan made, I will .

If you want me to post errors you made. I will be more than happy to.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


you talk about evidence, but i still can't see flight 93's remains in that crater... or around that crater...
Also I would assume the fire would have burnt the dry grass around... you know the kind of fire that weakens steel and collapses 3 buildings nicely?

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I'm very serious. If you saw the car wreck, you'd understand. It's amazing I'm here to type this to you actually, because two feet to the side and I would have been decapitated. Is that good enough for you?

@Ivana: Now I've actually looked at those two photos in particular, side-by-side like that, you've convinced me more than ever that Flight 93 couldn't be there (but it doesn't mean I've stopped looking for answers).

Something for the debunkers to consider: Take the Pentagon. All it requires is for the Feds to release the remaining 80-odd tapes that show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, and every CT theory goes out the window. I'm acutely aware of this every time I discuss the Pentagon. You will never see these videos however as they don't show a 757 slamming into the Pentagon - they show something else.

The emphasis always seems to be on the WTC and its collapse, yet the Pentagon and Flight 93 are rarely mentioned. I think the WTC is used as a distraction so people don't ask too many questions about the other two.

What was the real Flight 93 doing that day? Where is it now?

Someone on the previous page said that Ivana had failed to prove Flight 93 didn't crash there. I say to them: YOU failed to prove it did.

There seems to be more evidence for it not crashing, than crashing.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


mirage, since this thread is Flight 93. I will stick to that.

I was not trying to belittle the experience you had with your car crash. I was trying to point out the difference.

Can you please explain your evidence that proves a plane didn't crash there? No need to re-post Ivan's mock drills and the rest of that. Tell me what evidence you have.

Here are 10 simple items of evidence that I presented to Ivan and he ignored them.

Perhaps you may have some insight on them?

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the planes' Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

- thanks to Mark Roberts

OK.

First, let's define the term "evidence".

dictionary.reference.com...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ev·i·dence Audio Help /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom
6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME (n.) < MF < L évidentia. See evident, -ence]

—Synonyms 3. information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence, exhibit, testimony, proof refer to information furnished in a legal investigation to support a contention. Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source: Hearsay evidence is not admitted in a trial. An exhibit in law is a document or article that is presented in court as evidence: The signed contract is Exhibit A. Testimony is usually evidence given by witnesses under oath: The jury listened carefully to the testimony. Proof is evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt: proof of the innocence of the accused. 4. demonstrate.

So with that in mind, on to the points you raise:

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

Research is required, but most of the hijackers (13?) have been found alive and well. There is a BBC News article on their website about it in 2005 (?) I think. That puts the existence of the hijackers into doubt (especially when CCTV footage is shown of them allegedly passing through airport security to board the hijacked flights, and the FBI even claimed to have ID them through the use of DNA afterwards). I'll need a link for that.

EDIT: It's even worse than I thought. In the TWO DAYS immediately after 9/11, these news reports appeared:

news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Here is a well-written piece on the identities of the real men behind the names. 911research.wtc7.net...

I find it incredible that they all have such similar jobs: they're either pilots or engineers in the main.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the planes' Airfones.

These calls are currently in question and can't be cited as "evidence".

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

See a recent, previous discussion on the use of aircraft radios and the frequencies in use/recorded that day. These transmissions are likely bogus (please refer to the other thread for more information) and are insubmissable as evidence based on the findings.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

This is the first time in history that the crew and passengers have attempted an aircraft take-back.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

Maybe, but we know this can be tampered with/fabricated (see the supporting points above for why this is likely).

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

The mushroom cloud is a hoax. It has been debunked here at ATS, using basic high-school trigonometry. The fact the FBI support the photo means they're in on it. The math doesn't lie (but photos and people do).

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

The coroner wasn't a coroner long - he admitted as much himself. Let's remind ourselves what a coroner deals in: dead bodies. Hmm...

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

Proof?

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

So the hijackers weren't absolutely identified. They were identified by tertiary means, and were not *positively* identified. Curious, when they used the teeth etc.. of the passengers. No-one is untraceable, unless they don't exist.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

No it wasn't. One documentary I saw very recently (unrelated to anything 9/11 or CT) said the aircraft was stored in Iron Mountain. FYI that is a secure facility under a mountain somewhere in the USA. It is used to store everything of value, including government documents as it is considered safe from even nuclear attack.

There is no proof of Flight 93 existing in either that facility or anywhere else. Destroyed aircraft are not returned to the airlines or owners, they are usually scrapped by the insurance company, after they've been released by the NTSB/FBI. There is no evidence of that occurring, either.

