Did Norad shoot down flight 93?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by JeZeus

 

I thought it was humorous that you, with your 130 some posts, made your remark about new debunkers in response to myself, with ten times more posts and a longer stint than you on ATS. Have a nice day.

And i think it`s humorous that you think it`s humorous.

My "remark" was about new debunkers , which you seem to be , because the old debunkers actually had something to say .... unlike yourself.

Now this is also an old tactic that i am familiar with , a debunker engages in an "argument" with a "truther" and in the process - turns the thread into a ego contest , resulting in the thread being closed or ignored.

So i wont play your game , and i will use this post to add something to the thread , not much , but something :

There is no evidence ( and by evidence i mean that which would stand in a court of law ) to suggest that flight 93 was even there , or the towers collapsed due to structural damage caused by fires . If someone can find such evidence i think it would stop the "truther movement" in its tracks.
Can someone , anyone , anything ... provide me with some hard evidence wich supports the official story so i can stop visiting these threads and dealing with these children ?

reply to post by JeZeus


Wrong. There are radar tracks, witnesses on the ground and in the air who witnessed Flight 93's final moments. There is wreckage known to have belonged to Flight 93 recovered from the crash site. And then, there are the personal effects and remains of the passengers and crew known to have been on Flight 93 recovered from there as well. So, there is personal testimony and physical evidence.that places Flight 93 at the crash site. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that Flight 93 crashed there....evidence that has already BEEN accepted by a court of law.

Originally posted by JeZeus
There is no evidence ( and by evidence i mean that which would stand in a court of law ) to suggest that flight 93 was even there , or the towers collapsed due to structural damage caused by fires . If someone can find such evidence i think it would stop the "truther movement" in its tracks.
Can someone , anyone , anything ... provide me with some hard evidence wich supports the official story so i can stop visiting these threads and dealing with these children ?

Before I answer, I would ask you just what you think the "official story" even is, because nowhere in "the official story" is there any official explanation for what caused the towers to fall. If there is any breakdown of communication here, it is self evident that it is being introduced by you.

As for flight 93, eyewitness accounts have been admissible as hard evidence in every court of law that ever existed:

A few miles north of Lambertsville, yard man Terry Butler, 40, was toiling away at Stoystown Auto Wreckers.

He thought it was odd that a plane was in the area. He'd heard that all air traffic nationwide had been halted after the World Trade Center disaster about an hour earlier.

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

********************

Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him.

"I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said.

"I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker.

The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said.

********************

Three-quarters of a mile away, at Shanksville-Stonycreek High School, ninth-grader Rose Goodwin, 14, and her classmates had been watching coverage of the World Trade Center catastrophe on a classroom television.

"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."

********************

Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters.

"The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet [long]. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees."

Source: Eyewitness accounts of flight 93


So unless you can explain to me why a guy working at a junk yard and a 14 year old school girl are sinister secret agents, I would suggest you let this internet myth of yours go, becuase let's face it, this whole "flight 93 didn't crash at Shanksville" hoax is entirely the invention of those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing abject paranoia for their own financial gain.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


No, you have twisted my words. I said that the media reported things in real time that day but were later changed. That was all.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by JeZeus

 

Wrong. There are radar tracks, witnesses on the ground and in the air who witnessed Flight 93's final moments. There is wreckage known to have belonged to Flight 93 recovered from the crash site. And then, there are the personal effects and remains of the passengers and crew known to have been on Flight 93 recovered from there as well. So, there is personal testimony and physical evidence.that places Flight 93 at the crash site. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that Flight 93 crashed there....evidence that has already BEEN accepted by a court of law.

OK OK , slow down .... i am asking for evidence , the " radar tracks " have been torn to peices time and time again , there was no bodies or remains , and the wreckage they claimed to be flight 93 consisted of a hand full of wires and a bit of metal here and there...... lets not forget how the story goes - flight 93 dissapeared under the soil at high speed

court of law

Can you give me an explaination as to why most of the witnesses who tried to make a scene ended up commiting suicide in rediculous ways ?

Before I answer, I would ask you just what you think the "official story" even is, because nowhere in "the official story" is there any official explanation for what caused the towers to fall. If there is any breakdown of communication here, it is self evident that it is being introduced by you.

There IS , and it was changed too , am i the only one who reads the facts ?

As for flight 93, eyewitness accounts have been admissible as hard evidence in every court of law that ever existed:

Which courts , who was on trial , who was convicted ?
Every court that ever existed ? like the british courts , french courts and what not ? see what i mean .... loose words friend , loose words

So unless you can explain to me why a guy working at a junk yard and a 14 year old school girl are sinister secret agents, I would suggest you let this internet myth of yours go, becuase let's face it, this whole "flight 93 didn't crash at Shanksville" hoax is entirely the invention of those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing abject paranoia for their own financial gain.

