Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Why did Flight 93 Crash into a random field in Pennsylvania?" video.

  1.  @BigBalls.Supervisor-D.O.G.E  I have to apologize for that. I feel guilty watching fragile egos fall apart in seconds; Hit and Run YouTruthers, fleeing in terror at the first sign of logic.
    17
  2. It's a common misconception that this seems impossible, but other crashes prove it. PSA flight 1771 debris was reported 8 miles distant. USAir flight 427 crashed in one piece but some five minutes later debris fell onto a golf course some 2 miles away. It's natural to ask, how could this happen, especially if it's not a windy day? Firstly, this debris was only very light: typically paper, business cards, insulation. It did not involve anything that couldn't be carried by air currents. But how does it get up there in the first place? I think the answer is provided by thermals: "a thermal is a movement of rising warm air." They have been observed to cause substantial updrafts. When you look at the impact plume of F93, it appears to show this. The debris plume, hot with exploding fuel, draws the debris upwards, where the air speed is greater at higher altitudes, and carry them for miles.
    16
  3. They did find lots of debris.
    10
  4. It was the same with Ethiopian flight 302 before excavation began.
    10
  5.  @CATSWITHKYLA  You have not done adequate research. "that no plane was there or any resembles of one." The same is true for PSA flight 1771. Nothing resembling a plane. Ditto American flight 191, Air Canada 621. If the impact speed is great enough, and the angle is steep, you can have almost complete disintegration. Later on Wally Miller, the county coroner and others surveilled the area and found body parts, the cockpit section in the trees, Over 1,100 people representing 73 organizations were involved in the recovery effort. At least a dozen people saw the crash as it happened, we have phone calls from the passengers. I know it seems strange, but there is no reason to fake this crash. That is the final nail in the coffin. For what purpose? What was gained by faking flight 93? What today would be different? Since the answer is nothing, that should factor in to your reasoning. Think about it. cheers
    5
  6.  @jacksonmarshallkramer5087  Agreed. And none of that happened to flight 93.
    4
  7.  @dantrav1927  No, you're wrong, sorry.
    4
  8. Reasonable assumption but wrong. The only debris 8 miles away was paper and insulation carried there by air currents. This debris was also downwind, not where the plane itself overflew. This would not be the first time debris was carried by air currents.
    3
  9.  @mar4oz  Well there's precedent for that: US Air flight 427, coincidentally also in western PA. In that case, and intact airliner went nose first into the ground, and some 5 minutes later paper and insulation fell onto a golf course some 2 miles distant. The number of passengers doesn't prove much unless there is some scientific equation that says without x number of passengers, paper debris is y % less likely to end up z miles away. :)
    3
  10. Why can't you guys learn the facts before posting. They found an engine core in the crater and there's a photo of it. A State trooper found part of an engine in a catch basin. There was plenty of debris but most of it was beneath the crater. The cockpit was found in the trees, a 5-7 ft piece of fuselage with window panes was also photographed. C'mon man, do your homework. Both black boxes were found, again the pics have been on the web for decades now. DO YOUR HOMEWORK
    3
  11. HELLO - Every plane that has been "shot down" has then crashed!! Plus, you're incorrect. There were only 2 other limited debris fields: a few scattered pieces of paper/insulation, found 8 miles away; and a few tiny fragments about 1.5 miles away. No other wreckage was found beyond these locations. So where is all the crash wreckage? "too small" So were most of the pieces they found at Shanksville. High speed crashes tend to produce thousands of tiny pieces.
    3
  12. It was only a bit of scattered paper and insulation, carried there by air currents, just as happened in the case of PSA 1771, and USAir 427.
    3
  13.  @johngalush8790  It actually went 8 miles, but only a few wispy pieces of paper and insulation in the town of New Baltimore, carried there by air currents.
    3
  14. If it exploded in the sky, where's all the wreckage?
    3
  15.  @michaelgilman7930  Not that it changes the general theme, but some debris, only paper and insulation, actually did fall on the town of New Baltimore some 8 miles to the southeast of the crash site, the way the crow flies. It was carried there by air currents. :)
    3
  16.  @m0joj0jo666  OK, what evidence would you cite for flight 175 being blown up near Shanksville? I'd like to follow the dots.
    3
  17.  @jjkhawaiian  It did, but that's because in both cases the basic principles are essentially the same. it's gravity that is responsible for the speed and the direction of the collapse. Not 100% exactly the same but close enough. Just ask any demo expert of your choosing. I remember having this very conversation with Bent Blanchard years ago, long before he became a go-to source for everyone. The primary element in a CD is to remove the support from one or two floors. The fires in the WTC did the same thing: they removed the crucial support at one location. The additional wiring in a cd is to help break apart the debris and help direct the fall straight down. He told me of a demo they had just done in Buffalo, as I recall, and in that case there was no wiring of the whole building, only the lower floors were wired. That is the outstanding lesson I learned. Just my take of course. But I recommend talking to experts yourself rather than trust what either the government or the truth mvt. has to say. They are both untrustworthy entities.
    3
  18.  @bryant071  I'll give you my evidence after you give me yours. This is called a two-way conversation.
    3
  19.  @anton1949  You are wrong. You should have said "like most crashes." Here's an example: "There were pieces of wreckage around the perfectly formed rim. Some other metal fragments were hurled fifteen hundred feet away. But the one hundred foot fuselage itself had disappeared entirely." This is exactly what happened to both United flight 93 and Ethiopian flight 302. You need to really do the required research to unearth (no pun intended) before leaping to such conclusions. cheers
    3
  20.  @St_Augustines_Cry8  Very light debris such as pieces of paper carried by air currents is unusual but not unique. It happened at least twice before: PSA flight 1771, found 8 miles away; and US Air flight 427, insulation and paper found two miles away. One again, reality has a way of outsmarting us humans and our sense of certainty about our intuitions.
    3
  21. Tell us if you will what the CIA gained by having a 757 crash into the middle of nowhere. I think if people thought about the big picture first, they wouldn't start speculating about the absurd.
    2
  22. No evidence.
    2
  23. No evidence for that.
    2
  24.  @St_Augustines_Cry8  Similar to what? There's no crash I know of that matches flight 370.
    2
  25. You are correct, the passengers caused it to crash. Some light debris was in fact found in the town of New Baltimore, 8 miles away, carried there by air currents.
    2
  26. Hi there, If you're going to play I'm smarter than you, then you need to be better qualified. No engine was found 8 miles away. cheers
    2
  27.  @NewPassportBro  I can cite two similar events. The first is Northwest flight 710, whose entire fuselage was found buried under the ground. And even more telling is Ethiopian flight 302, the 2nd of the two 737-Max crashes. If you look at the pre-excavation photos, you will note that the vast majority of the plane disappeared into the crater. There's even a picture of the CEO of the airline standing in the empty crater. The only real question is, will you conceded the validity of this evidence. Or, as Mick West might put it, will you now become an Ethiopian flight 302 truther?
