Debris still being found at Shanksville

[hack89]

Lambert still finds debris from the plane on his land.

"Red and blue wire all over the place," he says as he bends over to pick up a piece. "Here it is almost eight years later."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html

[Subdivisions]

1. Excellent forensics work done there. n/t

[hack89]

2. Once you know the cause

you don't need every piece.

[BeFree]

3. Blown to smithereens in mid-air?

Debris scattered over miles and miles.

Maybe one day they find the tail?

"..you don't need every piece"? True. But getting most of it would help, eh?

[hack89]

4. There is no evidence of that

all the eyewitness accounts seem to confirm that the plane was intact prior to impact.

They did get most of it. Certainly all the big pieces.

[Marksbrother]

6. Are you sure about that?

"They did get most of it. Certainly all the big pieces."


I'm sure that I've read where the first people who arrived at the scene said that it didn't look like a plane had
crashed there. If those accounts are credible, then why did they say it didn't look like a plane had crashed there?

[hack89]

7. Read the many threads here on that topic

all of the first responders saw wreckage, human remains and smelled jet fuel. For the complete quotes in the proper context, you need to look beyond Truther sites.

[Marksbrother]

13. "you need to look beyond Truther sites."

Is DU a "truther" site?

I went to a site called 911myths. There, the Mayor of Shanksville, is quoted as he tries to explain what he really meant when he was first quoted that there was "no plane there". A hear later, he said that he saw one of the engines lying in the bushes.

That site has "debris photos were released at the Moussaoui trial." None of the photos shows an engine "lying in the bushes."

Mayor Stull seems to have an integrity problem and I'd think that if there was indeed an engine "lying in the bushes", a photo
of that would have been one of those released at the Moussaoui trial. There were lots of photos released, including some taken of
the area surrounding the alleged crash site, but none of them show an engine "lying in the bushes."

[hack89]

15. This is what the first responders saw

"After calling for backup from several area fire companies, King and the other firefighters, who had never responded to an airplane crash, surveyed the scene. None of them was prepared for what they saw. King recalls the paper strewn in the trees and clothing and shoes scattered on the ground. There were no bodies, he says. Just body parts. 'That's when the sheer destruction of the crash really hit home,' he says."


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/sept11stonycreekjan02.p ...

King is also the Assistant Fire Chief of the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department. He was one of the first emergency workers at the scene of the crash.

The morning of the crash, King was watching the events of Sept. 11th unfold on television in disbelief. King called his sister, and as they were talking, she paused and told him that she could hear a low flying jet flying near her house. King knew all planes were ordered out of the sky, but kept in mind that some of the planes were reported missing. Seconds later, the plane hit, the impact shaking the town. King ran to the firehall, jumped into the fire truck with 4 other firefighters and raced off to the crash site.

"I felt it was too coincidental not to be related to what was going on. I didn't think that Shanksville was a target of terrorists attacks, I just didn't know what was going on,' said King. He was not sure what scene to expect at the crash site. When King and his crew arrived, they saw what smoking pieces remained of the plane. “There were small pieces everywhere and small signs of human remains. It was total destruction.”



Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ... I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ... the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."


When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says."

[Marksbrother]

16. I was hoping you might wish to explain your earlier claims

and my responses to them.

Starting with you telling me to read sites other than "truther sites." I asked you if DU is a "truther" site. IS it?

I went to a site called 911myths, and I told you what I read and saw there about the Mayor's contradictions, and the
photos there from the alleged crash site. You'll recall none showed a an engine "lying in the bushes." Would you now
like to respond to that post?

I read all of your excerpts. When you cut and pasted them, did you realize that most of the people who were quoted
talk about only small parts (e.g. "none larger than a plate"). Remember, you said "They did get most of it. Certainly all the big pieces."

Wouldn't you like to take the opportunity now to address all of this? Now, before you move on to even more tangential points.

[hack89]

18. Are you a no-planer?

I think you need to look at the mayors comments again - it is clear that truthers have took his comments out of context and that he really did see plane wreckage. 911myths has the comments that truthers conveniently leave out:

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

the only contradiction is in your mind - your source shows how truthers cherry picked and distorted the Mayor's words.

As the photos, two points: first, one of the pictures shows a turbine rotor. Secondly, do you really believe that every picture taken at the site was shown at the trial. Are you really saying that because not everything the mayor said is backed up by a photo he is lying? Is that really what you mean?

As for the big pieces, there is a picture of several and the mayor mentions one.

A question for you: can you show a single first responder that did not see wreckage and body parts?

[Marksbrother]

20. Maybe you feel you explained your points, but I don't think you did.

I'm accustomed to a different style of exchanging views. I was really looking forward to a sincere exchange, but
your approach makes that very difficult and ultimately not possible to do.

