is there any Shanksville evidence that couldn't have been planted/staged?

[travis80]

curious what Shanksville evidence the skeptics think couldn't have been planted or staged to make it look like Flight 93, a Boeing 757, crashed there.

[greyl]

1. I notice you used the word evidence correctly for once.

True, there is overwhelming evidence of that crash.

[travis80]

2. if you staged an incident good enough, would there not be "evidence"

of what you're trying to make others believe happened?

example: i want to stage a plane crash in a field. i plant plane debris. i scorch the place. i say we found this and we found that. it's reported in the media. would there not be "evidence" that a plane crashed as far as everyone else thinks?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[zappaman]

4. no

all the evidence was planted/staged.
no doubt about it.
it really was brilliant how BUSHCO pulled this off, wasn't it?

[travis80]

5. glad you think the scene was staged too. ;) nt

[Ohio Joe]

6. How many people do you think it took to stage it?

How long did it take?

[travis80]

7. don't know. don't know. now about the OP? nt

[Ohio Joe]

10. Anything can be staged

But if you are going to think along the lines of it being staged does it not then occur to you, how was it done? Simply stating you believe it and not thinking it through any further will not convince anyone. Let me know when you choose to look into your belief and tell me how that turns out.

[travis80]

12. it would have been done by the perps. geez, that was a no-brainer. nt

[zappaman]

13. you avoided the question...again

you were asked "how was it done?".

[travis80]

15. carefully and discreetly. geez, another no-brainer. nt

[zappaman]

16. "a no-brainer"

now, you're on to something!
:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

14. How many of them?

or did bush and cheney go out there and do it themselves?

[travis80]

17. yes, Bush & Cheney went out and did it themselves. [roll eyes] nt

[zappaman]

18. are you saying they didn't?

so who did?
Condi?
Santa Claus?
You must know who or you wouldn't bother posting something so silly, right?
You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?

[travis80]

20. yes, Condi and Santa Claus did. [roll eyes] nt

[Ohio Joe]

19. Not even a guess?

Cool, I can understand not wanting to look at that aspect of it.

[travis80]

21. more than 1, less than a million. nt

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

23. No, really, I understand why you don't want to think about this

You don't have to keep giving me non-answers. When trying to convince people of no-planes non-sense it is best to completely avoid thinking about the logical questions that must be answered. Again, good luck with it.

[travis80]

25. k, thanks! nt

[zappaman]

26. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?

[Ohio Joe]

27. No problem

I enjoy pointing out the gaping holes in no-planer "theories" and then watching them avoid them.

[travis80]

28. appreciate that! and thanks for admitting all the Shanks evidence could've been staged

that help our no-planer theory!

[zappaman]

29. cuz

your no-planer theory needs all the help it can get!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

64. In what way?

That something could be done does not make it so. Evidence is still needed. Do you believe anything based only on the idea that it could happen?

[travis80]

66. if ANY piece of evidence was demonstrated it couldn't have been planted/staged

then that would debunk the no plane theory.

since you agree all evidence COULD HAVE been planted/stage, the no plane theory is still a possibility.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Could you please translate your post into...

coherent English, please?

[travis80]

71. as you make a grammatical error too! nt

[SDuderstadt]

73. I think your incoherence trumped...

my typo, dude.

[Ohio Joe]

74. Possible?

Not until you care to address the things that make it not possible. How many were involved? When you decide to answer this, we can go from there.

[travis80]

77. a dozen. nt

[Ohio Joe]

78. Elaborate

Who was needed to do what?

[travis80]

80. some were needed to plant/stage stuff. some where needed for lookouts. no brainer. nt

[Ohio Joe]

83. OK

How long did it take them to plant the stuff? What happened to the plane?

[travis80]

85. you'd have to ask them both of those questions. i wasn't there. nt

[Ohio Joe]

87. So you have no guess?

The plane just... disappeared... no one was needed to take care of that? Not a single airport person noticed or cared? Not interested in how they might have planted all that evidence without anyone noticing? None of this matters to you when you are going to make such a grand claim without a single shred of evidence to support it? How interesting.

[travis80]

89. what kind of guesses would satisfy you? nt

[zappaman]

94. oh, so you don't have evidence?

just guesses!!!!
:rofl:

[Larry L. Burks]

279. You are my hero. You have got it right.

To prove if the crash was staged or real. If they planted evidence to stage the crash.

You don’t go looking for the evidence. Because the only evidence that they will let you look at is the evidence that states that the crash is real.

They are cherry picking their evidence. A way of lying.

You don’t go looking for evidence.

You go looking for the absents of evidence.

The evidence that would have to be there in order for the crash to have been a real event.

Why is it that no one is looking for the missing evidence? That has to be there.

Like the history of the aircraft, the people involved. The tax forms the schools and about a k-zillion other thing that would also have to be real to back up their official story.

It’s not there. No where to be found. It’s the kind of evidence they can’t fake using fake picture or sound clips.

They kept it simple and short. They planed it well. They covered all of the basses. But they left out one big piece of the puzzle. The absents of evidence.

Just how dumb can they be?

There fore the crash can not be real. No mater how much other evidence they produce in the staged event.

In these pages of history lays your truth, and proof.

[SDuderstadt]

280. "they covered all the basses (sic)"

What about the tenors, Larry? What about the tenors?

[Ohio Joe]

95. Any...

That would get you to look at just how many people would have to be involved in a no-planes scenario as well as the time that would be required to set it up. Do these things not matter to you or are you content to believe just.... because.

[travis80]

115. how many people do you think would had to be part of the Shanksville planting? nt

[Ohio Joe]

116. and keep it quiet?

Could not be done. The number of people required to do it would be huge.... thousands at least. The entire town, loads of people at the airport, lots of military, other govt employees... Simply far too many to keep it secret. While it could be done, it could not be done and kept secret.

[travis80]

117. you make it sound like the Shanks incident happened in a major city!

it happened in a rural town. practically in the middle of no where. the police and FBI had that place locked down fast.

[Ohio Joe]

118. So all the police and FBI were in on it as well?

The number just keeps growing. How do they keep them all quiet?

[travis80]

119. who said all of them? a witness did say they were around the corner when the explosion hit. nt

[Ohio Joe]

120. Then why mention them?

Why would the police and FBI not be at the scene quickly? Who is this witness you bring up now and why bring him up?

[travis80]

124. um, cause you brought it up in your post #118. nt

[Ohio Joe]

126. Yes, because you brought them up in 117

Again, what is your point in them being there if you do not think they are in on it?

[travis80]

just saying i don't think all police or even all FBI were in on it who were there.

wouldn't be surprised if no police were in it it. if there was police involved, can't see it be more then just a few.

[Ohio Joe]

130. So some of the police were involved

and the FBI? Were they in on it? What about the locals? Lots of them were on the scene right away, plus they had to be around while everything was being planted. Were they in on it or are they all just very stupid?

[travis80]

131. maybe some police. definitely FBI. no locals far as i can tell. nt

[Ohio Joe]

136. Then the locals are just stupid?

They never noticed all the debris being brought in? Even with a large crew it would have taken many days to set everything up... No one noticed? Even though they were there before the FBI, they did not notice personal effects and body parts being planted? You must have very low regard for these people.

[travis80]

137. how much debris had to have been brought in before the alleged crash? and...

and when did they start cleaning the area up with help of the locals?

[zappaman]

139. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have some EVIDENCE for these goofy ideas of yours, yes?
Take your time.
I can't wait to see it!

[Ohio Joe]

143. Lots

Pieces of debris were all over the area, many of them very small. The locals were there and helping from the start, about 1500 people worked on the site. Thats a lot of people just working at the site, add in family and friends... yikes.

[travis80]

144. i don't see a lot. when did they start the cleanup? nt

[Ohio Joe]

145. Well, they recovered around 95% of the plane

Perhaps you need to look harder. Clean-up... pretty much right away though at first it was body part recovery. By the 13th they found the black box.

[travis80]

150. continue at #149. nt

[zappaman]

138. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have some EVIDENCE for these silly theories of yours, right?
Can't wait to see it!

[SDuderstadt]

141. Z-man...

It's well past time to boycott Travis' "no-planes" silliness and game-playing.

[zappaman]

142. dude

still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene WASN'T staged.

[Larry L. Burks]

283. Evidence of plane crashes What Planes would that be?

What on earth have you poor people ever seen that would lead you into believing that there was plane crashes on 9/11?

The evidence is over whelming. Clear and convincing. Beyond a showdown of a doubt. Irrefutable.

There were no planes in any of the events that took place on 9/11.

All it would take is one piece of evidence to disprove the official story of 9/11.

If there is just one piece of evidence, that there were no planes on any of the events on 9/11.

The official story of 9/11 goes down in flames.

These are the rules that men play by. They are fair and just. Right?

If this is true. And it is.

There is a mountain of evidence that there were no plane on 9/11.

If there were no planes on 9/11

The official story goes down in flames.

Why ? Oh why are you talking a bout the evidence of airplane crashes. If there is evidence of any airplanes to crash.

Is any of this making sense?

With out airplanes the official story has so many holes in it that it looks like chicken wire with big gaping hole blown out of it.

Didn’t any of you track this story for the past eight years.

You didn’t track the history of the devilment of these DEW.

You didn’t track the history of why we know there were no planes on 9/11.