Oh , ok then , i`ll just forget all about the dirtiest #ing lie in the history of our generations and be on my merry way. HOAX is the correct word , for the crap you people believe .... i would actually like to know your own "opinion" on what happened , as you dont even seem to be following the origonal story ..... like the other "new debunkers".

ADD : I can tell you why --- they didnt actually make those statements .... oh yes i did


Anyone who says "damned fool conspiracy sites" has no credibility at all in my eyes , and seems more Federal than anything else --- if you know what i`m saying.

reply to post by JeZeus


As long as you continue to labor under your misconceptions about the crash site, it is useless to discuss it with you. Have a pleasant life.

reply to post by JeZeus


Wow. You have so much wrong there that it's not funny.

There were a number of fairly large (by fairly large, I mean roughly 4+ feet) pieces of debris found. Including the remains of at least one engine. And before you start saying I'm back tracking, I never said that every single piece of debris was shredded, just that there were no large pieces that most people expect to see, and that in an impact this size, only small pieces are left afterwards.

As for the bodies, when they talk about finding bodies at a "normal" crash site, they are being polite for the person on the street. You almost never find bodies at crash sites, you find very small pieces of remains, scattered over a very large area, depending on how the aircraft impacted. Unless it was going very slow, and impacted at a very shallow angle, you are going to have body parts left. There were body parts at this crash site too. There are numerous witnesses that reported the smell of remains, and finding small parts of bodies at the site. The county coroner also reported finding many remains, especially as they started digging down into the impact site.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JeZeus

 

Wow. You have so much wrong there that it's not funny.

There were a number of fairly large (by fairly large, I mean roughly 4+ feet) pieces of debris found. Including the remains of at least one engine. And before you start saying I'm back tracking, I never said that every single piece of debris was shredded, just that there were no large pieces that most people expect to see, and that in an impact this size, only small pieces are left afterwards.

As for the bodies, when they talk about finding bodies at a "normal" crash site, they are being polite for the person on the street. You almost never find bodies at crash sites, you find very small pieces of remains, scattered over a very large area, depending on how the aircraft impacted. Unless it was going very slow, and impacted at a very shallow angle, you are going to have body parts left. There were body parts at this crash site too. There are numerous witnesses that reported the smell of remains, and finding small parts of bodies at the site. The county coroner also reported finding many remains, especially as they started digging down into the impact site.

What if i showed you evidence of a smaller aircraft crashing and making a huge crator in the process , leaving A LOT of debris ...... whould you consider how impossible it is for a jet to dissapear underground at high speed ?

Show me evidence of body parts ...... if a jet crashed and went under the surface do you know how much impact that would have on the human body ? you wouldn`t find an eyelash never mind body parts.

Where`s the pictures / videos of the crane lifting flight 93 out of the ground ?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by JeZeus

 

As long as you continue to labor under your misconceptions about the crash site, it is useless to discuss it with you. Have a pleasant life.

Actually , logically speaking , if you continue to avoid answering decent questions you will never be heard.
Why engage in a conversation / "argument" with me if you do not want to face the facts ?

reply to post by JeZeus


Once it impacted the ground there was no longer a Flight 93 to lift out of the ground. That's just as inane as the argument that there was no way the planes could have penetrated the building, and should have crumpled and fallen to the ground in front of the buildings.

After impact there was only debris to remove, and there are plenty of pictures of debris from Shanksville. As for pictures of bodies, yeah right. Those are never released officially. I can count the number of body pictures I've seen on one hand and have fingers left over. Body parts will survive an impact like this. They will come apart and be thrown clear of the impact site during the explosion. Body parts have been found in trees, under trees, etc. I've read some pretty gruesome finds from some pretty spectacular crash sites, where you wouldn't think much would be found. And I've heard of not much being found where you would think that there would be more found. Air France 447 is a good example. Months after the crash, the Woods Hole institute found the main cabin debris, which included a number of bodies that were intact. This was a plane that impacted the ocean, after falling from cruising altitude, and impacting on the belly on the ocean surface. At least some of the bodies that were found in the main cabin, which was crushed down, were surprisingly intact. Not enough that entire bodies were returned to the families, but enough was left to do an autopsy on.

reply to post by JeZeus


Moussari trial exhibits.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Once it impacted the ground there was no longer a Flight 93 to lift out of the ground. That's just as inane as the argument that there was no way the planes could have penetrated the building, and should have crumpled and fallen to the ground in front of the buildings.

In that case .... what the hell are you talking about ? you said there were body parts .

After impact there was only debris to remove, and there are plenty of pictures of debris from Shanksville. As for pictures of bodies, yeah right. Those are never released officially. I can count the number of body pictures I've seen on one hand and have fingers left over. Body parts will survive an impact like this. They will come apart and be thrown clear of the impact site during the explosion.

Explain to me , scientifically , how flight 93 could both "explode" and continue to travel under the surface .

Body parts have been found in trees, under trees, etc.

Really ? .......UNDER.......... TREES .......? oh man i`ve heard it all ........ please show me evidence of body parts.