Maybe one day you'll decide to answer the easiest point that you raised about "truther sites." I'd be interested if you'd
like to just state whether or not you consider the 911myths site something other than a "truther site" and also
whether you consider that DU is a "truther site."

[hack89]

21. DU is hostile to the Truth movement

it segregates it here in this forum. Many truthers have been tombstoned for linking to hate sites.

911myths is not a truther site - my point is that an honest reading of that site show that there is no contradiction in the mayor's comments.

[Marksbrother]

23. Your opinion about the mayor's integrity doesn't appear

to be well-founded considering how contradictory his statements were, and your statements about FL 93 plane parts
aren't supported by the evidence.

Nor did you answer the simple question is DU a "truther site". It's unfortunate that anyone gets "tombstoned" and
my guess is that if it's for linking to "hate sites", that was due to a misunderstanding about the definition, accidental,
or stupidity. On a rare occasion, I suppose it could be "suicidal", in the sense that someone did so intentionally, making a statement against their own interest. In my experience on the Web it's more often the case that supporters of conservative
viewpoints who link to "hate sites". Of course, the very term "hate sites" is subjective - but he who owns the gold makes the rule.

Is there a published list of "hate sites" which DU does not permit linking to?

[hack89]

24. You are not paying attention - your own source supports my opinion

from 911myths it is clear that truthers cherry picked from the original Stull interview:

This is the point where those who want to hold on to a conspiracy explanation will claim that he's changed his story, been "leaned on", and this is in itself proof that something shady is going on. Fortunately Der Spiegel covered this, too, by viewing the full tape of Stulls interview. After the "no plane" comment, he went on to say this.

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."


Using “no plane” on its own is clearly a misrepresentation.

http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

As for banned sites, interestingly enough, one of them is mentioned at 911myths as peddling the Stull story - American Free Press is linked to a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier named Willis Carto. Other banned sites are Rense and Prison Planet. If you can recognize RW, anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi sites and refrain from posting from them, you will have no problem. What many truthers don't understand is the far right thrives on anti-government conspiracies and were some of the first people to jump on the 911 Truth bandwagon.

DU is not a truther site. There are too many engineers and other technically eduated people here for truther pseudo-science to gain much traction.

[Marksbrother]

25. I paid attention. That's why I saw the contradictions and errors.

It's also how I discovered your errors. Maybe you were hoping nobody would actually check out the claims you made.

What exactly is "truther pseudo-science"? When you use terms like that, it's clear that you are demonstrating a
lack of respect for engineers and other technically-educated people who do not share your viewpoint. If I had known
that, I wouldn't have bothered taking the time to point out the mistakes you made - in facts and in logic.

[hack89]

26. Thermite, mini-nukes, no-planes, CD is pseudo science.

Care to actually show me my errors? Your source makes it very clear that truthers cherry picked the Stull interview - can you actually articulate why I am wrong?

[Marksbrother]

27. Your errors are obvious to anyone who checks the facts.

When you say things like "certainly all of the big pieces were recovered" without adding that you are merely stating your
opinion or your belief, anyone who knows much about the issue knows that doesn't sound like an informed opinion or belief.
Therefore, whenever I read that, I decided to do a little checking. A little research was all it took to confirm that
your facts (about the plane parts that were recovered) are wrong and that the Shanksville mayor's first statement is more credible than the contradictory one he made a year or two later.

You now ask "can you actually articulate why I am wrong?" I'm not a mind reader, but my guess is that the main reason why
you are wrong is that you were maybe too busy to take the time to research and reflect on these issues. Nothing unusual about
that. It's a common trait in human nature.

[hack89]

29. You really don't understand your own source, do you?

there is no contradictory statement made a year or two later. It happened like this:

1. Stull was interviewed.

2. Truthers jumped on his "no plane" comment.

3. Der Spiegel decided to investigate. When told what truthers were saying, Stull said they twisted his words out of context.

4. Der Spiegel investigated further by finding the original Stull interview. In that original interview, immediately after his "no plane" comment he talks about all the wreckage found at the site.

911myths is a 911 debunker site. If you didn't figure that out then perhaps your research skills need a little honing.

[Marksbrother]

30. I understand what I read at 911myths. Stull said "no plane"

Mayor Stull: "'There was no airplane,' says Ernie Stull". http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

I note that you never found it convenient or helpful to respond to any of the other points I made except to dance a little jig about
whether or not DU is a "truther site".

Would you like to explain why you continually use the term "truther" when it is well-known that it is a coined word used
as an insult against sincere people? How is it any different than someone describing you and those who share your views
as being "truth deniers"? Would you consider that to be a term of derision? Under commonly accepted rules of civil discourse,
don't you feel an obligation to show respect to those with whom you disagree?

I assume that DU rules don't forbid you from referring to other members as "truthers", but even if that is the case, I'm surprised that your normal way of interacting is so lacking in courtesy and it certainly undermines any perception of you as a worthy opponent.