How Dr. Morgan Reynold went through hundreds of hours on radio interview of experts that work with in the field of aviation. That point out the fine details of how they know why the plane story is a fake. People that work with in the FAA. They told us that the planes have no Master Records. People that work for Boeing. The people that build these airplanes. The pictures of the airplane part were from the wrong aircraft. The black box recorder was from the wrong aircraft. The people in the military and in the civilian field of radar. That was working on the radar. State that the planes didn’t show up on radar. ????
The satellite pictures. Where are the air planes at. There are not any. The transponders. There wasn’t any. The Pre-trip Flight Plan. There’s not any.

www.nomoregames.net

You can lesion to the Morgan Reynold’s tapes of the interviews at.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=67



On the other hand. If you go to Dr. Judy Woods web page you can see how these DEW are fixed to Military Aircraft.

http://www.drjudywood.com/


And if you live out west like I do. You can see the testing this DEW. It makes a black line in front of the aircraft.

Like here in the pictures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyUTRoYsWpo&feature=related

I really like this one. The cover up Kicked off the net. To hot to handle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZ5-nO0V4g&feature=related

No such thing as a black laser. It is black because it is the absents of light.

A worm hole.

When you have a room filed with dust. You can see it.

When ever the sky is cloudy. You can see the black tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WigK1YBmDc4&feature=related

Best yet Black beam in front of jet. Jet flies between you and the sun. It’s not a shadow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXm9bEdapc&feature=related


Now I have seen this black beam cut holes in clouds from horizon to horizon.. Just like Moses parted the sea. Like seen here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcZs6BYFRA&feature=related



They Say that it can punch hole in sky scrapers just as easily. Why it can punch holes in solid bed rock just like it did on 9/11 that is a bid as a hour and two stories deep.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html

Now here is the kicker.

We know that they have mounted there DEW on the noises of Aircraft. WE know what they can do. We know what evidence to look for. And we are fin ding what we are looking for all over 9/11 Crime Scene.

One hour after they told us that all aircraft was on the ground. Every body had their eyes glued on the clear blue skies.

They seen one of these military aircraft. And they took pictures of it.

Photographic evidence that puts one of these DEW at the Crime Scene on 9/11.

The rest is history. Need I say more.

[zappaman]

284. "Is any of this making sense?"

Um....no.

[SDuderstadt]

285. "Beyond a showdown (sic) of a doubt"

Larry, don't ever change, dude.

[terrafirma]

286. You are quickly rising in the ranks...

... of my favorite posters here. Giving even Spooked a run for the #1 spot. And he's GOOD.

Beyond the showdown of a doubt.

[SDuderstadt]

134. O.J.

I love you, man, but it's well pat time to boycott Travis' "no-planes" silliness and game-playing.

[Ohio Joe]

140. heh, yeah it probably is

but come on, you have to admit, this is classic shit here, pure gold :rofl:

[zappaman]

146. you don't need people to plant the evidence

when you can use Monkey Ninjas.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Why don't you simply admit that...

you can't/won't support one of the basic premises of your OP, dude?

[travis80]

90. one of the premises is no plane crashed .... and i support that. nt

[SDuderstadt]

93. Then you should be able to...

support your silly premise with some reasonable theories on how it was done, dude.

After that, you can take a stab at refuting the mountains of evidence that contradict your goofy bullshit.

[zappaman]

107. "one of the premises is no plane crashed .... and i support that"

you support it?
do you base that support on evidence or guesses?

[zappaman]

8. it was easy to do

travis will post you some links that will show you how it was done.

[travis80]

9. it was easy. i don't see any evidence that couldn't have been planted or staged.

sure would explain why you only see mostly small debris and not much of it!

[zappaman]

11. is that enough proof for you?

that it "could've been staged" according to you?
man, I hope you're not a lawyer.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. As few as 2...

The person operating/controlling the drone/remote controlled plane and the fighter pilot who shot the plane down.

How long did it take? A couple of hours to load and launch the plane. I don't find this scenario very feasible though. How would they have gotten the personal effects of some of the passengers on the drone? I guess they could have had the passengers switch planes before they took off, after their luggage was loaded, and they were told their luggage would be sent on once the other plane was fixed, but it would make more sense just to take over the auto-pilot system by remote control and crash the plane into the ground.

[zappaman]

31. yeah

maybe they drew blood from all the passengers so the DNA would match.
maybe they got took all their personal effects and scattered them around.
maybe all that shit would be real simple to do...especially for 2 motivated fellas!
:rofl:
lots of maybes that add up to jack shit.
c'mon, everyone can speculate all they want, but there is NOTHING to back up "remote control", "no plane" or any of the other cockamamie fantasies out there.
why is it so hard to accept that some asshole terrorists did a heinous thing?
is it because of Bush hatred?
I hated (and still hate) that dick too, but that doesn't mean I blame him for every shitty thing that happens.
however, I am convinced that Cheney is the asshole who let his dog take a dump on my driveway...

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. You still haven't worked on your lack of comprehension, I see

What part of "I don't find this scenario very feasible though" was a foreign language to you? Please tell me, and tell me what your native language is and maybe I can find an online translator service and translate it so you can comprehend it.

Someone asked how many people it would have taken to stage it, and how long. I gave an answer. You don't like it? Tough fuckin' shit, pal. Are you ever going to post anything remotely intelligent, or relevant, on this site, or is nuisance/distraction still the favored act of one-trick ponies?

[zappaman]

42. I was agreeing with you.

Sorry if you missed it.
You can now untwist your panties.

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. my apologies...

I'm so used to your snark that it did, in fact, fly right over me... 'scuze me while I go untwist my panties

:hi:

[zappaman]

91. my bad

for not being clearer.
:hi:

[deconstruct911]

32. That's the scenario in the lone gunmen pilot episode

But there are some individuals on the flights that make me wonder if they were really taken out on 9 11.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. I've never seen that, I'm guessing it's a tv show?

I have always been of the mind that, *if it was* an inside job, they either switched the planes, or took them over via remote control.

[deconstruct911]

35. Worth a watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384CCzUKHtA

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. Thanks for the link, that was interesting, to say the least...

Peace,

Ghost

[deconstruct911]

36. Flight 11+175

both took off from Boston (for that matter the same airport), both crashed into the twin towers, both were switched at Stewart AFB?

The two hijacked jets that demolished the World Trade Center nearly crashed into each other while heading to their target, according to a Federal Aviation Administration employee at a regional control center."The two aircraft got too close to each other down by Stewart" International Airport in New Windsor, N.Y., about 55 miles north of New York City, the employee told The Telegraph of Nashua. It wasn't clear how close they got after they left Boston 15 minutes apart Tuesday morning, both headed for Los Angeles. Hijackers gained control of American Airlines Flight 11 around Gardner, Mass., said the employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Gardner is about 45 miles northwest of Boston.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/investigate-collide.htm

[deconstruct911]

37. Interesting about Stewart:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675#96292

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Oh man, DrDebug is one of the best there is...

I have followed his work since I first found this site, even when I was still lurking before I joined...

[deconstruct911]

45. For sure

I haven't learned more from someone I've never met. DrDebug's work is appreciated in forums all over the place.

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. Thanks for that link, too... I found this interesting:

"Through the radio connection, the controller heard someone instruct, "'Nobody do anything stupid"' and no one would get hurt, the employee said. The controller heard no more conversations, The Telegraph reported."

and this:

"The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh. The flight took off from Newark Airport for San Francisco, and authorities say the hijackers were headed for another target in Washington, D.C."

I don't think we will ever fully know what really happened that day, but I would be willing to bet the farm that it's not what we are being told.

BTW, if you ever want to have fun and watch a debunker spin until he falls down dizzy, just show them this picture:



then ask them which plane flew over Jim Stop while he was fishing on Indian Lake, and ask them which plane flew over the Indian Lake community, dropping parts and debris on homes and in yards, that caused residents there to call 9-1-1 and report it. It's truly hilarious to watch them spin themselves into the ground because, as you can see, the official flight path of 93 doesn't go anywhere near Indian Lake :-)


Peace,

Ghost

[zappaman]

43. "if you ever want to have fun and watch a debunker spin until he falls down dizzy"

What's a "debunker"?

[Ghost in the Machine]

101. Exactly!

What is a debunker?

:evilgrin:

[zappaman]

103. I honestly don't know

so I was hoping you would clarify...

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. ..............

"A debunker is an individual who discredits and contradicts claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.<1> The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or pseudoscientific research."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker

[deconstruct911]

44. For me it's

the fact the United put options seemingly trace back to Deutsche Bank which indicates a possible "conceivable tie" to the central intelligence agency. Of course we will never know more about that since the records of the trades have been scraped without providing info on the brokerage firms.

Take it easy

[travis80]

46. guys, please keep the thread on-topic. thanks. nt

[SDuderstadt]

47. What does it matter since...

you're just playing games, anyway?

[deconstruct911]

48. Sorry about that

will do.

[travis80]

49. thanks and no problem.

if any truthers out there think some of the Shanksville evidence couldn't be staged/planted, feel free to state which ones you think. i know some truthers still think there was a shoot down.

[zappaman]

50. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

there must be some evidence you have to back up your silly claims, no?
just games?

[deconstruct911]

51. It's an OP with a simple question

It only becomes a game when you try to make it one.

[travis80]

52. +1 n/t

[SDuderstadt]

53. In other words...

the OP will not defend the premise of his own OP.

Hysterical.

[deconstruct911]

54. The OP doesn't claim proof of anything

It's a good starting question from someone looking to progress their research as far as I can see. Not exactly something I find all that hysterical.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Oh, bullshit...

please explain how most, or even any, of the debris at Shanksville could have been "staged" , without being seen or heard by someone, especially since a good portion of it was found underground.

It's beyond stupid to pretend the OP does not advance a premise. Talk about game-playing.