(Typos/add links).

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit



Research is required, but most of the hijackers (13?) have been found alive and well. There is a BBC News article on their website about it in 2005 (?) I think. That puts the existence of the hijackers into doubt (especially when CCTV footage is shown of them alleding passing through airport security to board the hijacked flights, and the FBI even claimed to have ID them through the use of DNA afterwards). I'll need a link for that.

Your article was very old and somewhat retracted by the BBC. It has been posted here several times here.

Here is the BBC explaining it:

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

www.bbc.co.uk...

These calls are currently in question and can't be cited as "evidence".

QUESTIONED?? by WHO? Any evidence as to them being fake? Why do you think they are being questioned? Because they don't fit your theory?

See a recent, previous discussion on the use of aircraft radios and the frequencies in use/recorded that day. These transmissions are likely bogus (please refer to the other thread for more information) and are insubmissable as evidence based on the findings.

"likely bogus" ...yeah that term will fit right in with your new investigation.

This is the first time in history that the crew and passengers have attempted an aircraft take-back.

So that means it didn't happen? The victims families and the 911 operator all spoke of this.

Maybe, but we know this can be tampered with/fabricated (see the supporting points above for why this is likely).

The family members heard the recordings. YOU need to provide evidence that they have been tampered with. Saying "can be" is not evidence.

The mushroom cloud is a hoax. It has been debunked here at ATS, using basic high-school trigonometry. The fact the FBI support the photo means they're in on it. The math doesn't lie (but photos and people do).

No it hasn't. The FBI is in on it too? ok

The coroner wasn't a coroner long - he admitted as much himself. Let's remind ourselves what a coroner deals in: dead bodies. Hmm...

Um what? Do you think he worked all alone?

Do you know what the DMORT team is?

Here:
www.dmort.org...

Proof?

Go to the link provided above and here:

www.post-gazette.com...

So the hijackers weren't absolutely identified. They were identified by tertiary means, and were not *positively* identified. Curious, when they used the teeth etc.. of the passengers. No-one is untraceable, unless they don't exist.

If you have nothing to match them with... then yes they are untraceable.

No it wasn't. One documentary I saw very recently said the aircraft was stored in Iron Mountain. FYI that is a secure facility under a mountain somewhere in the USA. It is used to store everything of value, including government documents as it is considered safe from even nuclear attack.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

archives.cnn.com...



[edit on 19-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

I hate quoting quotes, but anyways...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Research is required...

Your article was very old and somewhat retracted by the BBC. It has been posted here several times here.

That. Yes. Interesting, isn't it? The FBI are still looking for those hijackers anyway. Curious.

These calls are currently in question and can't be cited as "evidence".

QUESTIONED?? by WHO? Any evidence as to them being fake? Why do you think they are being questioned? Because they don't fit your theory?

Yes they're in question because the flight itself is in doubt. The technology exists to do this, and was demonstrated at Fort Meade I think.

See a recent, previous discussion on the use of aircraft radios and the frequencies in use/recorded that day. These transmissions are likely bogus (please refer to the other thread for more information) and are insubmissable as evidence based on the findings.

"likely bogus" ...yeah that term will fit right in with your new investigation.

Please look for the other thread - it should only be within the first couple of pages here at ATS. If you have any questions, ask in that thread.

This is the first time in history that the crew and passengers have attempted an aircraft take-back.

So that means it didn't happen? The victims families and the 911 operator all spoke of this.

It's unlikely. I won't comment further (CT site or not, it's still a public forum).

Maybe, but we know this can be tampered with/fabricated (see the supporting points above for why this is likely).

The family members heard the recordings. YOU need to provide evidence that they have been tampered with. Saying "can be" is not evidence.

Well, let's haer the CVR then. Any crash is a disaster, but the tapes are available. In the case of 9/11, they're not. Curious again.

The mushroom cloud is a hoax. It has been debunked here at ATS, using basic high-school trigonometry. The fact the FBI support the photo means they're in on it. The math doesn't lie (but photos and people do).

No it hasn't. The FBI is in on it too? ok

Yes it has - myself and another here proved beyond a reasonable doubt it is fake. It would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law as the physics and distances are fixed in space and can't be refuted by any of the parties.

The coroner wasn't a coroner long - he admitted as much himself. Let's remind ourselves what a coroner deals in: dead bodies. Hmm...

Um what? Do you think he worked all alone?