[hack89]

31. Please try to take this seriously

Your Spiegel story is debunking the Stull 911 conspiracy - you just confirmed what I said.

Wisnewski disputes accusations that he manipulated Stull and mentions a statement Stull made in the WDR film, in which his description was correctly reproduced: "The airplane was completely destroyed. Bang! It crashed into the ground and disintegrated - completely."


The audacity with which ARD journalist Wisnewski assembled his own truths is evident in a translated segment of the interview provided by WDR at Der Spiegel's request. According to the WDR copy, the portion of the film script quoted above is followed by this statement made by Stull on the original tape:

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."

No airplane?

Given this statement, it remains a mystery as to how WDR executives can continue to claim that Stull's "statements were not misquoted or distorted in the film." It is also quite telling that "Neville from the farm" does not appear in the film, nor does anyone else who could possibly refute the authors' claims.

As to the term Truther, you need to get over yourself. That's what guys like you are called here - if you want respect then take the issue seriously.

[Marksbrother]

42. So, "truth denier" is a term that you agree describes you

As to the term "truth denier", you need to get over yourself. That's what guys like you are called here - if you want respect then take the issue seriously."

[SDuderstadt]

43. Maybe when you have some proof of this "truth" we're supposedly denying...

the label might be apropos.

[Marksbrother]

45. Okay, then how about if everyone calls YOU a truther

Since you don't deny the truth, doesn't that make you a truther?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Well, yeah....

As long as you exclude the goofier claims of the "9/11 truth movement", like MIHOP and LIHOP.

[Marksbrother]

48. Welcome, new truther SDuderstadt

Glad to have you with us. If we can just stay focused on finding out what really happened, and not get sidetracked by
goofiness, silliness, disinformation, obfuscation, coinky dinks, and all the rest, I'm sure we can make progress and
do so without having to deal with all the road blockers and other insincere people who seem to exist only for the purpose
of making mischief and thwarting everyone who isn't in their gang.

Did you sign the Agreement to be courteous and respectful even to those who disagree with the use of juvenile tactics such as
labeling arguments and fellow members as being "goofy"? Your pledge of fidelity would be appreciated as a sign of
your sincerity and goodwill.

Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

79. I'm not calling the poster goofy...merely some of their claims...

I know calling a spade a spade is like kryptonite to the "truth movement". Sorry.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. wait, do you have evidence of this? :

when it is well-known that it is a coined word used as an insult against sincere people

Really? I myself have no idea what the origin of "Truther" is. Please inform me.

I do know that some people self-describe themselves as "truthers," whereas I can't think of anyone who self-describes as a "truth denier."

[Marksbrother]

61. I'm sure you are a sincere, well-intentioned person, so

let me remind you that some blacks refer to themselves and other blacks with the "n" word. Amongst themselves, there's
no harm intended. However, when a non-black person uses the "n" word, it's with the intent to insult.

I hope this helps you to gain a better understanding of how people use labels to insult others for one reason or another.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. with due respect, you did not answer my question

I did not ask how you feel when someone calls you a truther. I asked about your claim concerning the origin of the term. Can you support it?

[Marksbrother]

73. Are you implying it's used as a term of endearment and respect?

If so, I'm sure that will come as something of a shock to a lot of people here. Anyhow, I hope you got the point about
how labels are often used to insult groups of people.

BTW - do you use that particular label? If so, to whom are you usually
addressing whenever you do? Would it be people who mostly agree with your views?

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. can you support your claim, or not?

What is with all the windmilling?!

ETA: By the way, are you going to pretend that "truther" is never used as a self-identification? Because we both know that is untrue. Right?

[Marksbrother]

85. Why won't you answer a simple question about the word truther?

Do you use that particular label? If so, to whom are you usually

addressing whenever you do? Would it be people who mostly agree with your views?

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. I accept your concession

Although you have so far refused to answer any of my questions, I will answer yours.

I rarely use the word "truther," generally in replying to other posts that use it. On this board, it is most often used by people who mostly agree with my views. Out in the wild, it is widely used positively, negatively, and neutrally. I found several sites with "truther" in the URL; the ones I found all used it as a self-identification. This observation sheds no light on the origins of the term, which is why I wondered -- and continue to wonder -- whether you can support your assertion.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Sorry....but I am not giving up the "irony quotes" around "truther"...

n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

56. Hi Marksbrother. If I may chime in . . .

I know the pain in the ass people some of the debunkers here can be. They're often not interested in anything that doesn't fit their preconceived Idea of the possible, just like their opposite number, the zealot who refuses to look at evidence and holds fast to whatever dogma they are currently fixated on.

It's funny that the debunkers don't see themselves as members of the same species as the so-called 'nutters', but they are.