[deconstruct911]

57. Why not just crash something into the ground

and put the smaller evidence like passports etc in after to avoid what you mentioned? And of course more of the game playing accusations. What game? No one said the ability to stage something is proof that's the case, hence why I perceive the OP as a simple question and not a game.

[SDuderstadt]

58. 4 planes crashed on 9/11...

not just one. What would be the point of "staging" one plane crash?

Why is it so hard for "truthers" to accept the overwhelming evidence that we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11? This is fast approaching the level of kabuki theater.

[deconstruct911]

60. Again I don't want to get off topic

but probably to prevent destruction at the White House? The attack was supposed to look symbolic to the hijackers therefore it made sense to throw in the economic, military, and political headquarters.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Then the OP should present some sort of...

argument as to HOW the crash site could have been staged.

[travis80]

65. feel free to start your own thread about that. nt

[SDuderstadt]

67. Nope...

it's perfectly germane to the OP. I'll stay right here, thanks.

[travis80]

68. then stop bitching. nt

[SDuderstadt]

70. You're funny, dude...

maybe you should join a forum where you can dictate what posters can say.

Again, how could most or, even a lot, of the debris been "planted" without someone seeing or hearing it?

[travis80]

72. already answered that. post #15. nt

[SDuderstadt]

76. How would the "perps" have done it...

"carefully and discreetly", dude?

Your non-answer is just more game-playing.

[travis80]

63. "a good portion of it was found underground" - source? nt

[travis80]

75. SDuderstadt, source for your claim? nt

[travis80]

79. bump. nt

[SDuderstadt]

81. Pictures from the recovery operation...

dude.

Funny how you're demanding a source from me, after you repeatedly rebuffed requests for sources for your claim you had confirmed that Spooked's "official story" checked out.

[travis80]

84. can you please post these pics that show a "good portion" of the plane had buried?

don't think i ever saw any of those.

as to your second part, i'm afraid you have your facts mixed up. spooked and i many times asked which parts of his version you skeptics wanted sources for. spooked did in fact post a few links to the most requested parts.

if there are any other parts you want sources for, please list the specific ones in that other thread, and we would be happy to produce them for you.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Which part of the pics do you want...

"sources" for, dude? See how two can play that game?

Your ignorance of the basic facts of that day isn't our problem, dude.

[travis80]

92. the parts that proves your claim that a "good portion" was buried. nt

[SDuderstadt]

96. So, you're some sort of "expert"...

claiming "no plane" crashed at Shanksvilleville, but you didn't bother to seek evidence that contradicts your claim??

Bonus points if you can define "good portion".

[travis80]

97. can't produce the photos that prove your claim, can you?

"Bonus points if you can define "good portion"."

i was just going to YOU to define your claim of "good portion"!!!!!! what joy.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Just as soon as you...

start answering our questions, dude.

Turnabout's a bitch, huh...

[travis80]

99. look who's game-playing now! which questions have i avoided? nt

[SDuderstadt]

104. You were asked repeatedly how...

the perps could have "planted" the debris at Shanksville without being seen or heard. Your "answer" was "carefully and discreetly", which answers nothing.

Maybe you should post your nonsense in some sort of gaming forum. It would make far more sense there, dude.

[travis80]

112. can't answer if i wasn't there. got those photos yet? nt

[deconstruct911]

108. I think he would be referring to

Bill Crowley's statement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeQ-GDXMuHk&feature=grec_index

Edit to say: Around 9 mins in

[SDuderstadt]

109. You ought to watch this film clip...

Travis, then try to tell us there was no plane that crashed at Shanksville, because this puts the lie to your silliness.

Thanks, deconstruct.

[travis80]

110. watched it. where's the crushing evidence a plane crashed?

i saw more unburned white paper than what could be considered plane debris!!!

[SDuderstadt]

113. Dude...this is pointless

No matter what evidence you're confronted with, you blithely it ignore and pile on more silliness.

In light of that, perhaps it's time to declare a "travis boycott", because of your "no-planes" bullshit. No one takes you seriously anyhow, dude.

[travis80]

114. ok, thanks for playing. ba-bye now. nt

[travis80]

111. phone call from plane said an explosion on board, then white smoke. hmm. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. If someone was controlling it by remote, why shoot it down and risk having

a missile or missile fragments or cannon shells found amongst the wreckage? Why not just FLY it into the ground and make it look EXACTLY as you wanted the public to believe?

Fail... and here's why. You said "as few as 2". That assumes ONLY ONE PERSON was needed to take care of ALL the details of getting the plane into the air in the first place.

Care to try again?

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. A shootdown could have been necessary if something went wrong with the plane's controls

In this case, we know the plane was losing parts as it flew along. Unless you were willing to sacrifice a few men, who would be opening cabin and/or cargo doors to physically toss debris out, you would need to rig small explosives to blow these doors open so debris could fall out or get blown out by the wind.

Fail?? I think the failure is yours in this case. The question was "How many people do you think it took to stage it?" The ground crew wouldn't have to 'be in on it', as it were, so they wouldn't actually be a part of 'staging' it. Would you care to try again?

[Ohio Joe]

61. Granted, you do not find it feasible but that would still be way more then two

I would like to say up front that I find the idea of a shoot down (of a drone or the actual flight) to be almost impossible. bush and cheney would have loved to have shot the flight down and would have used it to show how tough they are, no way they would it have been kept secret, it would have been shouted non stop, all the time.

My dis-belief of that aside, the scenario does not hold up to being just two people. Not even if you are counting it as only two people in the know of what was about to occur. A single person does not simply control a drone without others knowing what s/he is doing, a flight is not diverted (and what was done with the flight?) without anyone knowing, a pilot does not shoot down a drone without others knowing. None of these things work that way.

If the case was that the passengers were switched to another plane, would not at least one of them have contacted a family/friend that they were now on another flight? None of them did? They could not have been taken at gun point... not in an airport... not without anyone seeing. I used to fly all the time back in the mid to late 90's and had flights changed many times, the first thing you see is most of the people contacting friends/family to let them know. It is the natural thing to do.

[Ghost in the Machine]

100. I can somewhat agree with you about bush/cheney using a shootdown to show toughness

However, *if* it was shot down, then they hear the details of a passenger revolt right afterwards, they wouldn't want to admit they shot it down, would they?

As for operating a drone, there could have been several that day. Do we know if any live-fire exercises were planned for the war games exercises? Of course, if there were, these would have been scheduled to happen out over the ocean, right? If you are busy controlling one drone, I don't think you have time to know, or worry, about where someone else is operating theirs. "(and what was done with the flight?)" it was sent out over the ocean and shot down in one of the live-fire exercises?

There are many scenarios to look at, since this thread is basically about speculation anyways.

[zappaman]

102. I agree with you again on one point.

I think that administration was even more concerned with covering their ass than being tough on just about every issue.
If they even had an inkling that the passengers had rushed the cockpit, they would cover their ass quickly.
And for the record, I do believe the plane that blew up off of NY during the Clinton admin was accidentally hit by a missile from a navy exercise.

Having said that, I ain't buying the drone theory...

[Ohio Joe]

106. I don't know...

I think if it was shot down, the revolt would still have played into it. If nothing else, bush had good enough writers and was good enough at repeating things to have used it to his advantage and I really believe they would have preferred that they could have told the story they shot it down. Just my belief, not a real important point as to if it was shot down. But if it was... Why make it so complex as to have a drone take the real planes place and put the real plane out to sea? Now you need two remote kills... plus getting items onto the drone over the area and body parts. Far to complex to pull offwithout a large number of people knowing, IMHO.

Now... A single drone to shoot down the actual plane... Could be done much easier and with fewer people knowing but then we are not talking about "planting evidence" but having the real thing there. Many risks involved for discovery... I don't believe it could be pulled off without discovery.

I think the heroic tale of the passengers is not completely true. I do think it very probable that they realized what was happening and did in fact try to get into the cockpit and that the plane was crashed to prevent them from re-taking the plane. I do agree that since no one that got on that flight is alive, the exact events will never be known... they can not be known.

[zappaman]

24. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?

[LARED]

41. Is there any evidence that no planers are not borderline

delusional.

I'm curious to know if there exists any evidence that people who believe no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks have the mental capacity to understand just how idiotic no plane theories are.

[Raphael Weber]

121. I don't understand this thread!

The question in the OP seems clear and simple to me. So far there have been no less than 120 replies but none so far has actually even tried to answer the question.
Nobody writes something lioke "the morning of 911 there was this, this and this found at the crash site which clearly prove that Flight 93 crashed there".
Instead there are so many discussion if the crash site could have been prepared or not. But this is a secondary to the question of the OP.
Maybe the question should be rephrased:
What has been found the morning of 911 that proves that Flight 93 has crashed there?

If memory serves all the stuff that has been found and belong to Flight 93 has not been found on this day but only one or two days later I believe.
If this is correct the OP (if anybody around here actually is interested in a real discussion meaning the exchange of facts and opinions) should be answered that way.
Do I believe that if nothing has been found at the crash site that morning that proves FLight 93 crashed there it can be concluded that the plane actually didn't crash there?
No, not at all. But the absence of anything identifable (if my recollection is correct) certainly raises eyebrows for understandable reasons.

But before jumping to any further discussions of whether the questin is intelligent, the crash site never could have been faked etc. I really think it would be helpful to try - based on facts - the OP.
Well, at least my opinion as a lurker and newbie here.
Thanks.

[deconstruct911]

122. Well you're probably right

Welcome to DU.

[Ohio Joe]

123. That is incorrect

I have clearly stated that anything can be faked.