On site he did, yes. He was the first on the scene. Thanks for the link. I'll read it later.

Proof?

Go to the link provided above and here:

www.post-gazette.com...

Thanks.

So the hijackers weren't absolutely identified. They were identified by tertiary means, and were not *positively* identified. Curious, when they used the teeth etc.. of the passengers. No-one is untraceable, unless they don't exist.

If you have nothing to match them with... then yes they are untraceable.

...so DNA wasn't collected then?

No it wasn't. One documentary I saw very recently said the aircraft was stored in Iron Mountain. FYI that is a secure facility under a mountain somewhere in the USA. It is used to store everything of value, including government documents as it is considered safe from even nuclear attack.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

archives.cnn.com...

You'll find that's a paper exercise. The airline won't have actually seen the aircraft again. There is no record of its disposal, and as I said, one guy claims it is stored in Iron Mountain. They can't all be right.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

That. Yes. Interesting, isn't it? The FBI are still looking for those hijackers anyway. Curious.

Where did you read that? They are not looking for any of the 19 hijackers. They are all dead.

Read this please:

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...

Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified."

www.usatoday.com...

Have you ever watched the video "the 19 martyrs?" When you have some time read that as well.

Yes they're in question because the flight itself is in doubt. The technology exists to do this, and was demonstrated at Fort Meade I think.

The flight is only in question by a few hard core conspiracy theorists. You have to explain to me how even IF this technology exists, how these voice morphing machines carried on conversations with the family members. Really, just try to think about it.

Please look for the other thread - it should only be within the first couple of pages here at ATS. If you have any questions, ask in that thread.

I will look at it again. (as much as it hurts to read Ivan's cut & paste jobs.

It's unlikely. I won't comment further (CT site or not, it's still a public forum).

Not sure where you are going with this. Show any sort of proof that this didn't happen. (the attempted storming of the cockpit)

Well, let's haer the CVR then. Any crash is a disaster, but the tapes are available. In the case of 9/11, they're not. Curious again.

No it really isn't curious. Only to a few CT'ers. Again I am not interested in hearing the screams of people during the last moments of their lives. I respect the memory of them and respect the families that every day have to live with the tragedy.

No it hasn't. The FBI is in on it too? ok

Yes it has - myself and another here proved beyond a reasonable doubt it is fake. It would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law as the physics and distances are fixed in space and can't be refuted by any of the parties.

then why haven't you taken your evidence to the authoritites? The Media? Why post it here?

Actually ...if you can point me to your work, I would love to see it.

On site he did, yes. He was the first on the scene. Thanks for the link. I'll read it later.

Here is part of it:

The Pennsylvania Team

The response was augmented by personnel from several other DMORT regions, in addition to two new DMORT specialty teams. Local responders and members of the state funeral director association also provided assistance. The team arrived on September 13 at the Somerset County National Guard armory, where the morgue had been organized. After meeting with the local and federal authorities, the team went to work on setting up the morgue operation. The local jurisdiction did a superb job of providing basic equipment for the facility.

This response marked several firsts, all of note because of their importance for future responses. These included the deployment of the DNA team, the establishment of protocols documenting the operation of each morgue section, responding under a memorandum of understanding with the FBI, the response of the FAC team and the collection of family blood reference samples, the inclusion of a formal triage station as the first morgue station, and the first use of the Kenyon International Services mobile morgue.

www.dmort.org...

...so DNA wasn't collected then?

I don't believe there were any DNA samples available for the 4 hijackers for flight 93. Some was found for other hijackers.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

archives.cnn.com...

You'll find that's a paper exercise. The airline won't have actually seen the aircraft again. There is no record of its disposal, and as I said, one guy claims it is stored in Iron Mountain. They can't all be right.



From what I am reading, the airline has possession of the aircraft. I did hear something about the parts being stored in a mountain.... I would like the info on that if you got it. Again, how does this implicate the government?

They are not looking for any of the 19 hijackers. They are all dead.

Aren't they looking for who they were? I didn't think their IDs were known in all cases (refer to the poor ID checks the first time). I thought the hijackers also appeared on the FBI website as wanted?

The flight is only in question by a few hard core conspiracy theorists. You have to explain to me how even IF this technology exists, how these voice morphing machines carried on conversations with the family members. Really, just try to think about it.

Uhhh.... you talk, it converts your voice, you have an imposter as the result.

Not sure where you are going with this. Show any sort of proof that this didn't happen. (the attempted storming of the cockpit)

Produce the CVR and prove it did. Remember what I said about the Pentagon and the 80-odd videos? Well....