That notwithstanding, the 'no plane' issue at Shanksville is one of the more absurd memes ever floated. I have personally spoken to Ernie Stull. I interviewed him with two other people in the summer of 2004, and I can personally assure you that he believed a plane crashed there. The concern we had in interviewing him regarded the possibility of a shoot-down, because Ernie was on record as saying a friend of his believed he heard one. Ernie believed his friend THOUGHT he heard one, but said that he himself (Ernie) did not believe the plane was shot down. Neither did the coroner, Wallace Miller. And Miller also 100% believed a plane crashed there (it's feels stupid even having to write this, but there it is).

For the record, I also found pieces of the plane near the crash site on the property of Barry Hoover, who lived less than 200 yards from the impact zone. It was fenced off from the public, but he invited us back, though he would not let us shoot video there. He told me they were literally all over the place if we would just dig around a little, and he was right.

He said if we wanted to look a little harder, we might find some human remains. We chose not to.

If anyone suggested that no plane crashed there to Ernie Stull or Wallace Miller or Barry Hoover or anyone else nearby who saw and heard the plane flying overhead at a low altitude just before impact, I doubt they would take anything else that person said seriously.

[Marksbrother]

58. If that's the basis for calling it "absurd", it tells me that

your objectivity, thoroughness of research, and reasoning is subject to question.

[Bryan Sacks]

59. I was there, in person, and spoke to all of them.

You, on the other hand, are on the internet casting doubts that, were it voiced to anyone on the ground in Shanksville, would laugh you out of town.

Not a great start here for you.

[SDuderstadt]

81. See what I mean, Bryan?

Prepared to be villified by hardcore "truthers". For whatever it's worth, I am in your corner in this matter. I also reserve the right to refer to "no plane" claims as the utter goofiness it is.

[Marksbrother]

87. Is "truther" equivalent to "BushcoOCT"?

If you aren't a truther, how would you describe yourself? BUSHCO-OCT Supporter? Spiritualist? Respectful advocate of
a highly dubious conspiracy theory put forth and advanced by the Bush administration?

[SDuderstadt]

104. I don't answer stupid, loaded...

questions, dude. You can drop the stupid ''you support Bushco'' implied smear now.

[Marksbrother]

111. It's a fair question. Nothing "stupid, loaded" about it.

There's no good reason for you to try and avoid answering questions just because you don't like them. That's very childish.
If you were confident about your positions, you wouldn't have to resort to such embarrassing, blustery tactics.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Read your question again...

if you don't think it is a loaded question, I can't help you. Hint: the only choices you cite all ridicule anything other than your position. That's a loaded question, dude. You might want to ask yourself whether it's tactics like this which account for the "truth movement" dying on the vine.

[Marksbrother]

120. No. It isn't a loaded question, but let me help you out with

another choice. I assume, but it is admittedly an assumption, that your only interest here is truth. So,
wouldn't that make you a "truther"? If not, why not, and what label would you place on yourself?

[SDuderstadt]

122. I am a "debunker" because I take issue with your false claims...

Do you get it now?

[Marksbrother]

124. "Debunker" does seem to be a good fit.

If you hadn't included the quotation marks, Debunker-Pretender would be closer to the truth, although still not entirely accurate.

[Bryan Sacks]

60. 'thoroughness of research'?

I defy you to show one bit of first-hand evidence that no plane crashed in Shanksville.

When you can't, because there is NONE, you can either apologize or go back to talking to the other incorrigibles on this forums.

[greyl]

62. Same "species", eh? I don't think so. nt

[Marksbrother]

63. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on you

I'm very aware of all of the absurd attempts to try and prove a plane crashed there, but if you feel you can do what
no one else has been able to do all these many years, I'll read it and give it respectful consideration.

[greyl]

64. Nobody is burdened with helping you face reality but you.

In the face of evidence from many quarters, you are making an extraordinary claim. The burden to support that extraordinary claim in a persuasive manner so that the rest of the world can finally see the truth that only you can see is all yours.

[Bryan Sacks]

65. You're a laugh! You have no concept of what counts of evidence, do you? n/t

[Marksbrother]

67. I didn't make an "A" in Evidence, but I did make a "B" - so I know

enough about "what counts as evidence" to know that you either don't know or else you thought you could fool people into
believing nonsense is just as probative as something that furnishes proof.

[Bryan Sacks]

69. no shortage of idiotic generalities flowing from you, I see

you'll fit in fine with the others. Discordian.

Goodbye.

[Marksbrother]

72. I'm sorry to see you abandon your burden, Mr. Sacks.

Burt it's probably better to remain silent than make yourself look any more foolish than you already have.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. I don't think your level of required proof is reasonable.

Most people are satisfied with the evidence that Flight 93 crashed right there. You are not.