I've read some pretty gruesome finds from some pretty spectacular crash sites, where you wouldn't think much would be found. And I've heard of not much being found where you would think that there would be more found. Air France 447 is a good example. Months after the crash, the Woods Hole institute found the main cabin debris, which included a number of bodies that were intact. This was a plane that impacted the ocean, after falling from cruising altitude, and impacting on the belly on the ocean surface. At least some of the bodies that were found in the main cabin, which was crushed down, were surprisingly intact. Not enough that entire bodies were returned to the families, but enough was left to do an autopsy on.

But how on earth does that prove what you are saying is true ? It`s rather irrelevant actually and it doesn`t help your "argument" at all .

Here is the evidence of crash involving a jet which shares similar specs to that of flight 93 , a Tupulev_Tu-145 :

news.bbc.co.uk...

Compare stats and tell me why on earth this 757 did not create as much damage as a smaller jet ?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by JeZeus

 

Moussari trial exhibits.

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Utter bull , proven to be utter bull ten times over .
second.

reply to post by JeZeus


LMAO....Typical. Someone cries there is no proof. You show them some proof. "Thats not true" People like you are HILARIOUS.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by JeZeus

 

LMAO....Typical. Someone cries there is no proof. You show them some proof. "Thats not true" People like you are HILARIOUS.

prove bin laden had anything to do with "9/11" and i`ll give you a lollipop.

prove any of those "hijackers" were actually there and i`ll give you another lollipop.

prove that not one shred of evidence is corrupted and i`ll give you as many lollipops and ego rubs as you require.

I am guessing that you have not met a "truther" before ...... as you seem to think that we are as brainwashed as yourself , and you are un-aware of the fact that this has been torn apart for a long time now.

Why on earth would i read everything released regarding "9/11" and change my mind in a heartbeat without evidence that would stand in a court of law ?

reply to post by JeZeus


I didn't say that I was only talking about Flight 93 in that post. I was talking about all the crashes that I had read reports of, and what the remains did after the crash. I don't know how some of them got there, I'm just repeating what I heard and read of the reports. The attempt was to show that body parts can, and do, end up in odd locations after a crash of any magnitude, including this one.

Flight 93 ceased to exist as a flight at the moment of impact. We call it Flight 93 still, but it was just a debris field once it impacted the ground.

As for the exploding and traveling underground, it didn't necessarily explode the split second that it hit the ground. It would have traveled into the ground some distance, before the fuel tanks ruptured, and the fuel vapor exploded. Therefore it was underground when it exploded, throwing debris and body parts out of the impact site, but leaving the main wreckage underground where it was found.

As for your Iran flight, I commented on that earlier. It was a different angle of impact, into completely different ground than in Shanksville. The two crashes I linked were similar angles, much smaller aircraft, and left more damage than Flight 93 did, because they were on much harder ground. The only way that you are going to see similar damage to Flight 93, is you take another 757, at the same angle, same speed, and slam it into the same type of ground. And even then the pattern will probably be slightly different.

As for AF447, it shows that there is no telling what the bodies will do in an impact. Sometimes when you expect to find pieces, you find entire bodies. Sometimes when you expect to find entire bodies, you find pieces. They've never said if there were any relatively intact bodies found at this site, but I seriously doubt there were. So you aren't going to get any gory body photos to see.

reply to post by JeZeus


Why indeed, would you accept reality, when all you have read is conspiracy theories. You have constructed yourself a nice little world where it will never matter what we show you, you will wave away everything...The airline employees who checked the terrorists onto the flights, the gate agents who took their boarding passes, the ground personnel who serviced the jets, the ATC folks who handled the jets, the Flight Attendants who called in and reported the seat numbers and names from the manifests of who the hijackers were, the men and women who saw Flight 93 in its final moments, the men and women who were first on scene, through those who were there for the entire cleanup, the airline personnel who identified wreckage and items belonging to the crews...

It does not matter how much evidence we show you, you have long ago chosen not to believe any of it.

Arrgh.

All i have read is conspiracy theories ........ yes , and i believe the fairies and pixies are running wall street so everyone`s money is fantabulous.

I refuse to take part in this childish debate ....none of these debunkers have anything to say other than "no"... these new debunkers have a serious problem ... they DO NOT follow their own theory (THE O.S ) ... so i will now refrain from posting in this thread unless i feel like my post will be adding information to the thread , as i feel the debunkers are hovering ... waiting for a chance to derail the thread ...... SORRY O.P but this is how 911 threads go on here , what can we expect from a "controlled" website.

MODS : please check out the debunkers in here as we have a little ego problem , again , and i feel that this thread is about to be hijacked by extremist nutjobs like many excellent threads before.

NOTE : I am open to all opinions and theories , untill they get border-line pathetic.

reply to post by JeZeus


And now you throw in assumptions. Just what theory of mine do you think I'm not following?