    2
  28. But then it took off again and crashed in PA.
    2
  29.  @frankie57  You have zero evidence it's BS. Th real BS is the idea that faking a plane crash in the middle of f--ing nowhere makes an iota of sense.
    2
  30. Better than the BS from truthers.
    2
  31. The US had closed most of the bases after the cold war. But even if they hadn't, it was never standard protocol to instantly intercept hijacked planes before none 11. That is a fantasy invented out of whole cloth by the truth movement. There were 100s of hijacks to Cuba in the 1970s. Can you cite a single example of an intercept?
    2
  32. You have answered your own question. There is no reason to fake a crash in the middle of nowhere. If you dig deeply, there is mounds of evidence. Discussion welcome.
    2
  33. Reality has outsmarted you. Hence you are on Youtube rather than on a science forum.
    2
  34. That analysis falls flat on its face upon deeper analysis.
    2
  35.  @christiantabeling1184  I agree with you. Elvis stole all the wreckage.
    2
  36. This guy is not being very careful and precise. I've research this crash to death. The ONLY debris that got 8 miles a way was a piece of paper or two, and maybe some liner fabric or insulation. That's it.
    2
  37.  @suspectdown5133  What am I doing that you are not?
    2
  38.  @suspectdown5133  OK, so it's obvious you're gaslighting, to use that dreadful expression. You are trying to convince me your posts flow logically from what I write, but they never did even once. Have fun trolling others, or get a real occupation.
    2
  39. That's pure fantasy, driven by the unshakeable conviction that you and so many other skeptics are the truly gifted ones, who can unmask the truth through their unique powers of revelation. And the rest of us, lay and expert alike, are a bunch of blithering id-ots. Did I get that right?
    2
  40.  @jakegodman  But it's the nature of delusion that it cannot recognize its own delusion.
    2
  41. Really. Do tell us what is the point of faking a crash in the middle of nowhere. I can hardly wait.
    2
  42. It's a figure of speech.
    2
  43. Wrong. Crater with debris buried, and the cockpit found in the trees. And they recovered enough body fragments to ID most of the passengers. Please stop making things up.
    2
  44.  @knickyak7268  The 757 was never ever called a jumbo jet. I've been an aviation geek practically all my life, which is why I was immediately drawn to the instant experts who sprang up over night after nine 11, and started talking nonsense. Even after I correct you, you make up another BS story about the 757, a narrowbody airliner. Jumbo Jet ALWAYS refers to a twin aisle plane. No sing;e aisle plane has ever been known as a jumbo jet. Can't you get anything right? You have not an ounce of proof to back up your claims. They found the wreckage, they IDd most of the passengers. Witnesses saw it crashing, they have pics of them digging out an engine core, the black boxes. There were no intact bodies, but lots of body fragments. You obviously did zero research on this crash.
    2
  45. They were not shot down, end of fantasy.
    2
  46.  @Emotionalsavage281  Not that I actually expect you to take me up on the offer.
    2
  47. No, logic gives also gives us choice No. 3: it crashed in one piece. a 2nd debris field 1.5 miles distant produced a tiny number of small fragments, blasted there by force of impact; and another tiny debris field 8 miles distant with a few pieces of paper, carried there by air currents.
    2
  48. The lack of visible debris, though, does not point to a shoot down any more than it does to an intact plane crashing.
    2
  49. The expert consensus appears to be, based on the NTSB's black box report for flight 93, that the plane crashed at Shaksville. Oh sure, here and there you can find a voice or two claiming to have been an aircraft investigator say this. But not any consensus of experts.
    2
  50. "Initially well received by the 9-11 Truth movement, 'Rebekah Roth' has become a focus of doubt, with many activists questioning both her motives and bona-fides."
    2
  51. Most of it was found under the crater. As odd as that sounds, it is not unique.
    2
  52. Of course it did. What is to be gained by faking a crash in the middle of nowhere? Truthers (not saying you necessarily) never seem to get the Big Picture. That alone destroys the premise.
    2
  53. Only a bit of paper found 8 miles away, carried by air currents. And downwind at that.
    2
  54. But not the only twoofer who can't connect the dots. Or hasn't a clue how to do real research.
    2
  55. That's correct. Elvis was at the controls.
    2
  56. You've got to do a little bit better research than that. Seriously.
    2
  57.  @buzzedalldrink9131  No offense, but I had the feeling that after my last post, I would not be hearing from you again. Or are you willing to do something refreshing, and concede that on this particular point, you got it wrong.
    2
  58. This video is about flight 93, not melted beams.
    2
  59.  @ObjectionHearsay  Appreciate it. You have affirmed my faith that not all YoutTubers are 13 years old.
    2
  60.  @leonmills6867  Only of one accepts the bizarre theory that 7 needed to be demolished. That's all based on unsupported speculation.
    2
  61. And conspiratorial anomalies, like: why on earth would anyone other than real terrorists trying to thwart a passenger revolt wish to crash a plane into the middle of nowhere?
    2
  62.  @stulax1216  The term "vaporized" is a figure of speech. It doesn't mean literally turns to vapor. The engines may be the only thing left after a 563mph crash. And a big chunk of one of them was in the crater, and the photo has been online for decades now. I can't speak definitively about witnesses from the Turnpike, but on Google maps the crash site is 5-6 miles from the highway, and the plane itself was coming in from the Northwest, which wold be the opposite direction of the highway. There were however 12 witnesses or so the final seconds, and two who saw the moment of impact. I just actually read that in the recent book on flight 93. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and thee crash site is unusual to be sure.
    2
  63.  @Nottooserious69688  Reported in many places. Tiny body fragments, an estimated 8% of the total passengers, is how Wally Miller, the County coroner ID'd the victims.
    2
  64. Nope, sorry, wrong.
    2
  65. What makes you think they couldn't?
    2
  66.  @bryant071  Don't just make assumptions. Show me evidence they could not work from altitude.
    2
  67. ​ @bryant071  Because you wrote "you think back in 2001 you could use the cellphones at 15,25,35 thousand feet in the air? oh and traveling at 500 mph or faster!!" But I digress. Proof: -flight 93 itself. I say it's a proof for the obvious reason that it makes no sense for the government to have invented irrelevant phone calls. What purpose is served? The midair heroes drama is a nice touch, but 100% useless and irrelevant as a contributory pretext to war. I don't see people who come here asking these questions (not saying you) by first stopping and asking themselves, "do fake calls make sense when looking at the Big Picture?" Flight 93 only works (whether US-sponsored or not) as a real h-jacking gone wrong. Do you disagree with that? -We have telecom experts who say it was possible. Don't be shy. Try calling one yourself. -We also have a study conducted in 2003 proving that cell calls were connected at all stages of flight. The study did not confirm how long the connections lasted, but certainly leaves wide open the probability of connections long enough to have a conversation. Details and links if interested.