Just because your level of needed proof is abnormally high doesn't mean Bryan has not met a reasonable level of proof.

[Marksbrother]

86. Can you substantiate your claim about "most people"?

"Most people are satisfied with the evidence that Flight 93 crashed right there."

I don't believe you can. Claims like that belong in the category of "most people believe Earth is flat."

[greyl]

126. You can substantiate or disprove it, if you care to.

Go ahead and ask 30 real life random people what they think.

[Bryan Sacks]

89. I will remain silent forevermore in reply to you n/t

[Kalun D]

132. SITE

-

911myths is not a truther site

No it's a biased, unknown source, OCT site, it could even be CIA disinfo for all we know

my point is that an honest reading of that site

It's pretty difficult getting an "honest reading" from a disinfo site.

[RainaldGoetz]

137. Can you come up

Hi!
Can you come up with any witness that actully saw debris he identified as plane parts on September 11 itself. Not the engine one or two days later.
Thanks!

[Pharaoh]

41. Interesting though

that nobody seems to be able to show us any pictures of wreckage at shanksville or the pentagon.

Link to pictures please!

[BeFree]

78. Good point

Show us some evidence of a plane crash. Want us to believe? Make us. Overcome the more than reasonable doubt. Otherwise they are just pissing directly into the wind, eh?

[Marksbrother]

88. Plenty of "evidence" - just none that's credible.

That's why you hear the sounds of pounding on the table from the "proofers".

[BeFree]

90. It is amazing

That such a small minority can make so much useless noise. They got nothing. Nothing but noise.

[Marksbrother]

93. "Noisers"

Think it fits better than "proofers"?

[BeFree]

94. It does

But in the interests of keeping some decorum on the forum
the best fitting moniker for them can't be seen on your monitor.

Ya know, it is interesting, here we have the greatest collection of closed minded believers on all of DU. It seems it is our duty to keep them under wraps here lest they spread?

[Ohio Joe]

5. Do you think it was blown up in mid air? - nt

[BeFree]

8. There was a jet blown up..

..in mid-air. Over the Atlantic. They found almost all of that jet down in the big hole, didn't they? Underwater even. It was proved to have blown apart.

[Ohio Joe]

9. Not what I asked

I have no idea what jet your talking about but it is not what I asked.

[BeFree]

10. What is the meanng of think?

What is your meaning of 'do you think'?

Really, no use answering questions that are not worth answering, eh? That's why I told you about that other jet... to make you think.

[Ohio Joe]

11. ahhh... I see...

You have trouble understanding even the simplest of questions. It explains a lot.

[BeFree]

12. Heh

Do I think it was blown up in mid air? I think it could have plowed into the ground. Also think that it could have been blown up in mid air. I dunno. Planes plow into the ground and planes have blown up in mid air. I don't have enough information to decide what to believe.

Now, had you asked do I believe it was blown up in mid air.....

[Ohio Joe]

14. must.... leave... wiggle... room...

Odd, makes no sense to me.

oh well, I'm off to dinner. Going to have Korean food for the first time. I'll check back later and see if your done with your game.

[BeFree]

28. My apology

I went and got all intellectual on you. Well, my kind of intellectual.

Most people think a lot of things. They hash over the possibilities. They examine things in their minds, they think about things. All kinds of things. Pro and con. Yes and no. Then they form beliefs.

So asking somebody what they think, is such an opened ended proposition that the question is kinda foolish.

If one answers that they don't think, then they are the real fools, eh?

[Ohio Joe]

32. No problem

You do not wish to actually go on record for anything, thats cool, I can see why.

[BeFree]

33. On record?

What is it you want to record? I don't get what it is your getting at. Unless you are all snark, then I get that.

[Ohio Joe]

35. It is an expression

You see, if you put down your thoughts in a post on a public board, that is sometimes referred to as going on the record.

[BeFree]

37. Oh...

I believe I went on the record. Did you miss that? Or did you forget already?

[Ohio Joe]

39. You mean post #12?

The one where you said you thought one thing then left the insinuation that you believed another? No, I did not forget it. Its just not actually taking a position. Which is fine, my mistake, I thought you had one.

[BeFree]

40. Well

Unlike some I do not pretend to have the answers, so I keep an open mind.
Think things thru, ya know, try to use my intellect.

Did you ever think the plane could be blown up in mid air?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

47. sooo...

Are you still on the fence about evolution as well? I hear the creationists are trying to get the whole thing tossed out and have us learn their beliefs as fact. You see, I've learned enough about both to come to the conclusion that I want evolution taught in science class. I was able to reach my conclusion and take a side because one side had evidence and the other did not. Oh, they have some things they call evidence but when I examine it, it makes no sense and there is nothing to back it up.

