Skeptics, what are the official crash details of UA93?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Let's cut to the chase. We know full well why you want to know such minute details that are for the most part unusable- it's your desire to ask ever increasing difficult to supply questions of the events of 9/11, and when you finally ask a question on such a microscopic level that noone can answer it...

Am I incorrect?

Yes, totally incorrect.

Here is what I said: "Write it as if you were writing a report of the crash details for the NTSB"

Maybe you should read my OP more carefully before making yourself look ignorant.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's all that's needed.

Of course you'll say that because you support the official story and you know the more detail that revealed about this alleged crash, the more it shows the official story is a fraud.

As I noted, your asking for ridiculous detail is nothing more than a game of gotcha.

Do NTSB plane crash reports provide ridiculous detail?

well NTSB was asked about the AA77 report, this is what they had to say...
(Pentagon)

www.youtube.com...

I really want to "not" help you.
and then the blow off


Ok, now for some AboveTopSecret Conspiracy "Was that Memorex or Jim Ritter...?"

was the cell phone call's real or Memorex...?

FBI - on record - pt 7 Jessie Ventura, FBI interview
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 15-4-2010 by Anti-Evil]

Originally posted by ATH911

Do NTSB plane crash reports provide ridiculous detail?

The FBI did the final report, since it's a crime scene, not an accident scene.

You should already know this...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ATH911

Do NTSB plane crash reports provide ridiculous detail?

The FBI did the final report, since it's a crime scene, not an accident scene.

You should already know this...

Uh, I know, but that didn't answer my question.

Here it is again,

Do NTSB plane crash reports provide ridiculous detail?

reply to post by ATH911


Its pretty simple to see what is going on here. You've run out of BB's to plink with. You've been hocking this stuff about Flight 93,

"the crater is too small"!,
"I don't see enough wreckage"!,
"why is this blade of grass turned to the right and not the left"?
"why can't I see in the photos the jet fuel the first responders were smelling"?

etc, etc, etc, etc.

And no one is buying it so you need something new to play with and you are hoping that someone is going to try and speculate on what the Wrecakge Information portion of the NTSB report would look like so you can start some new angle failed attack about some technical trivia.

Originally posted by ATH911


Do NTSB plane crash reports provide ridiculous detail?

They don't have the kind of detail that you asked for:

what happened to the plane after allegedly crashing, how much of the plane and passenger remains were recovered, where was most of the wreckage and passenger remains located, what caused the damage and how to the surrounding elements, etc.

Originally posted by hooper
And no one is buying it

You mean "none of us few skeptics here are buying it."

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
They don't have the kind of detail that you asked for:

what happened to the plane after allegedly crashing, how much of the plane and passenger remains were recovered, where was most of the wreckage and passenger remains located, what caused the damage and how to the surrounding elements, etc.

Um, yes they do and the news reported those details which you can include in your official skeptic's report.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Let's cut to the chase. We know full well why you want to know such minute details that are for the most part unusable- it's your desire to ask ever increasing difficult to supply questions of the events of 9/11, and when you finally ask a question on such a microscopic level that noone can answer it...

Am I incorrect?

Yes, totally incorrect.

Here is what I said: "Write it as if you were writing a report of the crash details for the NTSB"

Maybe you should read my OP more carefully before making yourself look ignorant.

Maybe you should pay attention to what you are asking before making yourself look like a tool.

NTSB investigations cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, consist of dozens and dozens of people and have a fresh crash site to investigate.

You want someone to do do an even MORE intensive report with no money, no trained team and a 10 year old cleaned up crash site.

You are indeed asking for the impossible.

Originally posted by Tiloke
Maybe you should pay attention to what you are asking before making yourself look like a tool.

You want someone to do do an even MORE intensive report

Speaking about tools,

where have I asked for a report more intensive than an average NTSB-styled report?

quote]Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
They don't have the kind of detail that you asked for:

what happened to the plane after allegedly crashing, how much of the plane and passenger remains were recovered, where was most of the wreckage and passenger remains located, what caused the damage and how to the surrounding elements, etc.

Um, yes they do and the news reported those details which you can include in your official skeptic's report.

Produce the NTSB report for this crash. Show me the details that you claim are there. Otherwise, you have lied.

[

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Produce the NTSB report for this crash. Show me the details that you claim are there. Otherwise, you have lied.

This is page 2. I already produced an NTSB sample on page 1.

Way to pay attention.

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, please tell us what the official crash details of UA93 are as you see them.

I can't reconcile "official crash details" with "as you see them".

It seems to be an oxymoron.

Do a search for member opinions about Flight 93 on this site, then get valid information about the crash details from the 9/11 research sites.

reply to post by ATH911

You mean "none of us few skeptics here are buying it."

If by "few skeptics" you mean the rest of humanity, then you are correct. The "few skeptics" aren't buying it. In fact, they aren't even listening. There is no huge clamor about whether or not Flight 93 crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pa. on 9/11/2001.

Please don't refer me to polls about doubt in the government's investigation, I've seen them all and the ones that are not unscientific online interviews are simply being misrepresented by truthers to say something that they really do not.

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, please tell us what the official crash details of UA93 are as you see them.

No offence, but why?

If you want to float an alternative theory about what happened to UA93 you're quite welcome, but it's not really up to sceptics to convince you that the "OS" is correct.

A better question is why is this plane crash under wraps? Eight and a half years later and the FBI hasn't released this information? "How a plane crashed" is not justifiably classifiable information, and if the FBI or that other group has information it should be disclosed to the public.

There should be no way to justify secret classification for this knowledge, because in order to do so you must be able to demonstrate that the knowledge being released would be a clear and present threat to national security.

There is NO excuse for waiting eight years to release this information, the terrorists already know how they overtook the plane, so the only people being kept in the dark is We the People. That is incorrigible.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by sremmos]

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Produce the NTSB report for this crash. Show me the details that you claim are there. Otherwise, you have lied.

This is page 2. I already produced an NTSB sample on page 1.

That's one example. Funny, but I saw no mention of the location of passenger remains, one of the questions that you asked.

I asked you to produce the NTSB accident report for PSA 1771.

It is your belief that they all contain this info.

Now produce it or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, and have zero ability to prove your statement.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No offence, but why?

If you want to float an alternative theory about what happened to UA93 you're quite welcome, but it's not really up to sceptics to convince you that the "OS" is correct.

Because in order to debunk the official story, we must know what the official story is.

When I show evidence that I say contradicts the official story, I keep hearing in return from skeptics that isn't the official story. So to prevent any moving of the goal posts, I've simply asked skeptics to tell us what they think the official story is.

Originally posted by sremmos
A better question is why is this plane crash under wraps? Eight and a half years later and the FBI hasn't released this information? "How a plane crashed" is not justifiably classifiable information, and if the FBI or that other group has information it should be disclosed to the public.

Exactly!

It's like they are hiding something is some top security facility like Iron Mountain. Oh wait!