    2
  68.  @CATSWITHKYLA  Yes, you are correct about engines being indestructible, at least the core. A big chunk of each engine was found. One in a catch basin 900 ft away; the other in the crater itself, of which a picture is easily found in any basic google search. Seriously, if you do the most simple of google searches, such as "flight 93" and "engine", the very first pic is of the engine part. "You are trying so hard to make points" Not only that, I AM making them. By contrast you cannot even do a basic google search.
    2
  69.  @gjustg1540  Yes it can. PSA flight 1771 was even more "nothing". Just confetti on a hillside. First responders thought they were dealing with a small plane carrying newspapers. Once again, reality has outsmarted you. Not saying that to be insulting, just saying our intuitions are often wrong. Flight 1771 makes this abundantly clear.
    2
  70. What possible alternative truth is to be derived from a useless plane crash into the middle of nowhere?
    2
  71. Oh yes there was, and it only shows again how uncritical people are in their thinking. They think they know everything.
    2
  72. They showed a picture of an engine core being fork lifted out of the crater. A State Trooper found part of an engine in a catch basin 900 feet away. They IDd most passengers through body fragments. The wing marks are clearly seen imprinted in the grass. How could you get all of this so wrong?
    2
  73. Most of it was buried, just like Ethiopian flight 302.
    2
  74. Most of it was buried inside the crater. And before you open your B-- M---- and say impossible, here's a quote from Northwest flight 710: "But the one hundred foot fuselage itself had disappeared entirely. In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking cauldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines flight 710 - and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard. . . . The residue of flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigators had never come across before. There were no bodies." Have a lovely day.
    2
  75. Wrong on all counts.
    2
  76. Wrong
    1
  77. Disavowed by one of its producers because of its poor quality.
    1
  78. Because they didn't shoot it down. I have studied this crash in far more detail than Depressed Ginger. He is speaking somewhat sloppily and inaccurately. There were no large chunks of debris anywhere beyond the immediate crash scene. The stuff 8 miles away amounted to little more than a piece of paper or two.
    1
  79.  @LeftyPlaysRighty  Disclaimer: anything is possible. But you actually have a double lack of evidence. 1- no evidence of a shoot down 2- no evidence that "our government wanted it." So what makes you so sure? Or is it more a case of intuition?
    1
  80. No they are not ignorant. They are more enlightened.
    1
  81. Because the tale of a fake "crash" targeting blades of grass is way beyond BS.
    1
  82. You have no evidence it landed, safely or otherwise. So why make a baseless claim?
    1
  83.  @Jaysonfear42069  No evidence of a shoot down. The only debris 8 miles away was light stuff, like insulation and paper, no part of the plane itself. The proof F93 crashed where it did is established by mounds of evidence, including: An impact crater perfectly consistent with a 757 40 degrees nose down; wreckage pics include 5-7 ft chunk of fuselage, the black boxes, engine core. State trooper finds part of engine in a catch basin, a dozen witnesses who saw the plane impact the ground, radar tapes tracking the plane, enough body parts to ID most passengers, the passenger phone calls. Additionally, hundreds of workers representing over 70 organizations involved in the recovery effort, photo of impact plume. FDR flight analysis published online. And now the evidence of a faked crash: zero
    1
  84. That's because you aren't very well informed.
    1
  85.  @TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl  What was found doesn't = the total weight of the plane and passengers. For example, only 600 or so lbs of human remains were found, indicating the rest were so finely pulverized they could not be recognized.
    1
  86.  @TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl  I was trying to figure out why you mentioned 19 tons. But now I get it!
    1
  87.  @TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl  Why doubtful? Do you know me? I have probably posted more rebuttals of the no-planers than anyone else.
    1
  88.  @mgmurray100  Wrong, This is one of the truth movement's Big L-i-es. Why is everyone always saying this?
    1
  89.  @gjustg1540  This the problem I find with the truth movement, at least to judge from Youtube. I am not saying you personally, but in general, they seem not to understand the nature of evidence, and do not incorporate counter evidence into their claims. The largest study I know of cell phone use on commercial aircraft was done in 2003, which monitored 37 flights up and down the East Coast. It found cell calls connections were detected at all phases of flight. Why do truth sites only mention the Ontario study? That's not a scholarly approach to evidence. Are you willing to incorporate this evidence into your assessment of the evidence; or at least show an interest in reading more about this study? Or are you content on skipping away happily without the lightest interest? Just saying.
    1
  90.  @thebipolarbear1  Only one did that, so let's not exaggerate. What's much more bizarre are the claims of the deniers and truthers. They would have us believe the War on Te-ror depended on utterly useless phone calls, and targeting blades of grass in the middle of nowhere. I bet those kinds of oddities never even cross your mind.
    1
  91.  @gjustg1540  "because cell phone masts don't broadcast upwards, that's why" I thought I replied to you, but now it's disappeared. That's the trouble with theorizing. Reality has a way of rendering theories useless. The largest study on cell phone use, conducted very conveniently in 2003, used sophisticated equipment to monitor cell phone use on 37 commercial flights up and down the East Coast. It confirmed cell phone connections at the cruise phase on nearly half the flights. You can call telecom experts too. As it turns out, you were more likely to get through back then, as most cell phones were analog, an had a greater range.
    1
  92.  @gjustg1540  Just as you do not want to confront the uncomfortable evidence cell calls were possible up there back then. You skipped happily away, just as I predicted you would.
    1
  93. Playing crash expert won't help you unless you're very good at it, which you are not. Ethiopian flight 302 also disappeared into its crater, as pre-excavation photos show. There's one in the accident report itself showing the CEO of the airline standing in the crater a few hours later. Mick West has side by side comparison photos on his site. Or we have the case of Northwest flight 710. The entire fuselage disappeared into the earth. That's the problem with Youtube. Self-styled experts pop up all the time, with no real mechanism for filtering out the men from the boys. Go for it. Continue to be ignorant about the histories of high speed crashes; continue to ignore huge studies that contradict your cherished beliefs.
    1
  94.  @gjustg1540  I told you to go to the flight 302 pre-excavtion photos, which show no such debris. Did you have a look? They are posted at Mick West's site, whose name I cannot post courtesy Youtube anti-customer service. Please have a look and report back.Thanks.
    1
  95. If you are interested in the truth, then you will go to the site I mentioned above. As Mick West remarked, "With the tragedy of Flight 302, with its similar crater and lack of visible debris, the truthers are again forced to decide if they are going to give up a precious piece of evidence, or if they are now going to become Ethiopian 302 Truthers." But I don't think you are interested to judge from your lack of curiosity on this and the cell phones study. Better to ignore counter evidence, or dismiss it away.
    1
  96.  @gjustg1540  Still waiting for that proof cell phone calls from aloft were impossible in 2001. Your claim: cell phones cannot work (at altitude) "because cell phone masts don't broadcast upwards," I assume you know the difference between an unsupported claim and a proof.