Now... onto the next logical step, how would they fake it? How many people did it take to plant the evidence? The OP does not wish to look at this and simply feels that if it could be done, it was done. This to me makes zero sense. So, I will ask you, How many?

[travis80]

127. asking how many were in on planting/staging Shanks evidence is impossible to answer

unless the person you are asking was in on it.

[zappaman]

128. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?

[Ohio Joe]

132. As I said the the other poster, you are just going on faith

No-planers seem to do that, I do not understand it. There is zero evidence it was staged. You have no idea and no desire to think about what would be involved in staging it. You also have no interest in think about just how many people would have to be involved in staging it and yet... just because it could be done you believe it was. Personally, I prefer my thinking to be reality based, faith just does not cut it for me.

[Raphael Weber]

177. And off we go

Why is it incorrect?
I've stated that nobody (120 posts) did even try to answer the OP (though I stress the fact that I'm far from sure that anything can be concluded out of the possible fact that nothing was found the morning of 911 that was identifiable).
You and all the following posts (more than 180) only disucss how and if etc the crash site could have been faked.
Why does nobody actually want to answer the OP?
Everybody here (on both sides by the way) seems to prefer to discuss the way they please. This never can lead to any fruitful discussion. If not even one poster is willing to answer the OP.
If nobody wishes an answer besides the original poster I have to say
I do.

[travis80]

125. most of the skeptics are afraid to answer it.

they don't want to speak the truth about anything that would give ammunition to us truthers.

[zappaman]

129. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?

[CJvR]

179. It really is the creationist argument...

...repackaged.

You cant prove God don't exist, therefore God exist and I win.
You cant prove the crash couldn't have been faked, therefore it was and I win.

Good science will know better than making statements about the impossible, bad science will take advantage of that.

Is there any evidence that could not be faked? Probably not, given a few thousand hired experts and unlimited time and budgets.

[travis80]

133. for skeptics wanting to know how they planted this, or staged that

why don't you post which piece of evidence you wonder how did they plant/stage it and i'll give my best speculation on how they did.

[zappaman]

135. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have SOME evidence for your silly position, right?
Guesses mean nothing.
Ready and waiting for your evidence!

[Ohio Joe]

147. ok

First, how did they get around 95% of the plane there?

Next we can go on to how they got the people that were on the plane there.

[zappaman]

148. I got it

but I'm not sure if "magic" qualifies as an answer...

[travis80]

149. what 95% of the plane? please show photos of THAT before cleanup started. nt

[Ohio Joe]

151. So now you have a condition on giving an answer

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

Did 1500 people that recovered the debris lie?

[travis80]

152. you want me to blindly believe your answers? i want photos, not news clips.

i know what the FBI said. the foxes can say anything to the media. i want to see some physical evidence of that claim before they started picking the place up. where was it all?

[Ohio Joe]

153. Google is your friend

The 1500 were not FBI so again I ask, did they lie? Did they stand there and do nothing and then just say... yeah, we recovered the plane and body parts. Is Coroner Wallace Miller a liar as well? All these liars... amazing.

[travis80]

154. i googled for pics showing mass amounts of debris to equal 95% 757. couldn't find any

maybe 95% of a Cessna. you can tell me a 1,000,000 people collect 95% of a 757 there. until i SEE some photos showing mass amounts of debris before they started picking the place up, i remain very skeptical of that claim.

[Ohio Joe]

155. Considering that much of it was in the ground or tiny pieces

What are expecting to see? Bottom line though, you consider all those people liars and are reneging on your offer to explain. I'm shocked.

[travis80]

156. "much of it was in the ground" -- source? and that would make sense if true

that would explain why so few is seen above ground. see, i'm open-minded.

[Ohio Joe]

157. So you are reneging?

And you do consider them all liars. Where do you expect most of it to be after crashing nose first into the ground at several hundred miles an hour? Even though you are a no-planer and think the site was set up, would you not expect them to set it up to go along with the story?

"Don't worry george, everyone that lives in the area is a known liar, they will go along with us" - dick cheney at the planning meeting

So.... how much more wiggleing you going to do before you start giving that explanation you offered?

[travis80]

158. asking you to prove your claim is reneging? about what % is "most of it"?

i do know debris can get embedded in the dirt from such a crash, but never heard most of a large plane burying from crashing into a dirt field.

[Ohio Joe]

159. Yes, you are reneging

You claimed you would offer explanations and instead of doing that you are simply playing a game. Come on now, stop calling all those people liars, back up your words and do what you said you would.

[travis80]

160. ok, the 95% claim is a lie. nothing was buried. show photos otherwise. nt

[Ohio Joe]

161. I am not a liar

It is the number quoted in the article I linked to. You want to see a photo of something buried to prove it's under there? heh... heh.... bwahahahahahahahahahaha Do you think before you type?

[travis80]

162. not calling you a liar, calling FBI's claim a lie. is that debris still in the ground? nt

[Ohio Joe]

163. No, they retrieved it... Did you not read the article?

What did the 1500 people retrieve from the site? Why did they all lie?

[travis80]

164. ah, they retrieved it OUT of the ground. please show photos of tons of debris being unearthed.

there was a photographer at the scene when that happened. hard to imagine they didn't photograph tons of debris coming out of the ground.


(and you thought i meant photos of it still in the ground. good lord.)

[Ohio Joe]

165. No, I will not do your work for you

The pictures are plentiful and have been posted many times. I will not waste my time doing what you could easily do. Perhaps if you post every photo you can find and then prove it is not 95% I'll get more for you. Until then I am going to stop playing your game as it appears you have no intention of sticking to your word and explaining how the plane and body parts were planted (I notice you have completely avoided the body parts). It always comes down to this with no-planers, games, never even an attempt at explaining how their fantasy would work.

[travis80]

166. please show any photos of any human remains or blood at the site.

and i'm telling you, i've seen all the photos on the net. i think i've only seen one photo of one piece of debris coming out of the ground. hard to believe tons of the plane buried and they only managed to photograph just one piece coming out. more evidence for my side.

[Ohio Joe]

167. WTF? You are a ghoul - nt

[travis80]

168. nice debunker evading tactic. don't bring up claims you can't prove then. nt

[Ohio Joe]

169. I've have proven them

Check my previous link. That you don't believe and want to use ghoulish crap about wanting to see pictures of bodies... fucking body pics? Seriously? You think those should have been made available? Then you try to use the idea that FUCKING BODY PICTURES were not published as proof their were no bodies? All those people just lied about? They are all in on it? Pretty much the whole town and a lot more... just lied? Fucking disgusting.

[travis80]

170. Moussaoui trial made public dead bodies inside Pentagon. don't hear you guys complain

about that.

don't you find it strange there's a lot of photos of the scene of debris scattered around and NO body parts or blood seen mixed among the debris pieces scattered? must of been lucky photographing, huh?

[Ohio Joe]

171. That was a trial

They were put into evidence in a court.

Answer the question, are all of those poeple liars?

[travis80]

174. was it "ghoulish" for them to make them public? only ones who dug up phantom plane debris. nt

[travis80]

175. your turn to answer my question

don't you find it strange there's a lot of photos of the scene of debris scattered around and NO body parts or blood seen mixed among the debris pieces scattered? must of been lucky photographing, huh? supports my theory, doesn't it?

[Ohio Joe]

181. No, your turn, you have answered nothing yet

Are they all liars?

oh... and when are you going to live up to your word and offer an explanation?

[Ghost in the Machine]

172. As your fellow debunkers like to say "YOU made the claim, YOU provide the proof!"

Or do the same rules not apply to you? :shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

173. Proof has already been supplied

If good old travis is not happy with it, he should prove it wrong with.... something... anything... or is simply saying "no, not true" good enough to prove anything wrong. He has offered nothing to dis-prove my proof, simply his dis-belief. IMO, it is now his turn to offer his explanation as he said he would. Should we not expect people to live up to their word or do those rules not apply to him?

[travis80]

176. an FBI claim reported by the media ain't proof. btw, how much of plane got buried? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

178. Link please? Simply saying you provided proof isnt the same as actually providing it..

saying "Google is your friend" isn't proof either. I have gone back over this thread, and I'm not seeing your proof. What am I missing here?

[Ohio Joe]

180. Check 151

Is it the proof he demands? No, but that he is un-happy with what I supplied is not my problem. He made an offer to explain evidence, I asked him to, he then demanded evidence the evidence existed in order to weasel out of explaining it, I gave that, so he demands a specific type of proof. I call bullshit, at some point the onus falls on him to live up to his word.

[Ghost in the Machine]

182. That post doesn't show any pictures of plane debris... that is what was asked for.

Would it help you understand *why* some people question Flight 93 if you knew that Ernie Stull, the Mayor of Shanksville, told a news station in 2003 that there was no plane at the crash site?

"My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there," Stull said. "They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here--and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane."

"They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?" the reporter asked.

"No. Nothing. Only this hole."

In the same article, we have this:

"Nena Lensbouer, who had prepared lunch for the workers at the scrap yard overlooking the crash site, was the first person to go up to the smoking crater.

Lensbouer told AFP that the hole was five to six feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard. She described hearing "an explosion, like an atomic bomb"--not a crash.

Lensbouer called 911 and stayed on the line as she ran across the reclaimed land of the former strip mine to within 15 feet of the smoking crater.

Lensbouer told AFP that she did not see any evidence of a plane then or at any time during the excavation at the site, an effort that reportedly recovered 95 percent of the plane and 10 percent of the human remains."
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml


There are just a lot of things that don't add up about Flight 93. I have yet to find any one of these so-called debunkers who will address the issues I raised in a post up above. The official flight path of flight 93 shows that it never came over Indian Lake itself, or the Indian Lake community, yet Jim Stop reported the plane flew OVER him while he was fishing on the lake... and residents of the community called 9-1-1 and reported a plane flying over their homes, dropping parts and debris on their homes and their lawns. What plane was this?