I fell pretty much the same way about the question regarding did the plane crash or get shot down. While I will not claim to know %100 positive, all the minutia of the flights last moments, the evidence I've seen leaves me no doubt that the plane did crash there. In addition, when I look at it from the other side, I have seen no evidence the plane was shot down.

Edit to add:

I forgot to answer your question.

"Did you ever think the plane could be blown up in mid air?"

Do you mean the one over Shanksville? or any plane?

Any plane - Of course.

Shanksville - My first reaction when I heard of the crash was to say to a co-worker, "I bet they shot it down". He replied "I hope so, its better then it getting to where ever it was going". I have since decided my initial reaction was not correct.

[BeFree]

49. Honestly

Yes, it is ok to think 'outside of the box'. It is when you come to believe something when the problems begin.

In order to get to a belief one should think it through - examine the pros and cons - be a critical thinker - then if honest with themselves, takes on a belief that becomes, for them, a reality.

Not everyone sees everything the same way, or from the same base, or sees the same facts. Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone has the same reality.

Being that this whole 9/11 issue has such contradictory facts and I've only been thinking about it off and on for 7 and a half years, I haven't yet formed too many beliefs.

But my reality is that I don't believe much of what Bushco has told me and therefore am very questioning of what they have told me.

[Ohio Joe]

50. ok, your going on a gut feel

What does your gut tell you about the reason they would lie? Where is the gain?

Lets say they did shoot it down. They lie about it, they run the risk of getting caught. Witnesses, perhaps photos or videos, a local finding evidence... difficult to contain, impossible to contain without the effort being known. They tell the truth, it is easily spun that they had no choice, actually would have been a great starting off point to the whole "we kept america safe" bit they use. I can hear it now, "Thats right America, on 9/11, mid-attack, as soon as we realized what they were up to, we stopped them and kept America safe ever since!". Hell, they don't even have to get rid of any of the current narrative of the passengers going for the cockpit. They have no downside to saying it was shot down and even more to use if they did.

sooo... why deny it?

[BeFree]

51. Me?

On a gut feel? Nah, there are so many possibilities that to try to make sense of any of them leaves nagging questions about all the others. There just isn't enough information that is entirely credible to decide what to believe.

That's why, foremost I believe we need a real investigation and let all the facts be publicly displayed and all the questions be publicly answered.

After that I think I can form a belief. Until then I will think about all possibilities.

[Ohio Joe]

52. and what is the evidence the plane was shot down? - nt

[BeFree]

53. Are you serious?

Do you really need me to go over all the evidence? Are you just trying to trap me into saying something so you can jump all over me? What is your point?

[Ohio Joe]

55. of course I'm serious

I have already stated once that I have seen no evidence the plane was shot down. While you are at the "how", you might want to consider explaining the "why".

[BeFree]

57. You've seen no evidence?

Or, have you seen evidence but have decided to ignore it?

Because if you have been reading here for any time at all, you have read evidence that the plane blew up in mid air. Not proof, evidence.

If you have made up your mind, that's fine. I've stated repeatedly that I haven't... I have an open mind because I don't know enough.

I'll not take on the task of leading anyone by the hand thru this maze. You are own your own.

But since you started this questioning of ME, it is only fair that you present the evidence you have that the plane crashed in Shanksville. Convince me if you believe.

Remember, none of this is about me, or you, quit trying to make it personal would be my final advice to you.

[Ohio Joe]

66. hmmmm

What I have seen here, has not been ignored. There is a difference between not viewing it as evidence and ignoring it (it goes with the whole evolution thing I was talking about before). most of what I have seen offered as evidence the plane was shot down falls there. Some of the things offered as evidence the plane was shot down, I consider evidence it crashed... who knew? There are even a few thing that might be evidence of something... but not that the plane was shot down.

Which do you think are evidence? I have no idea, you won't say. It is really the crux of the problem here. You started this with an insinuation and when called to clarify, you evaded. You state you don't know if it was shot down or not yet keep insinuating it was shot down. Asked for reasons why, you refuse. Then, you turn it around and demand I convince you. Which of coure... can't be done without knowing what you already believe. See, when you state that you can't decide after 7.5 years of studying it (on and off), one can not know how to proceed. I have not studied it for that long, I have nothing new to offer so I see no reason to walk you through what you claim to already know. I have no way of knowing what is preventing you from making up your mind, its why I asked...

"Remember, none of this is about me, or you, quit trying to make it personal would be my final advice to you."

hmmm, I see... ok bwahahahahahahaha, I admit it, I have no clue what your talking about but it is pretty funny.

[BeFree]

68. I don't have enough evidence

And after 7 years no one has shown enough evidence for me to have what one may call an informed and educated position. Therefore have not formed a belief one way or the other.

Is that clear? I can repeat it again.

It could have been shot down. It could have crashed. It may have never even been in or near Shanksville. It may all be bullshit.

And it has no funny value at all for me.