    1
  97.  @gjustg1540  You are not seeking truth. If you were, you would take all the evidence seriously. I gave it to you already: the largest study on cell phone use in commercial planes ever done. I spoke with its lead author, Bill Strauss. You never even expressed an ounce of curiosity. We have Telecom experts who have publicly stated it was posible. Also, in 2001 the phones had a greater range as they were analog. I also read about the Ontario study. This is called covering all your bases. A real truth seeker would not so casually and confidently da-n and dismiss counter evidence without even reading it. Like most people, you only cite evidence on your side. Your evidence is just your own unsupported claim, and your own personal anecdote regarding a limited number of flights you were on. It also shows you don't understand the nature of evidence.
    1
  98.  @gjustg1540  The other point that you cannot grasp is the "why." It is inexplicable why a conspiratorial government would wish to have a plane crash into an empty field rather than a building with people in them. This absurdity is staring you in the face, and even then you cannot see it.
    1
  99.  @gjustg1540  "so you keep hopping to a new one" That's because I won the cell phone debate. So I thought you'd might do better with your pet plot without a motive. But you have failed that too on multiple occasions. But I'll give you another chance. Flight 93 was necessary because 1) Targeting blades of grass in the middle of nowhere is more effective than targeting people. 2) The war on ter-or could not be won without the deaths of 40 additional victims 3) The question has no intelligent answer. 4) all of the above
    1
  100.  @gjustg1540  Let's demonstrate why you do not understand the nature of evidence. My evidence: -The following telecom experts on public record: Rick Kempor of CTIA Paul Guckian of Qualcom; Alex Graf, AT&T All agreed the calls were indeed possible -The cell phone study from 2003 which covered far more flights then your small personal sampling. And done back in 2003 when most phones were analog, and over rural areas on 9/11. -I spoke by phone to the study's lead author. That's a 4th telecom expert, whose name is Bill Strauss And now your evidence: A small sample of calls made only by you. So who are you fooling? " made a statement based on your beliefs and nothing more" Sounds more like you than me: I have four outside independent sources identified by name. You have zero. And you have shown no interest in looking at this study, or calling Telecom experts as I have. You are just an anonymous nobody with no name and no sources. Do you think readers are that stu-id?
    1
  101.  @gjustg1540  And you still can't explain why it's preferable to "crash" a plane into rural dirt rather than people. None of the skeptics can answer this because IT MAKES NO SENSE. The first false flag in history targeting useless blades of grass. Go for it, Big Guy.
    1
  102.  @earlthepearl6414  "In 2001 cell phones were not capable of making calls at that altitude." I've already disproved you above by quoting 4 different telecom experts, and citing the largest cell phone study ever, in 2003, which documented cell call use at all phases of flight. Tell me, what is it that causes you and others to make claims without citing so much as an iota of evidence? Do you know more than telecom experts? Are you going exclusively by the Ontario study? In which case, you do not understand the nature of evidence. Or do not know how to do a Google search. Go around arrogantly acting like a know it all. That is what Youtube is all about, right?
    1
  103.  @earlthepearl6414  "Nobody can explain all the "whys" and "whos". We must stick to the things we can answer." For flight 93 that includes: -40 passengers IDd through the collection of over a 1000 lbs or remains -radar tapes tracked it to Shanksville -black boxes recovered, contents published on line -hijackers make reservations under own name -UA confirms it's their plane -passenger calls -I2 witnesses who saw the impact as it happened -trooper finds part of engine in catch basin -most of the wreckage buried under impact crater -photo of impact plume -7 ft section of fuselage photo -picture of 2nd engine core as it is dug from crater And now the evidence of a faked crash -zero
    1
  104. What power lines. Please identify them.
    1
  105. You haven't researched very hard.
    1
  106. Perhaps, but there's faint evidence of a shoot down.
    1
  107.  @itsmedrooms6071  We don't know that. It's based on an assumption that we know the level of chaos and confusion that morning. But we can only speculate. The debris 8 miles away contained no airplane parts. It was just scattered paper and insulation.
    1
  108. No that's not true. The picture of the hole shows it was oriented in a different direction as the plane. What you really should ask is, WHY would anyone try and fake a useless crash in the middle of nowhere?
    1
  109.  @gjustg1540  "none of the parts ever found (dropped) at the site were ever positively matched by serial numbers to that particular aircraft." Since we don't have a report which lists serial numbers, we have no way of knowing if there were no matching serial numbers. So why are YOU making a statement without any corresponding evidence? Similarly you won't find serial numbers or an extensive crash report for PSA flight 1771. When it's determined early on the cause was sabotage, the FBI becomes the lead agency, and they don't give us the same kind of lengthy detailed report that the NTSB does. So does that mean PSA flight 1771 didn't crash either? BTW only relatively recently have crash reports contained extensive serial number documentation. For example, AA flight 191 only lists serial numbers for engines and DFDR, typical of the 1970s and 80s. We know flight 93 crashed where it did because of mounds of evidence; evidence that you would not question for any other crash that happened before or after that day. But I could be persuaded if shown any real evidence the crash was faked. So fr I've found none after studying this crash for years.
    1
  110.  @CATSWITHKYLA  Hi again. What am I wrong about?
    1
  111.  @NewPassportBro  "I would love to find evidence proving me wrong." I've given you evidence of two similar events, including 737 that buried itself at least as much if not more than flight 93. But you ignore.
    1
  112.  @NewPassportBro  We have two other examples of planes burying themselves. The most recent is the 737 in Ethiopia. We can see a photo of the CEO of the airline standing in the empty crater the very day of the crash. If you are as good as an investigator as claimed, let's see you acknowledge this evidence.
    1
  113.  @NewPassportBro  You still ignore the evidence I have repeatedly mentioned. It shows you aren't serious. Another Youtube truther/troll out for kicks.
    1
  114.  @NewPassportBro  I have no way of knowing if you are addressing me because your addressee is "@Evidence. But if you are, I am talking bout the 737 plane crash flight 30-2 which left a gaping hole under which most of the plane was found. Can you acknowledge this fact. You said the physics was impossible. You have the burden of showing this. What M Bingham said proves nothing. You are changing the subject. That's why I called you a troll. You cannot answer what is asked of you.
    1
  115.  @NewPassportBro  BUT speaking of Mark B, his mom once explained he was in the customer service business, and that was his signature way of addressing himself when calling. But then years later, she said she didn't really know why he did that. Perhaps she forgot because it was such a trivial part of the case for F93. Who knows. But being a troll, I 100% guarantee you will never acknowledge the pre-excavation photos and video proving Ethiopai-n flight 30-2 was swallowed more or less hole. It ain't happening because you are not out for truth but for pursuing the bizarre fantasy about a useless plot to blow up some grass in the middle of nowhere. The sheer absurdity of this hypothesis is quite enough as is to render it complete BS.