Peace,

Ghost

[Ohio Joe]

183. bleh... cherry picking quotes

The CT'ers love. Do you dispute there was wreckage there? Are all the people that helped at the site liars? based on the no-planers offer to explain, do I not deserve an answer?

[travis80]

184. speaking of cherry picking quotes, where'd it say 1,500 recovered debris? nt

[Ohio Joe]

188. Still no answer?

Are they liars? Check my link, around 1500 worked the site.

[travis80]

196. what makes you think all 1500 handled debris? so no, not all liars.

i have no belief that anybody but some of the government agents there were lying.

[Ohio Joe]

205. Then live up to your word and explain the plane and bodies

or can you not do that?

[travis80]

211. there was no where near 95% worth of 757 debris. not a drop of blood witnessed at scene. nt

[Ohio Joe]

212. Prove it or live up to your word

I've offered evidence, you offer nothing... I have to ask you, where does that put your word?

[travis80]

214. sure...

" Miller said. "The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

[zappaman]

215. good article

you accidentally cut off the last part of his qoute...
"The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.""

"Right now, we're standing on vaporised remains," Miller said. "This is a grave. This is a cemetery."

And thanks for linking to the witnesses who saw the plane right before it hit.

However, I asked you for evidence that things were planted.
You have provided evidence that a plane did indeed crash.
but, thanks anyway.

CASE CLOSED!

[Ohio Joe]

218. So you have no intention of living up to your word?

One cherry picked quote does not prove no blood, nor does it prove there was no plane. When will you live up to your word?

[travis80]

222. how was that a cherry picked quote? stop your game playing.

and what was my "word" again you keep bringing up?

[Ohio Joe]

228. You are the one playing the game

"for skeptics wanting to know how they planted this, or staged that why don't you post which piece of evidence you wonder how did they plant/stage it and i'll give my best speculation on how they did."

Your own article proves my original request for you to do this and you still weasel out of it. When will you live up to your word?

[travis80]

231. what's the question again? nt

[Raphael Weber]

186. Hi! As I stand in the middle

and have doubts about the crash site but am not claiming it was faked:

I don't think anybody claims 1500 workers were lying.
On the other hand
Do you think the 20 or so witnesses on 911 are lying who explicitely stated their surprise that they didn't find anything that seemed to belong to an airplane?

And maybe could you answer the OP now...

[SDuderstadt]

187. Did any of those "20 or so witnesses"...

go on to conclude that UA 93 didn't crash there? Duh.

[Raphael Weber]

203. No

but I believe the question is exactly as valid as the conclusion that claiming if the crash site was faked then 1500 workers must all have been lying.
Please note I don't believe the crash site was faked but the kind of logic used that again and again avoids to try to answer the OP is a bit superficial.

[SDuderstadt]

213. Dude...

the quote shows that the crash site did not look like what the witnesses EXPECTED it to look like, compared to other crash sites. That's why nine of them followed up their observations about the debris with, "I don't believe UA 93 crashed there".

Your game is more convincing than Travis'.

[Ohio Joe]

189. I have answered the OP, read the thread.

This sub-thread is for the OP to explain evidence at the site. The OP denies the workers at the site recovered wreckage and refuses to explain how it might have gotten there per his no-planes fairy tale.

[Ohio Joe]

219. You do not stand in the middle and for the third time, I have ansewered the OP

Your side is obvious but if you wish to show you are in the middle, perhaps you will admit you are incorrect about me not ansewering the OP and begin asking the OP to live up to his word. or perhaps you are not in the middle?

[Raphael Weber]

223. Well as far as I can see

in basically all your posts you write quite convincingly (and I believe I agree with you on that) that the site can hardly have been faked withut people realizing it.
In one post you write "Of course everything can be faked".
But I don't think that really answers the OP or more precisely I believe that there have been parts of the plane found right away after the crash that therefore hardly could have been planted.
I haven't come across these debris parts but they surely exists and that's why I ask if anybody around here knows about it.

[Ohio Joe]

229. Then you do not appear to see very far

nor, since you only seem to want one side to do anything, do you seem to sit in the middle.

[Ghost in the Machine]

216. No, quoting statements verbatim isn't 'cherry picking'.. try again

"bleh... cherry picking quotes The CT'ers love."

Those were statements from the first two people known to show up at the site of the crash. I guess I could turn around and say "bleh... cherry picking quotes that the OCTer's love" when you post links to Wally Miller??


"Do you dispute there was wreckage there?"

I haven't seen any pictures of wreckage, except for one piece in the crater, that looked like it had been placed there next to an excavator bucket.


"Are all the people that helped at the site liars?"

Please link to a post calling them all liars. After you do that, please link to every one of them making a statement about body parts, debris or anything else. They must have ALL made statements, since you are asking if they are ALL liars... right?


"based on the no-planers offer to explain, do I not deserve an answer?"

Perhaps it would be easier for them to answer you once you provide a link to statements from ALL 1,500 people that participated. How can someone say if they are all liars if we don't know what they said?

I see you didn't want to answer MY question about what plane Jim Stop saw fly over him while he was fishing on Indian Lake, or what plane flew over the Indian Lake Community dropping parts and debris on houses and lawns. In case you didn't see it, here is the photo of the official flight path that I saved from Popular Mechanics:



Do you notice that the official flight path puts the plane nowhere close to being over the lake or the subdivision? I don't blame you for not wanting to answer since it blows the official tale of Flight 93 right out of the water, doesn't it? Could it have been the plane that was planting parts and debris?? Come on, Ohio Joe, give me your best explanation....

Thanks in advance

[Raphael Weber]

195. Looking where the wreckage is today

Hi!

Kind of strange but a German television team was working on a documentary that was supposed to debunk claims around the Flight 93. They went to the States to find the wreckage of United 93. Well, everybody was very helpful and told them where to look but .....

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091107renz#a091107renz

[travis80]

199. there you go skeptics! UA denied access to film alleged 93 wreckage

guess they just want the public to trust them that they have it.

September 11, 2007: ’Wall of Silence’ Surrounds 9/11, Says German Television Reporter; United Airlines Denied Permission to Film Flight 93 Wreckage

Zweites Deutsches Ferhnsehn (ZDF), Germany’s public television station, broadcasts an investigation into alternative accounts of 9/11 called “Mythos und Warheit: Der 11. September 2001.” The documentary concludes there was no government conspiracy behind the attacks but describes what producer Michael Renz calls a “wall of silence” when he approached officials for information. “When officials are asked about 9/11 conspiracy theories they react by barricading themselves. For example: one of the greatest mysteries about the attacks on America is the apparently empty crater in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Where is the wreckage of Flight United 93? After asking United Airlines, we are told that the insurance company has the wreckage. But the responsible manager at that company is first in a meeting, then on a three-day business trip, which then becomes a several weeks-long intercontinental trip. During this time he cannot be reached by email or cell-phone—or so we are told by the secretary of one of the largest airline-insurance companies in the United States. After weeks and countless phone calls finally a brief answer: we do not have the wreckage. The FBI in Washington is in charge. The FBI press officer is surprisingly open and cooperative. There will be no interview about 9/11 but he will certainly give permission to film the wreckage. After all, the investigations have ended and there is no reason to exclude the public. Alas! The FBI no longer has the wreckage. It has been returned to United Airlines. Back to square one! Yes, we have the wreckage, says the airline after a new inquiry. But no permission to film. No reason given. All inquiries to government officials, and most to private companies, end this way. Apparently no one wants to have anything to do with 9/11.” The producer describes similar difficulties when he tried to obtain permission to film inside a Boeing flight simulator or when he approached New York officials to ask them about the fireproofing in the WTC. “But when we talk with officials off-the-record, many say a gag-order has been handed from the top. There is widespread fear of getting into trouble by talking.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091107renz

[zappaman]

220. uh huh

http://911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

On visiting the supposed Flight 93 crash site, Ernie Stull (the Mayor of Shanksville) said "there was no plane".

This quote was first used by German television to justify the idea that Flight 93 didn't crash at Shanksville. It was picked up by American Free Press ( http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_mysteries.html ), then referenced at other sites ( http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm , http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html ). It remains a fringe idea (most people seem to prefer the “Flight 93 shot down” theory), but is something you’ll encounter occasionally online & at Google.

Is the “Flight 93 didn’t crash there” implication a fair reflection of Stulls view, though? Der Spiegel decided to investigate.
When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

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."
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

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

[Raphael Weber]

224. What's the connection to the search for the wreckage?

Der Spiegel speaks btw of a different documentary than the one I am talking about. The one I'm talking about aims at showing the defaults of conspiracy theories surrounding Flight 93.

[Ghost in the Machine]

217. Thanks for the link, and welcome to DU...

It seems that the FAA, FBI and the Airline company was playing a big game of wild goose chase

[Raphael Weber]

233. Thank you!

[William Seger]

236. Yeah, it's almost as if...

... they don't take "no-planers" seriously. :eyes:

[Ghost in the Machine]

239. Wow, it's almost as if you can't read, or comprehend what you do read!

Do you have any more irrelevant, uninformed comments you would like to add, or would you like to actually follow the link, read it and try to comprehend what you're reading?