[Ohio Joe]

70. Yeah, I know, you keep saying that

I'm not sure why, I mean, I did acknowledge it in my post. Of course, I did not laugh at anything to do with this issue at hand either. Did you just read the last sentence of my post?

You know, its obvious your not going to say if you agree with your insinuation or not much less even attempt to back it up. It also appears your upset that I ask you to, so I'll drop this one. Really though, you should not be surprised when want to know more when you throw out insinuations.

[achtung_circus]

74. Please...

Presenting something that might be called evidence would be useful. Something other than the debunked speculation that has been discussed here ad nauseum.

Trap? no... but you might be taken more seriously if you were to do less hiding behind semantics and more time in actual discussion. Sniping may have its place, but it doesn't help here.

One point is that you, for whatever reason, seem unwilling or unable to commit yourself to a point of view or to express your beliefs.

[BeFree]

77. Oh great

More personal attacks and less facts. Didn't you get the memo?

Really odd that Bushco is on the loose and what do people spend their time doing? Telling BeFree what he ought to be doing.

Tells me I am on the right track. An affirmation - tho not meant as such - but an affirmation nonetheless that I am busting some balls. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. i.e., that you are bringing "more personal attacks and less facts"

A rare moment of insight, perhaps?

[achtung_circus]

84. Don't kid youself.

More of the same from BeFree. SAY something, anything with some substance. The ongoing whining gets old.

[BeFree]

91. Thanks for your response

All lines are busy. Please hold. We will get back to you as soon as possible.
Your call is very important to us, but we are doing something much more important than listening too and responding to your drivel.

Have a nice day. We are. Good bye. Go fly a kite?

[achtung_circus]

95. Issue avoidance much? nt

[BeFree]

96. Sorry.

All lines are busy. Please wait.

But while you are waiting can you dig up a picture of the tail section from 93? You'd be a hero if you could do that. We'll wait. We promise not to ignore it or say that it isn't evidence. We will not avoid it, we promise.

Don't hang up!!

[achtung_circus]

97. Exactly. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. Lambert is hallucinating

[hack89]

19. Of course he is nt

[defendandprotect]

22. Well, they've had 8 years to plant whatever they want there --- they weren't as successful with WMD

though info is that they made at least two attempts to plant WMD in Iraq!

[Ohio Joe]

34. huh?

I don't get it. Well, I mean ok, I get that you think the pieces of the plane there are "planted" but not only that... they were not all "planted" at the same time? They have what... been putting parts there slowly over the last eight years? One big dump, sometime after 9/11? Several medium dumps? And... somehow this guy does not notice? or is he in on it as well?

[SDuderstadt]

36. With all due respect, OJ...

You're trying to reason with D&P who, among other things, claims JFK was actually shot fatally by - no kidding - the Secret Service Agent driving the Presidential limousine. Trust me, you're on a fool's errand by even trying to engage her.

[Ohio Joe]

38. Perhaps...

I have noticed it can be difficult to get actual answers sometimes here. I often don't care much when it is bush, cheney, et al being called criminal or evil or stupid... I pretty much agree. I find it distasteful when it is turned into an insinuation on some poor guy that had bad luck and is having even more.

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. The first thing you need to realize is that the poster you are responding to is a "True Believer"

His stated opinion is that "Bushco was asleep at the wheel" on 9-11 and that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were simply "overreactions" by the Bush Misadministration.

There's no sense in even engaging someone with a mindset like that. The best course of action is to just read their posts and smack down some of the goofy bullshit that they post...

[defendandprotect]

82. A little late on this reply . . . but, as I recall it . . .

perhaps a week or maybe more after the "crash" they found body parts near a cabin

and/or in the cabin behind the property.

And that looked like a late plant --

So . . . now simply more?

[mhatrw]

99. Solid metallic debris was scattered for miles and miles, unlike in any other plane crash in history.

Is that your point?

[hack89]

100. From the story it appears that he was close to the impact point

and you really think that a high speed impact and explosion wouldn't spread light pieces of debris?

Considering that eyewitnesses saw the plane at low altitude prior to impact, I think is a good assumption that the plane was intact when it hit and the subsequent impact spread debris.

[BeFree]

101. Eh?

"..eyewitnesses saw the plane at low altitude prior to impact.."

But I read here much earlier that 93 came down at a 30 to 40 degree angle.
See, all this contradictory evidence makes any conclusion premature.

ETA: Found the link..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=241346&mesg_id=241353

Bolo says:
In order to be airborne until 10:06, Flight 93 would have to have recovered from a staggering dive at 10:02:15 in which it lost 7000 feet in 40 seconds, upside down, flying at a 40 degree angle to the ground

Second edit: Right here on this thread, Bryan Sacks claims:
"..If anyone suggested that no plane crashed there to Ernie Stull or Wallace Miller or Barry Hoover or anyone else nearby who saw and heard the plane flying overhead at a low altitude just before impact, I doubt they would take anything else that person said seriously."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250035&mesg_id=250627

[hack89]

102. How is it contradictory?

every account shows an intact plane prior to impact. I didn't mean to say it was flying low and level.