    1
  116.  @NewPassportBro  So there is no violation of physics in most of the plane being buried. You now admit that you were wrong about that. Before moving on, can we agree on that point?
    1
  117.  @NewPassportBro  Ethiopi-an 30-2. debunks you. The plane was swallowed hole.
    1
  118.  @NewPassportBro  "actual wreckage" It is clear you cannot do basic research. You have failed to find the PRE-EXCAVATION photos, just like every other "truther." I put that qualifier in my first post. But even that wasn't enough. The comparison photos can be checked out at M We-st's site (Youtube refuses to let me post the name of it, but I will gave it a try with spaces added: Met-a-b-unk. The final report shows the CEO of the airline standing in the empty crater just hours later. I knew you would fail this basic research test, as all truthers do.
    1
  119.  @NewPassportBro  You simply cannot get yourself to acknowledge the vast majority of flight 302 wreckage was dug up AFTER the crash. It's proven by several photos and videos, one of which is even shown in the official report. You continue to demonstrate the shockingly poor research skills of Youtube truthers. Be my guest.
    1
  120.  @AutoMotoMechanic  This is flight 93, no building. If you are talking about the Pentagon?, sorry lots of debris photos showing parts of landing gear, and the infamous engine photo, not to mention a whole book documenting it.
    1
  121. Correct. Flight 93 should be the most obvious give away: it had no real purpose as a false flag. Thus the truthers had to really stretch big time. America needed some heroes, they claimed. That silly theory cuts to the very heart of trutherism, at least that which we see here practically every hour of the day and night.
    1
  122. If you want to talk critical thinking, start with: How on earth does faking a crash in the middle of nowhere have anything to do with the alleged goal of the government? "Let's roll" is a preposterous reason to fake a crash, as any sensible person can see.
    1
  123.  @m0joj0jo666  "The reason for faking it and making up the story is to account for the debris field in shanksville. You have offered no evidence. If you want to keep lowering the standards of the truth movement, continue on sir.
    1
  124. Remember, the plane has to do the return flight, and if that one's full the airline may decide the total round trip revenue makes it worth it. Pre-nine one onne lightly booked planes were a commonplace. Just ask anyone over the age of 3.
    1
  125. Only light debris was found 8 miles away: paper, insulation, carried there by air currents. If you would like to have a serious and polite discussion, let's do it.
    1
  126. You are speculating. Other planes have survived high speed flight at low altitude. TK flight 981 reached a peak velocity of 497mph shortly before impact, and crashed at 485mph. TWA 841 is another great example. Nice try.
    1
  127.  @kevinswinyer3176  I'm only saying that your comment "shake themselves apart" is speculation. I gave two examples that conflict with that.
    1
  128. Explain flight 93: what purpose did it serve?
    1
  129. I thought they all landed in Cleveland, next to Elvis' plane.
    1
  130.  @ashleylovestennis6476  Same with Amelia's plane. It was a fake too.
    1
  131. Air currents.
    1
  132.  @bengatewood3197  Due, more than likely to the same effect as a thermal, a temperature inversion that draws air upwards. Look at the photo of the impact plume, and you can literally see what appears to be air being sucked upwards into the smoke plume. This is not just theory. The same thing happened to USAir 427. Paper and insulation, and thin wispy fabric fell on a golf course 2 miles away. This was also the only debris found 8 miles away - light stuff only.
    1
  133. That was a Delta plane that landed in Cleveland. You have no proof flight 93 landed there. What else is new with the truth movement & Co. They cannot stand the idea of evidence. The less of it the better. Go for it.
    1
  134. Elvis directed the whole operation. Confirmed by several Youtube videos.
    1
  135. No proof you can't have free fall for part of the collapse sequence. If you have a scientific proof, let's see it.
    1
  136. Most of it is now stored at the flight 93 memorial.
    1
  137.  @gpuckit  They recovered 95% of the plane.
    1
  138.  @EnriqueMateo0125  Well, QED
    1
  139. But the fairy tail of a fake crash into the middle of nowhere is even more ridiculous. Since when do governments target blades of grass? Talk about "firsts."
    1
  140. Thats correct. Elvis stole it.
    1
  141. Ridiculous. Since when do shot down planes leave no debris? Maybe in Hollywood. But not real life witness Malaysian Airlines shoot down with its big plentiful chunks of debris; or Korean Air over Siberia, which actually landed safely (1978), ditto Lybian Arab 727, lots of wreckage. Where do you guys get this stup-d myth from?
    1
  142. Yes, the FBI didn't care about public access or documentation. But the evidence is still more than enough to confirm flight 93 crashed near Shanksville. Don't confuse secrecy with actual evidence.
    1
  143.  @suspectdown5133  What was the purpose of flight 93?
    1
  144.  @suspectdown5133  Because such questions to me are a diversion and have absolutely no significance of any sort. HOWEVER, I will for the sake of being a good sport, tell you that I don't know the answer. Kindly tell us who that passenger is and why it has any significance to the truth of what happened to flight 93.
    1
  145.  @suspectdown5133  Now after all that passionate protest, he disappears. Seriously, I would like to know why this is significant. And I would like to learn more about the two phone numbers for Edward Felt. The other issues you bring are easily dealt with. What do you say if we have a respectful conversation? I would like to learn from you anything I am missing.
    1
  146.  @suspectdown5133  Don't know what diatribe you're talking about. OK< I will look it up. But after I do, please say why you think it's significant, as I am going to guess there ultimately is not significance I will be able to find.
    1
  147.  @suspectdown5133  OK, so I looked him up. It's certainly a little known detail, and worthy of inclusion given the connection to aviation. The son of Leonard Greene, who was a GA pilot. All very interesting. There's only one nagging question: What does this have to do with questioning the official narrative?
    1
  148.  @suspectdown5133  No, this is not about me. If it is, then you have an unhealthy obsession. You are in a state of virtual rage, and for what possible reason? "Researched to death," yes, about RELEVANT things, not about the personal history of each and every passenger, but in relation to the absurd claim flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville, or that it was otherwise part of some absurd plot, or that it was shot down. "remember being asked about the time of the claimed take off time of the plane years ago ?" I'm not 100% sure, but I do know that I may have mentioned the Southwest crash in Chicago c2005, where similarly there was either inaccurate or missing data. What I would say now, as then, is that you cannot treat any one number as sacrosanct, as there could be many reasons why that number is wrong. Unfortunately, I have so far learned absolutely nothing new from you that has any relevance to the official narrative. I am only hearing obsession with me, and bucket loads of hostility. If you can't add anything of relevance, then you have proven absolutely nothing. And like everyone else, past and present, you have not presented any sensible theory why the government would spend so much time faking an utterly useless crash. That is 100 times more relevant than any bizarre conjecture on your part.