No it really isn't curious. Only to a few CT'ers. Again I am not interested in hearing the screams of people during the last moments of their lives. I respect the memory of them and respect the families that every day have to live with the tragedy.

I do too, but an inescapable fact is we went to WAR over this. Has a crime been perpetrated by our own governments? (Ironic statement: Maybe that's how you get on watch lists I guess). Did I mention the Patriot Act applies to this post? I'm outside the US, and this classes as international communications.

Actually ...if you can point me to your work, I would love to see it.

I can't get the search function to work properly here for some reason, but search on my screen name, vals name, smoke plume etc.. - you should find it.

then why haven't you taken your evidence to the authoritites? The Media? Why post it here?

Yah... go to the people who back the story you're claiming to be false. That's a fast way to be labeled a nut or worse.

I don't believe there were any DNA samples available for the 4 hijackers for flight 93. Some was found for other hijackers.

I'm interested to know why not. There were bodies, right?

From what I am reading, the airline has possession of the aircraft. I did hear something about the parts being stored in a mountain.... I would like the info on that if you got it. Again, how does this implicate the government?

Well at least that's something you've verified separately. It was in a documentary on the mountain itself I think, but I'm not sure.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Aren't they looking for who they were? I didn't think their IDs were known in all cases (refer to the poor ID checks the first time). I thought the hijackers also appeared on the FBI website as wanted?

No, they are not looking. They are all considered dead. They are not on the FBI's website.

T
Uhhh.... you talk, it converts your voice, you have an imposter as the result.

Yes, I understand the alleged technology. My question is... how does an impostor carry on a conversation with a family member that he does not know?

Are you going to next tell me the government got the backgrounds of all the passengers and learned about them to make these calls?

Produce the CVR and prove it did.

Remember what I said about the Pentagon and the 80-odd videos? Well....

I don't think you get it. The government does not have to release the voices of people dying.

I do too, but an inescapable fact is we went to WAR over this. Has a crime been perpetrated by our own governments? (Ironic statement: Maybe that's how you get on watch lists I guess). Did I mention the Patriot Act applies to this post? I'm outside the US, and this classes as international communications.

First of all we did not go to war over this. Bush DID use 911 as a catapult. The main reason was WMD's which was a lie. Bush used fear tactics on the public and most of us bought it.

None of my rights have been taken away.

I can't get the search function to work properly here for some reason, but search on my screen name, vals name, smoke plume etc.. - you should find it.

I will. Thanks.

Yah... go to the people who back the story you're claiming to be false. That's a fast way to be labeled a nut or worse.

You said it not me!!

I'm interested to know why not. There were bodies, right?

There were body fragments. Teeth, bones, tissue. But you need to match them to something.

The families of the victims released different items that contained their loved ones DNA. (hair brushes, toothbrush, etc.)

I doubt you would have seen the hijackers family members shipping over DNA.

Well at least that's something you've verified separately. It was in a documentary on the mountain itself I think, but I'm not sure.

if and when I find information on this, I will post it. Either way, it does not implicate the government .

No, they are not looking. They are all considered dead. They are not on the FBI's website.

OK!

My question is... how does an impostor carry on a conversation with a family member that he does not know?

Are you going to next tell me the government got the backgrounds of all the passengers and learned about them to make these calls?

No, actually. If the calls are fabricated, as is the crash, then the people will be fabrications. No research necessary.

I don't think you get it. The government does not have to release the voices of people dying.

According to the official report, they never made it to the flight deck, so it wouldn't.

First of all we did not go to war over this. Bush DID use 911 as a catapult. The main reason was WMD's which was a lie. Bush used fear tactics on the public and most of us bought it.

You missed a war-zone - Afghanistan. "The Forgotten War" seems a suitable title for that one.

None of my rights have been taken away.

You said it not me!!

You know that isn't what I meant.

There were body fragments. Teeth, bones, tissue. But you need to match them to something.

The families of the victims released different items that contained their loved ones DNA. (hair brushes, toothbrush, etc.)

Fair comment.

if and when I find information on this, I will post it. Either way, it does not implicate the government .

Why keep the airframe? Usually they're scrapped (or where possible, re-built). Some aircraft flying have been in crashes, but it isn't widely advertised. Obviously if Flight 93 was in that hole, it's beyond repair.

Now we've run through all that - where is Flight 93?