[William Seger]

240. Yikes, it's almost as if...

... you take yourself far more seriously than I do. Yup, I both read and comprehended the article at the link, and my comment was intended to convey that I'm not particularly surprised when a bunch of irrational crackpots are not given the accommodations they think they deserve. Doesn't have anything to do with the 9/11 facts, but I'm entitled to my opinions about that, and I'm certainly not concerned that you are offended by it: "No-planers" are a sick joke.

[Ghost in the Machine]

241. So, someone is filming a documentary about alternative theories to 9-11 and they want to

film the wreckage to put to rest the conspiracy that there was no plane is a 'crackpot' in your book? I guess that makes you and your fellow debunkers crackpots too, right? If "No-planers" are a sick joke", shouldn't you be a little concerned that someone trying to disprove the 'no plane' theory of Flight 93 was run around in circles like they were?

Someone trying to disprove conspiracy theories = 'irrational crackpot'! Thanks for finally admitting what you are, though your fellow debunkers may take issue with that :-)

[William Seger]

242. Bullshit. There isn't any way to "disprove conspiracy theories"

... to the satisfaction of the irrational people who hold them, and rational people have no need for any more proof that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. Get over it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

244. "Bullshit" is right, it described your reply perfectly, thanks for labelling it as such..

"rational people have no need for any more proof that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville"

Ok, Mr Rational, could you please explain why eyewitness statements contradict the Flight Data Recorder information and the official flight path of 93? Here is the official flight path:



Can you explain what plane it was that Jim Stop saw fly over him while he was fishing on Indian Lake, what plane flew over Indian Lake Marina so low and loud that it caused the building to shake and the lights to flicker, and what plane it was flying over the Indian Lake community, dropping parts and debris on houses and lawns??

[William Seger]

245. Well, Mr. Fantasist...

... first, let me point out that those eyewitnesses DO say a large commercial jet flew into the area and exactly zero witnesses describe a large commercial jet leaving the area. Keeping in mind that the actual subject of the thread you're trying to hijack is whether there really was a plane crash or not, please answer: What happened to the plane those people saw?

As for their specific stories and the disagreement with the generally accepted flight path: Rational people understand that when dealing with eyewitness testimony, even honest and conscientious people are frequently wrong in their perceptions and/or their memories. Yes, that would apply to both eyewitnesses who say the plane flew over the lake and the people who say it was somewhere else: We simply don't know what any of them really saw, so all such testimony must be taken with a grain of salt, and we have to look at ALL the testimony and compare it to the physical evidence and the documentary evidence such as the radar track and the flight path. Sorry that it offends you, but that IS how rational people arrive at their best estimate of the truth.

But yes, ignoring your attempted diversion: You were trying to imply that people who have already dismissed the photos of debris collected on the site as being "planted/staged" would somehow be swayed if United Airlines now, nearly ten years later, showed them some more pictures of the same debris. That's abject bullshit.

[travis80]

247. Val McClatchy heard plane going over her house at Indian Lake. how dat happen?! nt

[William Seger]

248. LMAO

Do you mean, how did that happen if there wasn't any plane? That sounds like a question you need to take a stab at.

[travis80]

249. no, how dat happen if 93 didn't fly over Indian Lake? nt

[William Seger]

253. The preponderance of the evidence...

... is that it did not fly over Indian Lake, which would mean that people who think it did are simply mistaken. Or gee, perhaps those people are right and the "official" path is simply mistaken for some reason. Unfortunately, evidence-based reasoning doesn't guarantee "truth" -- it just has a track record that beats the holy shit out of the method you've become addicted to. Regardless, the issue of the exact flight path has exactly nothing to do with whether or not Flight 93 really crashed in that reclaimed strip mine. You're on the hook to provide something resembling a reason for thinking it didn't, but it's pretty clear by now that ALL you have are your own delusions about a ridiculously complicate hoax, perpetrated for no apparent reason whatsoever. Epic fail, and trying to latch onto Ghost's attempted thread hijack certainly won't save you.

[Ghost in the Machine]

255. "which would mean that people who think it did are simply mistaken"

What a load of horse shit, but it's expected from William Seger. I guess they were simply "mistaken" about the debris in their yards and on their houses too, right? Yeah, that's it... they were just mistaken and seeing shit.

"Or gee, perhaps those people are right and the "official" path is simply mistaken for some reason."

OMFG!! :spray: :rofl: And you don't even question this, you still just latch on to the official narrative?? You don't even wonder what else they could have been "mistaken" about, or wonder if the whole story isn't bullshit?

What do you think that reason could be, Mr Seger? I would really like to know your thoughts on this.

[William Seger]

256. Here's the fundamental problem, Ghost

You have no idea how rational people think.

None.

Whatever.

But let's ignore that for a minute and instead focus on this: You also don't know what the hell you're talking about. The only debris that is known to be scattered far from the crash site is small, light stuff like paper and fabric that was blown by the wind after the crash. There is exactly zero real, physical evidence of the kind of debris that you're imagining fell from your imaginary shoot-down.

None.

Whatever.

But you simple prefer to believe that story, regardless. You find it impossible to believe that anyone who supports the "official story" is giving an accurate account, and you find it impossible to believe that anyone contradicting the "official story" could possibly be mistaken or is just being taken out of context. Why is that, when the physical evidence tells us pretty clearly who is right? Why do you call it "just latch{ing} on to the official narrative" to pay attention to what the actual evidence is telling us?

Yup, that's a rhetorical question; see paragraph one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

259. No, the fundamental problem is your idiotic statement

I know more about rational thinking than you ever will, too, pal. Now why don't you try sticking to the subject of this post, which isn't me btw, and answer the simple question you were asked.

"The only debris that is known to be scattered far from the crash site is small, light stuff like paper and fabric that was blown by the wind after the crash. There is exactly zero real, physical evidence of the kind of debris that you're imagining fell from your imaginary shoot-down."

You are obviously too ignorant of the facts to even be in this discussion, dude. Maybe you should consider excusing yourself from it now. It will save you further embarrassment Of course, if you enjoy showcasing your ignorance, please feel free to babble on about things you know nothing of.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators.

{snip}

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues.
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Again, the rest of your reply is the same tired drivel and, in my opinion, just pure projection on your part.

[William Seger]

263. WTF?

You just supported what I said: The ONLY known evidence of debris scattered far from the site was lightweight stuff that blew there AFTER the crash. There is NO evidence of parts of the plane falling on anyone's roof BEFORE the crash.

What was that about reading comprehension?

[Ghost in the Machine]

264. I will give you a half of a point for semantics, since it doesn't say *what* was recovered

from the Indian Lake residential area.


"Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."

"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said.

Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane." Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_47536.html


I may have to take that half a point away though. You do know about the webbing that was found 8 miles away, right? It's also disengenuous to equate "paper & fabric" with "books and clothing", but you already knew that anyways, right?

[Raphael Weber]

268. Here I have to disagree with you

As far as I can see all eyewitnesses from indian Lake saw the raining confetti right after hearing the explosion of the crash. Th eMarina is (I believe) about 1 1/2 mile from the crash site. Wind was about 8 mph. So I don't believe that what for example this witness saw happened ("moments later") really happened around 10 minutes later


“All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.
Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. “It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake,” she said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

And it wasn't only lightweight stuff (which was also found 8 miles away) but:
“By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats , small chunks of melted plastic and checks.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

In fact the contradiction of the fight path Ghost has pointed out is the only point of the crash that is impossible for me to reconcile with the official story but I'm open to an explanation.

[travis80]

271. weird a bunch of people heard/saw a plane over Indian Lake. lol nt

[William Seger]

274. weird that a bunch of people heard/saw it somewhere else

Fortunately, in our courts, we've long since worked out ways of dealing with conflicting accounts, the most reliable being comparing both to the evidence. Almost by definition, a "modern conspiracy theorist" is someone who asserts that if the evidence doesn't support a conspiracy, then the evidence must have been faked.

[Raphael Weber]

275. What do you do about the debris on Indian Lake?

see my post above?

[SDuderstadt]

277. You look for any scrap of debris that...

could not have been carried there by the wind.

Duh.

[William Seger]

282. Despite early reports...

... there were no human remains found at Indian Lake or anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity of the crash, according to Coroner Miller. Unless you have some credible evidence of debris that couldn't have been blown there after the crash, then nobody needs to "do" anything "about the debris on Indian Lake." Weaving mysteries out of unsubstantiated anecdotes doesn't cut it.

[Raphael Weber]

289. You seem to prefer to ignore

You write:
"Fortunately, in our courts, we've long since worked out ways of dealing with conflicting accounts, the most reliable being comparing both to the evidence. Almost by definition, a "modern conspiracy theorist" is someone who asserts that if the evidence doesn't support a conspiracy, then the evidence must have been faked."

So either you prefer simply to ignore that besides six eyewitnesses and earwitnesses there is numerous physical evidence as I've pointed above. Debris and human remains found on Indian Lake that are not lightweight
or by your "definition" this "evidence must be faked".

Which one is it?

And btw do you also believe that the isolation stuff that was found in New Baltimore was blown there by the wind (during 45 minutes)?

[Ghost in the Machine]

252. Well Mr. CantComprehendWhatHeReads, thanks for proving that again..

Please point out where I have said a plane didn't crash there. In case you didn't comprehend the OP, which I'm quite sure you didn't, this whole thread is an exercise in pure speculation. You do realize that, yes? I have stated many times over the years that I do not believe in the "no planes" or "hologram planes". What I do believe is that *if* 9-11 was an inside job, that the planes could have been switched with drones or that the actual planes could have been taken over via their autopilots and been controlled by someone on the ground.