    1
  149.  @suspectdown5133  Other people said the hole was 30 feet wide. You latch on to a particular quote or claim, and act as if it is sacrosanct. So if BTS says, say, 6:15p, then that is absolute proof in your mind. You make a big deal about a passenger who's father is x y z. WHO THE F CARES. So you only brought that up to prove how bad a researcher am? How petty is that. In all these years you have yet to disprove the official narrative, and have no interest in nor clue why a government would wish to target an empty field. I mean why not a rabbit habitat, or a mink farm? You refuse to see the Big Picture because you are lost in the trees. You are what they call an anomaly hunter. These people never win because they cannot connect the dots into a coherent, sensible alternate theory. The fact is, even if it were proven to your satisfaction that flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, there would still be all these little tidbits that seem odd. It's the nature of any huge event. That principle also doesn't figure into your methodology. Now if you want to keep raging, go right ahead. If you have an actual proof of something new, kindly share it with me. But your approach is that of a child carrying a personal grudge god know how many years. Get over it.
    1
  150.  @suspectdown5133  I found your Wally Miller video. It struck me as not the most precise. Yes, he didn't explain the exact angle of nose down, or whether it was upside down. Was he asked that specifically? Similarly, was he asked about the landing gear? Was he asked to give a complete and detailed description of every last element of the crash? So I don't know what is so surprising here. He did not see the impact, after all. But what he DOES state does appear to corroborate the basics. We discussed the engine part found in the catch basin by the state trooper. He confirmed that (it was an engine PART). I have heard from several sources the cockpit exploded into the trees. That's what Tim Lambert personally told me in an email many years ago. Others have said the "front third" of the plane went into the trees. If I am missing something, and you want to reply, can you kindly do it in a civil way rather an accusatory way.
    1
  151.  @suspectdown5133  Thank you for your reply. I don't see that any of these details puts much of a dent in to the official narrative. Lots of people are sloppy communicators. He seems to be one of them. ----------------------- OK, below is my latest "rant." It seems, then and now, you have not attempted to share all the results of your research. I know despite everything else, that you’re good at it. But your style, then and now, is to throw out pieces of bait, isolated tidbits that you then instruct others to research. The way scholars make their case, as you well know, is to present their entire body of evidence. I welcome you to make your case in full. And you cannot continue to duck from the obvious fact that yours so far has been a plot without a purpose. As with any murder trial, a credible motive is part of that investigation. By saying “lame,” you don’t help your case. Just my HO. Go for it. I know you are plenty smart. Make your case in full. Here, or somewhere else. Anomaly hunting, as I have said, is not a reliable methodology for two reasons: huge complex events are messy, and by nature will tend to generate a slew of hard-to-explain elements or mysteries. I remember Chomsky's famous remark that even under controlled laboratory conditions, contradictions abound. The other is that anomalies, since they are often mysteries, can just as easily resolve in favor of the less expected outcome. As in the case of the "747 engine" found at ground zero. A quick trip to Boeing's website reveals that 747 and 767 engines are interchangeable. And that's just one of many.
    1
  152.  @suspectdown5133  I'm giving you the opportunity, then as now, to flesh out your case. How come you won't?
    1
  153.  @suspectdown5133  OK, we've got it. You have not provided any proof flight 93 was faked. As you stated years ago, I am the one obligated to go on a search for wild cards. But you, the person who has done all this research, refuses to share it. This, as they say, isn't even wrong. If it won't fit into an inbox, I invite you to write a full length expose, or even book. I'd love to read it. But until you produce it, you cannot expect reasonable people to just throw up their hands and agree with you. I'm giving you every chance to prove yourself.
    1
  154. "OLIVE GREEN......" Where are you seeing that, and what does it mean?
    1
  155.  @suspectdown5133  Am I supposed to have an encyclopedic memory? I just don't remember olive color. So, what is the significance, or is it just an unexplained oddity?
    1
  156.  @suspectdown5133  What does that have to do with me?
    1
  157. Yes, the major fraud includes both the government, and the truth movement itself. The latter being by far the more dishonest.
    1
  158.  @illumination101  And neither 1 nor 2 happened.
    1
  159.  @jamespage7998  Indeed. It's bordering on mental disorder to claim the government wished to target an empty field in the middle of nowhere. This would be the first government conspiracy in history targeting blades of grass. Does the truth movement, or at least the fringe part of it found on YouTube, not see the absolute perversion of normal thinking in such absurd fantasies?
    1
  160.  @marleneg7794  You haven't demonstrated any critical thinking skills as of yet. In any case, "truthers" in general are no different than debunkers. They are no less slaves to their favorite false narratives. As regards 93, I have already mentioned the most absurd part of the truther narrative of faked wreckage: there is no reason to blow up a field in the middle of nowhere. Are you willing to answering that?
    1
  161. Mounds of evidence it crashed. Zero evidence it was faked. Go for it.
    1
  162. But less so then the wild fantasies of the fringe truthers that congregate here.
    1
  163. The only problem is, it makes no sense to crash an airplane in the middle of nowhere unless you are trying to thwart a passenger revolt.
    1
  164.  @knickyak7268  Oh, and PS. A 757 is not a jumbo jet.
    1
  165.  @Emotionalsavage281  OK, if you want to have a serious and courteous discussion, let's do it!
    1
  166. Oh yes it did. To say otherwise is to endorse the nonsensical theory that a government wishing to further an agenda would decide that the best way to do so is to "crash" a 757 into an empty field in the middle of nowhere. That's only marginally less rational than targeting a rabbit habitat, grazing cows or penguins in the South Pole.
    1
  167.  @j.savage1228  Yes it did. There's mounds of evidence. By denying this, by default you must be committed to the nonsense theory that a government wishing to have a "war on T---" would find it necessary to crash a plane into the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.
    1
  168. I know what you mean, truther spam is the curse of Youtube.
    1
  169. We already have that. Ethiopian airlines flight 302 was more or less identical. Before the wreckage was dug out, the main body of the plane disappeared beneath the soil.
    1
  170. It sure did. And the main proof is logic itself. There is nothing to be gained by blowing up a useless field in the middle of nowhere. Absolutely nothing. cheers
    1
  171. Do tell us what the government had to gain by faking a plane crash in the middle of nowhere. BTW the coroner ID'd all the passengers. It seems you hear news stories selectively.
    1
  172. At the memorial site.
    1
  173. No real evidence of a shoot down. The debris pattern here was nothing like Lockerbie. There was no engine 8 miles away on flight 93. Only lite paper/insulation was found 8 miles distant. It was also found downwind, not the area over which a shoot down would have happened.
    1
  174. This is about flight 93, not 77.
    1
  175. Wrong.
    1
  176.  @dannycox4909  As long as we are both civil and respectful, sure.
    1
  177.  @dannycox4909  OK, if you want to have this discussion, let me begin: what's your source of evidence that cell phones don't function on jets.
    1
  178.  @dannycox4909  Still waiting for that positive debate.
    1
  179.  @dannycox4909  Thanks. And what is your proof?