Just an observation: you basically suggest that some of the things I say are in "bad taste", yet they've so far released 3 films about 9/11. Isn't that in bad taste?

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I am waiting for you to call me on false statements, Oh thats right you can't.

I can.

Prove that an F-4 is mostly made of steel.

Please rely on something other than your own word to back it up.

Thanx.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

No, actually. If the calls are fabricated, as is the crash, then the people will be fabrications. No research necessary.

This is the "pissing" on the families. You are stating the the passengers families are in on it too? Paid off? Sick.

According to the official report, they never made it to the flight deck, so it wouldn't.

Agreed, but they hijackers knew that they would eventually breech the cockpit. That's why the crashed the plane.

You missed a war-zone - Afghanistan. "The Forgotten War" seems a suitable title for that one.

Agreed. But I am for the war in Afghanistan. Although it should have been over years ago. Our idiot leader took the troops out and sent them to Iraq. The Taliban was all but destroyed....but they saw our military was dwindled down. They took advantage of it, and continue to do so.

You know that isn't what I meant.

nothing wrong with a little humor

Fair comment.

thanks

Now we've run through all that - where is Flight 93?

Just an observation: you basically suggest that some of the things I say are in "bad taste", yet they've so far released 3 films about 9/11. Isn't that in bad taste?

I don't know where the remains are. I will try to find out for you (and me)

That is a fair question about the movies. Typically Fox jumps all over tradety to make a buck.

I watched the movie flight 93. (theatrical movie) I found it in good taste because of the way it depicted the passengers.

On the other hand, making any money off of the tragedy is a real downer in my opinion.

My better half knows of my passion for 911. She bought me "World Trade Center". I will have to say the same for this movie as the other. Well acted, made heroes out of some.

BUT... money was made off of death. Unfortunately thats the way this country is.

This is the "pissing" on the families. You are stating the the passengers families are in on it too? Paid off? Sick.

No - they don't exist, either. You know how things like industrial espionage and spying work, right? Well - same principle.

Until the existence of Flight 93 is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, well... we'll be here for a while...

EDIT: When you have things like the seismic recordings from the WTC showing something occurring in the seconds pre-collapse, of similar magnitude for all 3 buildings, you know something is seriously wrong with the official version. Why should that apply only to the WTC?

@LaBTop: Not sure if you're reading this or not, but are you aware of any stations near/on/around the site of the Flight 93 crash site? Might be worth investigating. If there really are mines around there, maybe they set some up to monitor the ground for possible collapses? If the locals really did experience shaking etc.. as they/some claim, then that's got to be recorded somewhere...

EDIT: I just had a look on the LDEO website at the seismograms for the Pennsylvania area (FMPA, LUPA) and all the records are returning "image not found" (square boxes). Are you seeing the same?

EDIT2: FMPA wasn't online until 2002 it seems, but LUPA was, and I'm not able to get data for that, either.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
They are not looking for any of the 19 hijackers. They are all dead.

Gee you keep proving how immature you are that you cannot even do research.

THERE IS NO DNA EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE HIJACKERS ARE DEAD.



[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Prove that an F-4 is mostly made of steel.

I have already proven through several good sites that the F-4 with engines is mostly made of steel.

WHY MUST YOU BE SO IMMATURE AND LIE?



[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Prove that an F-4 is mostly made of steel.

What's that got to do with Flight 93?

If the F-4 was made of reinforced Carbon-Carbon, or is a composite, it matters not. If you're talking of that test where it is slammed into a test-bed nuclear containment vessel, then the result would have been the same - the jet would have been obliterated. What's your point?

I think even a bunker-buster would have trouble getting through that.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What's that got to do with Flight 93?

Since he cannot post evidence to support his claims he has to resort to other tatics and try to change the subject.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What's that got to do with Flight 93?

Since he cannot post evidence to support his claims he has to resort to other tatics and try to change the subject.

So I've noticed in several threads so far.

TY: Please stay on-topic from now. Any posts I see that aren't, I'm hitting the ALERT button. We had a good debate further up this thread - don't lose it now.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have already proven through several good sites that the F-4 with engines is mostly made of steel.

WHY MUST YOU BE SO IMMATURE AND LIE?

Wrong.

You have posted info that an F-5 has "some" steel. This is not in dispute.

The most accurate statement is that the F-4 is mostly aluminum.

Repeating that you have proven your statement does not make it true, when in fact, you have done no such thing.

Then, as now, you are lying.

Why do you continue to lie about something so trivial?

Does your ego prevent you?