[BeFree]

103. You didn't

But the other two do contradict. One from eyewitnesses and the other from FDR.

Which one is the favorite fit to your theory?

[hack89]

105. "a 40 degree angle" and "flying overhead" don't contradict either

a plane is still going to have significant horizontal movement at 40 degree nose down flight path. If it was coming straight down you might have a point.

[BeFree]

107. Well

If you say so.... But I am in a landing path and see many planes every day.
Some at 10,000 feet some at 1,000. There is a huge difference between flying overhead and plunging at a 40 degree angle.

A plane at a relatively flat angle would spread debris along a straight path, but a plane plunging would crater and be contained.

However, if there were an explosion then debris might spread.... but an explosion on the ground would create a much bigger cloud than what the picture that poor lady took. And an explosion would be an anomaly.

Surely you can see how a critical thinker would have a hard time believing any one thing, what with all the different stories, eyewitnesses, and Bushco involved.

Still.... show me a pic of the tail, and maybe I can believe.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Show me a picture of the shootdown. n/t

[hack89]

109. Why would an explosion be an anomaly?

jet fuel doesn't explode?

Why would the tail be intact?

Are you a no-planer or a shoot down advocate?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marksbrother]

112. Your conclusion makes far more sense. After all these years,

if the Official story could be substantiated with credible facts, logical arguments, and believable witness accounts,
the only questions about the events would be minor ones. Instead, not even the most basic facts of the Official version
have been proven.

The truth has emerged, slowly, by degrees, despite a years-long, ongoing campaign to suppress it.

[BeFree]

113. Thanks

It would be far easier to just believe what we are told and go on thinking everything is fine. "Ignorance is bliss".

But if you stop and think about all of it one can't help but wonder: WTF?

Then, as in any examination of evidence, one must consider the source. When the majority of the source is from Bushco it simply makes one question things even more.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. The majority of the source is not from "Bushco."

And a lot of what we do get from them came from someone else first.

[Marksbrother]

115. Lots of people standing around. Where's that big plane?

Sooner or later, you're going to have to come up with some credible evidence if you want to be taken seriously...as something
other than an unusually prolific poster of "stuff".

[BeFree]

116. Bunch of 'tails' there

Unfortunately no tail of an airplane. But at least that was a 'tail' pic, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Got a picture of the shootdown yet? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

118. I don't care if I am ever taken seriously by you.

Those people picked up the pieces of that big plane, as much as they could.

[Marksbrother]

121. The question is: who put those pieces there?

"Those people picked up the pieces of that big plane, as much as they could."

[SDuderstadt]

123. I would say the pieces of the plane were put there by...

the hijackers who plunged the plane into the ground at an extremely high rate of speed. If you have any evidence that the plane and body parts were somehow "planted there", please produce it.

[Marksbrother]

125. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

You have a long way to go before you can credibly make that claim. Maybe one day you'll attempt the journey and realize that
you can't get there from where you are.

[hack89]

127. My irony meter just exploded. nt

[mhatrw]

129. Then did what with these pieces, pray tell?

[Bolo Boffin]

106. 10,000 feet is a low altitude for a passenger jet

Please stop playing stupid games.

[mhatrw]

128. Name another plane crash in history which hit the ground fully intact in which solid metal debris

was collected more than 1.5 miles aways from the impact site.

[BeFree]

130. In todays news

We have the wreck of the Air France jet. It went down over the Atlantic, spreading debris for miles and miles. The experts are saying that if that is indeed the case, then the plane broke up in the air.

May the people on board that jet rest in peace. :(

[Bolo Boffin]

131. Name another plane crash in history where local responders were on site within five minutes

and the site had been faked.

[Kalun D]

133. Why 1400 acres?

"Name another plane crash in history where local responders were on site within five minutes and the site had been faked."

Who said it was faked? Just that it didn't happen as described, an intact crash.

It was obviously a shootdown from the size of the debris field.

Why else would you need 2,200 acres for a memorial?

"The amount of land needed for the memorial is just over 2,200 acres, about 1,400 of which is near the crash site"

[mhatrw]

134. So you can't name a single other plane crash in aviation history that hit the ground fully intact

in which solid metal debris was ballistically ejected more than 1.5 miles away from the impact site.

What a surprise.

[Bolo Boffin]

135. So you can't name a single other plane crash in aviation history in which local responders arrived

in under five minutes and yet was faked.

What a surprise.

[mhatrw]

136. OK, I'll bite. Which local responders did you get to pose for 911myths? n/t