    1
  180.  @dannycox4909  OK, that's fair. Some questions: -How many times have you tried to make a cell phone call from an airplane? -How come there are telecom experts on public record who have stated it's possible? I've spoken to 2 myself. One pointed out to me that back in 2001 most cell phones were analog which gave them greater range. -How do you account for the 2003 study that tracked 37 flights up and down the East Coast? it used sophisticated equipment which detected cell call connections at all phases of flight. Its author, Bill Strauss told me in a phone call the calls made on 9/11 were absolutely possible. -What would be the motive for a government to fake phone calls with provably impossible technology? And for what purpose? How would the fallout from 9/11 have been different had there been no cell phone or airfone calls? Would the US have been unable to retaliate without passenger phone calls? Thanks
    1
  181. You don't have any way to measure the degree of chaos going on that morning. And in any case, there's no proof.
    1
  182.  @raventalks2776  There's mounds of evidence -impact crater perfectly matching a 757 40 degrees nose down -passenger phone calls -wreckage pics include engine core, black boxes, 5x7 piece of fuselage -enough body fragments to ID most pax -FDR readout published -Trooper finds engine part in catch basin -ATC radar tracked it there -cockpit found in trees -12 witnesses who saw the impact into the ground -impact smoke plume pic -plane IDd by United Airlines -1100 people representing 73 organizations involved in recovery effort -none to my knowledge reported any anomalies. And now the evidence all this was faked: zero Finally, where was all the wreckage from the shoot down?
    1
  183.  @cccc9911  OK, let's do this. Please give a link, or google search term that shows plane parts said to be from flight 93 that are inconsistent with a 757.
    1
  184. If you count two pieces of paper as a debris field, then I suppose it is.
    1
  185. No evidence for that.
    1
  186. No one saw a plane being shot down. Why do you make things up?
    1
  187. That's easy: "Surveillance video from Washington Dulles International Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, shows four of the five hijackers being pulled aside to undergo additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors but then permitted to board the fateful flight that crashed into the Pentagon."
    1
  188. Well I gave you one. But you won't acknowledge it, will you? The truthers can't do basic research I assume. and never admit to a mistake.
    1
  189. Which power lines? Please provide evidence.
    1
  190.  @robertstultz2260  Oh I see them now. My bad.
    1
  191. They found only paper and insulation 8 miles away, carried by air currents. There was no data recorder found 3 miles away. There have been a lot of contradictory claims in the media, so perhaps that is one of them. I would do more careful fact checking.
    1
  192. What are you talking about? Cleveland is west of Newark.
    1
  193.  @tankeater  I think the answer is, airplanes frequently deviate somewhat from a straight line route due to traffic and wind. On my trusty high school globe, a great circle route would take you pretty much right over Cleveland. Also, flat map projections can be deceptive. If you go to Google maps and use the "measure distance" tool, you will see the direct line route is right over Cleveland.
    1
  194. Oh really? And what did the government gain from flight 93? Was it some extra dead grass? Or did they need some heroes? Do tell us how that worked. I challenge you to think critically.
    1
  195.  @Ricky-k1g  OK, since I asked you first, tell us why the government needed flight 93.
    1
  196.  @Ricky-k1g  I've given you 48 hours and you can't even answer my first question. I rest my case.
    1
  197.  @Ricky-k1g  I'm asking you to answer a simple question. You simply cannot do it. You fail the very first question. That says to the reader, you know nothing bout flight 93. Is this your way of having an intelligent conversation?
    1
  198. Now I've given you a month. And you STILL can't answer even one question. This is why the truth mvt has no credibility. The posters are their own worst enemies. They prove themselves incompetent with each post and non-post.
    1
  199.  @Ricky-k1g  Well let's test who knows more about flight 93, if you're up for it that is. I already asked you a big question and you didn't even attempt to answer it. Now I am giving you a chance to ask me a question and have an actual conversation.
    1
  200.  @Ricky-k1g  You just made all that stuff up. Given the rest of your unsupported fantasy, that would make sense. I completely trust the news? You just pulled that out of a hat. If I really always trusted the news, I would believe that flight 93 landed in Cleveland. So you just contradicted yourself. I don't care if your mind is changed, I am only interested in seeing your evidence. But like all the others, you fail to deliver while pretending you know how I think.
    1
  201. How does crashing a 757 into an empty field in the middle of nowhere benefit the government?
    1
  202.  @tforever2475  You aren't thinking big picture. There is no reason to crash a plane in the middle of nowhere. Forget narrative, there's mounds of evidence. Zero evidence of fake crash. That shows your narrative is pulled from thin air.
    1
  203.  @buzzedalldrink9131  When you do research, you can't just dig up an isolated word or phrase. Wally Miller, the county coroner did indeed say he hadn't seen a "single drop of blood" there. BUT, and here's the big but you left out: "Miller walked the site for an hour before he saw the first recognizable body part, a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached.. . . . .Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total." I can only say, you obviously have no idea how to do research. Or are you suggesting I made up these quotes? Have a lovely evening.
    1
  204.  @buzzedalldrink9131  Do you agree I did not make up those quotes? Yes or no please.
    1
  205. "Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue ...." Did I make that up? It means you got it wrong. Oh sure, not a drop of blood, but 1500 body fragments. Don't give me anymore of your BS.
    1
  206.  @suspectdown5133  And what does this prove? That flight 93 didn't crash because Wally changed his story, or left part of it out?
    1
  207. No it wasn't.
    1
  208. There's no confirmation they were fighters, but sometimes the military send out "trainers," white aircraft that don't have shoot down capability. There was also a private jet in the vicinity. Either way, there's no convincing evidence of a shoot down.
    1
  209.  @suspectdown5133  "Never said anything about...." Fair enough, but "do the math" implied it, no?
    1
  210. No shoot down, no proof.
    1
  211. No, the real fairy tale is the one made up by the fringe members of the truth movement. Like their Big Lie that cell phones couldn't work aloft that day.
    1
  212.  @adambeyer7024  But this was nothing like Lockerbie. Pan Am 103 resulted in wreckage scattered everywhere, and the wing section came down in one piece. In flight 93 almost all the wreckage was found within a bout a thousand feet of the impact point. There were two secondary debris fields, but they were tiny. One contained a few small fragments. The other, 8 miles away, consisted merely of a piece of paper and a few other light weight items, carried by air currents.
    1
  213. An explosion before the crash? Please provide evidence.
    1
  214. If you want to put forth the staggeringly silly theory that crashing a plane into a plot of grass in the middle of f-ing nowhere helped the government's agenda, do feel free to continue marginalizing whatever remnants remain of the truth movement.
    1
  215. Except there was no shoot down.
    1
  216.  @kenstears2512  Hearsay is especially meaningless when it appears on Youtube. There is no evidence of a shoot down.
    1
  217.  @m0joj0jo666  You have not an ounce of proof. What else is new with the truth movement and its many offshoots. The 2ndary debris field was just some business cards and insulation. The rest of your theory is pure speculation (I'm going to guess they somehow managed to clean up all the wreckage of flight 175 before anyone noticed?), is most assuredly not critical thinking. It is wild unsupported speculation.