As for the rest of your drivel, it's the same basic bullshit you and your fellow debunkers spew all the time. Eyewitness accounts only matter when they back up your version that you want to believe and everyone else is weak-minded and becomes confused when they see something tragic happen. It's a joke, a very unfunny joke, but a joke nonetheless. I'm not sorry if that offends *you* because you have no right not to be offended, and your ridiculous bullshit needs to be called out for what it is.

[William Seger]

257. LMAO, it's like deja vu all over again

I think you need to reread what I wrote before you start casting aspersions on my reading comprehension. It makes you look a little silly, but this seems to be a recurring theme with you.

What I clearly said was that you were trying to hijack a "no-planer" thread.

And frankly, I'm not much interested in what you believe or don't believe, since I've never seen much in the way of epistemological skills from you. Case in point: You believe highly implausible things for absolutely no good reason, but you call evidence-based reasoning "ridiculous bullshit" that "needs to be called out for what it is." For some strange reason, you think you can just declare the evidence to be fake -- again, for absolutely no good reason -- and sensible people should take you seriously.

There is a rather obvious reason why that isn't working. And there's a rather obvious reason the "truth movement" has been stuck in the mud since 2006 and now just recycles and regurgitates the same unsubstantiated nonsense: You've got nothin'.

Sorry that it upsets you so, but I really think you would be better off if you would start facing up to reality.

[Ghost in the Machine]

260. The only person trying to hijack a thread here is you, but your ignorance won't allow you to see it

Please point out any evidence that I have called fake...

Thanks in advance!

I don't know why you feel a need to keep filling your replies with inane drivel either, but hey, if it makes you feel beter, go for it sunshine.

The reality here is this: *you* don't know *where* I stand on anything, Period. The reality that *you* need to face up to is the fact that some of us, no matter what we may or may not believe, are able to go down different paths of thinking just for the pure sake of answering the question of "what if". What I spend my time thinking about when I'm really bored really isn't your concern, or business, but there it is. Just because *you* don't have the mental capacity to think outside the box, or travel down some dark roads, rabbit holes, or whatever else you want to call them doesn't mean that others don't. You may enjoy living in your little black & white world, and thats fine for you, but I like to go down those dark roads and experience all the different shades of gray.

[William Seger]

262. "What if"

... was once one of my favorite comic books.

[Raphael Weber]

266. Sorry

You write:
"Yup, I both read and comprehended the article at the link, and my comment was intended to convey that I'm not particularly surprised when a bunch of irrational crackpots are not given the accommodations they think they deserve. "

Sorry, you're wrong and I believe you didn't read my post (answer to zappaman):

This documentary was made not by a bunch of conspiracy nuts and crackpots as you believe but by one of the three German public television channels. Moreover the conclusion of the documentary is that the sceptics are wrong and that UA 93 did crash in Shankville.

So under this perspective: What's your take?

You write:
"No-planers" are a sick joke."
Whom are you adressing here??

I believe that the strive to find the wreckage might beworth its own thread.

[William Seger]

269. Doesn't matter. The important point determining how they were treated

... would be what United assumed about their motives. It appears that United has been bugged enough by conspiracy crackpots (who want to accuse them of complicity in mass murder, btw) that they have instituted a stone-walling policy.

[Raphael Weber]

185. The coroner says otherwise

According to him only 8% were recovered.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050311045343/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/03/28/398774-cp.html

[Ohio Joe]

190. He is refering to body parts

"It was very important to me to identify every piece but in the end it wasn't realistic."

Coroners do not identify plane parts.

[Raphael Weber]

192. Thank you

I do know what the work of a coroner is but maybe you should read the link ...
"Miller, the director of a family-run funeral home and elected county coroner for Somerset, Pa., said only eight per cent of the wreckage was recovered. Everything else was vaporised, he said."

[Ohio Joe]

202. Read the whole article

The entire context is talking about human remains, do you really think a coroner just changed the subject for one sentance to plane parts and then back again. CT'ers, always cherry picking quotes.

[Raphael Weber]

207. As I said could be

and please refrain from calling me a CTer nor from categorizing me as a cherry-picker.
Thank you!
(Jesus, first time I spend some time here discussing things and already the name calling starts. A bit off-setting to be honest.)
Besides do you have an official statement of the FBI?

[Ohio Joe]

210. Perhaps you will not say things that are untrue about me right off the bat

You don't be off-setting and I won't.

[SDuderstadt]

197. No, that's what the reporter claims Miller said...

notice the lack of quotation marks? Does it occur to you that the reporter of one story got it wrong?

[Raphael Weber]

200. Could be

What evidence do we have for the 95% claim besides above mentioned article?
Is there any official FBI declaration?

[SDuderstadt]

206. More proof you didn't read...

the links I posted, dude.

[Raphael Weber]

221. Well, if you say so ....

Enlighten me.
It would be helpful for the discussion if you simply point out the part that was found on the morning of 911.
I have seen all the pics but as for the engine was recoverd on Sep 13 or 14.
On 911 it was said if I recall correctly that biggest piece that was found was not bigger than a phone book.
If you could provide me with info which part of the plane was found that very morning it would be very muc appreciated
and certainly helps the discussion to move forward.

[Raphael Weber]

191. travis80

Hi!
Though I believe I don't share your conviction that the crash site was faked I'm disappointed that so far nobody even tried to answer the OP.
Therefore I'd like to know if it's ok for you if I slightly rephrase the question:

Was there anything at the crash site on the morning of 911 that was clearly identifiable as belonging to a plane?

[travis80]

193. you can start a sub-thread here for that, sure. nt

[Raphael Weber]

201. Thanks!

[travis80]

209. no prob. hey when you get a chance, comment on this thread

The "Official" Flight 93 Crash Story-- Is It Plausible?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=303147&mesg_id=303147


curious if you think that crash story is plausible. peace!

[SDuderstadt]

194. Dude...the evidence has been provided repeatedly...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=303147&mesg_id=305315

This is getting stupid.

[Raphael Weber]

198. Well, hi

I actually don't know why you're calling me dude and my question stupid?
I'm new here and have been lurking for some time and didn't find an answer to my question (though stressing once and again that I don't believe that it means anything conclusevily if there was nothing identifiable on the morning that was found).
But your links don't answer my question.
Have seen this stuff but all evidence shown there wasn't recovered on 911 nor seen by witnesses the very day if I recall correctly.

[SDuderstadt]

204. You could not possibly have read all the links I provided...

that quickly, dude.

[Raphael Weber]

225. The photos

on this site are quite well known (correct me if I'm wrong).
If your answer is somewhere hidden in the long text of the three links then I'd appreciate it very much if you could point it out to me
Btw I find it bewildering that you call my simple question a "game"...

[travis80]

226. "bewildering that you call my simple question a "game""

it's a well-known skeptic diversion tactic. get used to it.

[William Seger]

227. Here ya go

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

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."

You're welcome.

[travis80]

230. "portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact" -- photo? nt

[zappaman]

232. If there isn't?

Will you accuse the firefighter of lying?

[Raphael Weber]

234. Thanks a lot for the kind help!

Thanks a lot William Seger!
That helps me out very much.

I’ve been studying this now a bit and done some research myself. The problem is that the quote (and other quotes in the article concerning identified plane parts) is taken fom a book published in 2002. It’s very unfortunate that the author completely refrains from quoting articles from the days after the attack. Therefore it is hard to know if the quote actually is from what the guy has seen on 911. He says:

“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. »

Now this is in fact the biggest part of plane that has been discovered and it appeared (according to my research) only on September 20 in the press :

“FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long from a jetliner that was 155 feet long.
The heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section of engine fan.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

Therefore I have my strong doubts that Mike Sube saw this on 911.


If you take the quotes in the media of the day of 911 and Sep 12 we do have a very different picture as the one presented in your article:

Lensbouer: "But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp
Szupinka, State Police Major : "If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash”.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Baron "It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane …. Just like a big pile of charcoal,”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

But William Seger:

Yet I’ve found three quote from Sep 11 that indicates the contrary:
Peterson: "There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp

“Once it hit, everything just disintegrated,” he said. “There are just shreds of metal. The longest piece I saw was 2 feet long.””
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html

Charles Sturtz: "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."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

But they all clearly talk of very small parts of the plane.

There I believe (so far) it is rather save to conclude that there was small debris of the plane.
On the other hand I also conclude that all the cpying of pictures of the Moussaoui trial doesn't prove anything as the parts apparently have been found only days after 911.


In fact I think your article is helpful (as it has rarely mentioned sources) but extremely one-sides and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.
It gives with the help of some quotes (from 2002) the impression (which it even presents as a proven fact) that there were small body parts all over the place. But sorry I go with the coroner (and many other quotes). He is a professionel and very clear in his statement:

"There was just nothing visible," he says. "It was the strangest feeling." It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8¬Found=true

[William Seger]

235. Why did you skip over this?

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

"There was one part of a seat burning up there," Phillips said. "That was something you could recognize."

... and this?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12940.html

“The tail was a short distance from the rest of the wreckage,” said would-be rescuer Brad Reiman, 19, who lives near Berlin in Somerset County. “It looked like the plane hit once and flopped down into the woods.”

The largest piece of wreckage he could identify looked like a section of the plane’s tail, he said.

It would appear that you are not particularly interested in disproving your hypothesis, so I can't say I'm impressed with what your research has failed to turn up. It's hard to believe that anyone would attempt to draw conclusions based upon what some people didn't see while ignoring what some people say they did see.

Several people say they saw a large jet crash there. That is "evidence that couldn't have been planted/staged" which travis80 asked for: he will need to assert that the conspirators got many Shanksville residents to lie about seeing a plane crash. But one hundred percent of the evidence is consistent with those reports, and neither of you have offered even the ghost of an argument for thinking that Flight 93 didn't really crash there. This is why "no-planers" will never advance beyond the lunatic fringe.

[travis80]

237. "part of a seat burning" & part of "The tail" -- photos? nt

[William Seger]

238. You've already seen the photos of the recognizable aircraft debris

... and dismissed them for absolutely no reason other than they refute your delusional fantasies. After demonstrating that evidence plays no part in your "reasoning," don't pretend that more evidence would have the slightest effect on your belief systems. Raphael Weber imaginary issue was that nobody reported seeing recognizable debris the first day, which is clearly false.

You asked for "evidence that couldn't have been planted/staged" and I just mentioned some: The eyewitnesses who saw a large jet go down. Unsurprisingly, you ignored that. This thread is a complete waste of bandwidth.

[zappaman]

243. too funny

do the truthers think criminals are only convicted when there are photos?
do truthers not realize that there are other forms of evidence besides photos?
and yeah, no planers are just as disgusting to the democratic party as birthers are to the repukes.

[travis80]

246. little huffy puffy you are for just being asked a yes/no question! nt

[William Seger]

250. In other words...

... you really have no rational arguments, and this thread is indeed a complete waste of bandwidth.

[travis80]

251. it was a simple question, were there photos of those reported things? yes/no? nt

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

258. You both have been given plenty of opportunity...

... to SAY something comprehensible -- something like a rational, supportable argument would be nice. It's still not too late.

[travis80]

270. You've been given plenty of opportunity to answer if there are photos of that, or not. nt

[William Seger]

273. And I told you, I'm not interested in your stupid games.

I'm pretty sure there are lots of photos of the site that haven't been posted on the web, but you've already declared that you think all those plane parts were planted, so don't pretend that asking for more photos is a valid point. In this sub-thread, we're having a discussion about whether or not anyone saw recognizable plane pieces on 9/11, implying that they might not have been there until sometime later. As usual, it seems you have nothing to offer.

[Raphael Weber]

267. Photos

Though I understand that having photoswould be extremely helpful (and the question is in fact why apparently there are no photos of evidence of the crime scene made on 911 if it's a criminal investigation) but on the other hand the absence of photos doesn't allow any conclusion that the things witnessed by people at the crash site haven't been there. So we're right away in the land of speculation where it seems impossible to conclude anything concrete.
The only concrete question that arises:
Is there any photo of evidence taken on 911
(I believe that all the photos presented at the Moussaoui trial are from Sep 13 and later).

[Ghost in the Machine]

261. Finally, FINALLY!, something I can (almost) agree with you on....

"Several people say they saw a large jet crash there. That is "evidence that couldn't have been planted/staged"

The reason I say (almost) is because of what I told you in a different reply. It's that whole "going down the dark roads and asking "what if"" thing. What if the plane was being remote controlled and was part of the planting of evidence? :evilgrin:

[Raphael Weber]

265. Thanks!

Yes, indeed I agree.
Sorry, I've overlooked this and thanks for pointing this out!
But as you can see I've found another quote where one guy discovered pieces of the fuselage".

You write:
"It would appear that you are not particularly interested in disproving your hypothesis, so I can't say I'm impressed with what your research has failed to turn up. It's hard to believe that anyone would attempt to draw conclusions based upon what some people didn't see while ignoring what some people say they did see"

What the hell is my hypothesis?
And did you read my conclusion?

But they all clearly talk of very small parts of the plane.

You write:
"either of you have offered even the ghost of an argument for thinking that Flight 93 didn't really crash there"

Did I say this was my intention?
No.
Why do you put words in my mouth?
I even clearly wrote several times that I don't believe the crash site is faked.

My wish and intention is very simple and I find it strange that somehow I have to justify this:
To figure out what was seen by the eyewitnesses when they came to the crash site. A summary as objective as possible.


And William Seger a question to you:

Do you agree with my conclusion that the part with the windows wasn't found on 911?
And that this page is highy selective and subjetive and far from trying to present and objetive summary?

[William Seger]

272. Why do I put words in your mouth? That's easy...

If I assume that you actually had a point in starting this discussion, then it would have to be the implicit argument that if nobody saw recognizable plane debris on 9/11, then it must have been planted later. Travis80 seems to have had no problem picking up on that implicit argument. Yep, you've been very coy about explicitly making that argument, but the "just asking questions" game is exposed when answers don't satisfy you.

> Do you agree with my conclusion that the part with the windows wasn't found on 911?

If that was intended to be a "conclusion" then perhaps you need to revisit the part where you make a valid logical argument supporting that conclusion. A valid logical conclusion is one that necessarily follows from the premises, in the sense that if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. If that isn't the case -- if the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true -- then you've definitely got a fallacy somewhere. "The part?" For one thing, there could have been other similar pieces, all found at different times, but anyway all you're really doing is merely speculating that "the part" was not there before the reference to it in an article on the 20th, which is certainly not a valid logical conclusion. The fireman said he saw such a piece on 9/11, and since we have at least one photo of such a piece, and since since there are exactly zero rational reasons for thinking the piece was planted, then I see no reason whatsoever to doubt him.

> And that this page is highy selective and subjetive and far from trying to present and objetive summary?

That website purports to be objective fact, not subjective opinion. If you can prove any part of it isn't objective fact, then do so. If you think it selectively leaves out important facts that support conspiracy theories, then present them and give some reason for believing them to be facts. Just sniffing at it is pointless.

[Raphael Weber]

276. Selective reading

You write:
"If I assume that you actually had a point in starting this discussion, then it would have to be the implicit argument that if nobody saw recognizable plane debris on 9/11, then it must have been planted later."

Sorry, this is nonsense and you know it.
I've quoted myself somebody who saw small recoginzable part sof the plane on 911.
And I thanked you for adding two others.
And I even put my conclusion in bold letters .....

Your write:
"The fireman said he saw such a piece on 9/11, and since we have at least one photo of such a piece, and since since there are exactly zero rational reasons for thinking the piece was planted, then I see no reason whatsoever to doubt him."

Sorry, he doesn't say explicitely which day he saw it. I've presented a newspaper clip mentioning this piece of debris on Sep 20 so it seems pretty obvious concerning this specific part of debris that it wasn't found thatvery day (keep in mind the source is from a book printed in 2002). Or can you present an article mentioning it BEFORE?
And before you put words in my mouth again. I'm not assuming anything but I think that it would be very helpful for both sides to try objectively to figure out how the crash site looked like.

You write:
"f you think it selectively leaves out important facts that support conspiracy theories, then present them and give some reason for believing them to be facts. Just sniffing at it is pointless."

Well, I did.
Didn't you read?
The coroner gives a very different account of the presence of human remains at the crash site as the few quotes.
Moreover not a single quote is from newspaper articles printed right after the attack.

[William Seger]

281. I have no idea what you're getting at

You started this by asking if there were any recognizable plane parts seen on 9/11. We have quotes from Post-Gazette stories on the 12th (which I believe is "right after the attack") that say the answer is yes. You are now denying that you were making the obvious implicit argument. Good decision, and until you are prepared to make some actual argument, I see no point in pointlessly going around the barn a few more times.

[Raphael Weber]

290. Don't imply things ...

You write:
"We have quotes from Post-Gazette stories on the 12th (which I believe is "right after the attack") that say the answer is yes. You are now denying that you were making the obvious implicit argument."

I NEVER made anw obvious implicit argument!
What is it that simply asking what was found at the crash site is having an obvious implicit argument?
It's a fact that I came up with one evidence myself and without discussion accepted two that you have presented. What is it that consider this as having an obvious implicit argument?

Is your world black and white?
Not possible to ask for the facts?
Asking for facts is having a hidden agenda?

And by the way:
As you choose to irgnore this:
You do agree that the page obviously is NOT objective as it leaves the statement of the coroner and many others aside?

[Ohio Joe]

208. That is twice you have said that and it is still not true

I have answered the OP explicitly and in plain language. It is the CT'ers that refuse to respond to my questions.

[SDuderstadt]

278. Can anyone identify the...

logical fallacy or fallacies Travis' OP commits?

[Larry L. Burks]

287. Sure UFO cell phone story Crashes at Shanksville Again!

You never did do what I asked you to do.

You never went and listen to the Morgan Reynolds tapes.

How would I know this?

There is about 100 hours of talk on those tapes. You haven’t had time to listen to them all.

And if you had. You would never have said what you just said.

They just didn’t say you can’t pick up a single in a airplane from a cell phone.

The took their cell phone and went up in a airplane and tried to do the same thing with a cell phone that flight 93 said they did,

It didn’t work. Try it your self.

When they found out that the cell phone story wasn’t working any more.

They changed their story. And said they got the tape off the voice recorder.

Then it came to light that the voice recorder didn’t have a mike in the back of the plane.

Then they changed their story again. They said that they got it off of the black box.

Well. That story didn’t work either because the black box was from the wrong type of aircraft. Different from the one that is said to have crashed in Pa.

So. Now days. What do they do.

They can’t talk about. It’s to awful. Just awful. And they can’t talk about.

Go figure.

That’s the same thing they said about the UFO thing in Roswell. NM

So. What does that tell you?.

What kind of statement does it make about you.

Check it out before you speak.. Please

When they keep having to change their story over and over and over and over again. What does it mean?

[zappaman]

288. Nice work, Larry

I hope your website reaches a larger audience.
It's quite interesting.

[Larry L. Burks]

291. Thanks for Reminding me.

I need to stop hanging out around here. I have a lot of work to do that I need to be working on.

By

Larry L. Burks