    1
  218.  @m0joj0jo666  Firstly, thank you for removing your post with the completely unsupported claim of big chunks of debris raining down on New Baltimore. Corrections are always welcome! OK, even if I accept the idea of fight 175 not being the plane that hit WTC 2, you have so far not shown any trail of evidence leading it to Shanksville. The debris fields are irrefutable proof: a few pieces of paper in a single town, and a few tiny bits of bone or seats in another; that does not add up to a 100 ton 767 (or whatever it exactly weighed.) in any way shape or form. And there's no sensible explanation for "crashing" flight 93 into the middle of nowhere. That makes flight 93 the most bizarre conspiracy theory ever invented in history: the first to target blades of grass in an empty useless field. As to you theory of "not a viable option," no offense but that's a load of HS. Especially pre 9 one one, half filled planes were pretty common. I've been on my share of them. What you are forgetting in your equation is that the return flights to the East Coast may be very full, and absolutely depend on the Westbound flights making their trips. This is basic airline economics. As it turns out, as a collector of all things commercial flight, I have the pocket OAG flight guide from Sep 2001. These flights are absolutely listed as daily operations. It's a complete truther fabrication those were not scheduled that day. Yes, don't believe everything the gov says. But the same goes for the tuth mvt and its myriad lies and distortions.
    1
  219.  @stulax1216  So you believe the crash was faked?
    1
  220.  @stulax1216  What is to be gained by targeting blades of grass in an empty field? I'm all ears.
    1
  221. That is one of the truth movements Big Lies. Conversation welcome.
    1
  222. There is no rational explanation why the government would wish to "crash" a 757 into the middle of nowhere. Kindly explain how that works.
    1
  223. Interesting theory if one likes to fantasize.
    1
  224.  @JongleWongle  The first plane out was flight 11 from Boston. Is that the one you mean?
    1
  225.  @JongleWongle  You have a lot of facts wrong. The first two planes left from Boston, the third one from Washington DC. There's no proof the planes were switched in midair. There were discernible human remains, some 600 lbs of them positively ID'd by the top forensic pathologists in the country.
    1
  226. You are a broken record. You keep dwelling on your pet points but won't acknowledge your own lapses. C'mon, admit flight 302 was swallowed hole. You just can't admit to being wrong. That is trutherism for you.
    1
  227. The only problem is, why on earth would the government need to fake a crash in an empty field in the middle of nowhere? This is further evidence how many posters cannot grasp the Big Picture.
    1
  228. Better than the truth movement's Big Lie that cell phone calls aloft were impossible that day.
    1
  229. It's now at the flight 93 memorial site.
    1
  230. Wrong
    1
  231. We do know the truth. Maybe not with 100% ontological certitude, but in practical terms, the evidence just isn't there.
    1
  232. "Who believes this crap?" Everyone who thinks for more than two seconds. Upon which one realizes the government gains nothing by "crashing" a plane into the middle of nowhere.
    1
  233. Absolutely. What makes these wild fantasies even more preposterous is the premise that crashing a 757 into the middle of nowhere makes more sense than crashing into a real target. This is schi-ophrenia at its finest: having three planes target people, but inexplicably STOPPING the 4th. This is just another example of truthers failing to see the Big Picture.They cannot connect the dots for the life of them.
    1
  234. I don't see that. What debris pattern doesn't match?
    1
  235. It did.
    1
  236.  @Semprefi  As is usually the case with Youtube, you are making a claim but not providing evidence.
    1
  237. It helps to know the facts before you post.
    1
  238. Just like CT sites.
    1
  239. Yes there is. Ethiopian flight 302, pre-excavation pics prove it.
    1
  240. So have all of us.
    1
  241.  @gjustg1540  As usual, like others I have pointed this out to, you have not looked at the PRE_EXCEVATION photos of flight 302.
    1
  242.  @anton1949  This is exactly right. We have at least 3 crashes similar to each other: -Flight 93 -Ethiopian 302 (pre-excavation photos only, please !!) -Northwest 710. In all 3 cases, most if not all the fuselage was buried; very little visible debris at the impact crater, no visible luggage strewn round (to the best of my knowledge.) If you want to see flight 302 before they started digging out the wreckage, please google "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and 9/11's United Flight 93" which brings you right to the link with the photos. The final report also shows the CEO of ET standing in the empty crater just hours after the crash.
    1
  243.  @m0joj0jo666  "you claim that debris from this flight was somehow expelled or transferred to the secondary site, 8 miles away." First, a correction. Not all of flight 93's fuselage was buried. The front quarter to third was blasted into the nearby trees. My bad. As explained to you either here or on the other thread, the only debris found 8 miles away was a few pieces of paper. I asked you to cite evidence (by which I mean something other than your memory) of heavier parts getting 8 miles away. You have so far failed to deliver. As for how that debris got there, the answer is provided by PSA flight 1771 and USAir flight 427. In the former, debris also was found about 8 miles distant - again not plane parts but paper only. However the irrefutable proof comes from the latter. Flight 427 was also in one piece as it crashed. But just a few minutes later, the exact same type of very light debris fell onto a golf course 2 miles away: wispy insulation, fabric liner, and business cards. The mechanism is likely (IMO having studied this) the suction of air up into the debris cloud, similar to a thermal, a kind of temperature inversion known to cause updrafts. When you look at the pic of the smoke plume, it appears this is what's happening. Once up into higher air, there are stronger currents that can carry this debris for miles. Flight 427 is irrefutable proof this can happen. And if you are going to respond with "8 miles is much farther than 2 miles," I invite you to provide physics equations indicating exactly how far such debris can travel. Thus there is no contradiction.
    1
  244.  @gjustg1540  "Reality is that PSA 1771 was a BAe 146-200, approximately half the size of a 757-200, it hit a rocky mountainside and not a field with soft soil and an already existing crater." That is wrong. There was no crater, only a shallow scar. Nice try. "air crash investigator." And a very unusual one, as no NTSB member has come forward and agreed with this nonsense you are posting. NOT A SINGLE ONE. You are out on a ridiculous limb with no credibility. Give your name and background or you have no more claim than Youtube Joe.
    1
  245.  @gjustg1540  Have you taken a look at the flight 302 PRE_EXCAVATION pics yet? Of course not. Because you don't think like a scientist (who cover all their bases) and do not understand the nature of evidence. I can make this conversation as detailed as you like, and you will not win it. And finally, like all the other Alice and Wonderland posters, this is an alleged fake without a motive. Why did we need to fake flight 93? No one has answered yet. Will you be the first to explain a crime without a motive? Go for it.
    1
  246.  @gjustg1540  "Nothing about the mountainous, rocky impact area or the comparatively miniscule aircraft, the angle of impact or the speed? " There's no requirement I have to answer every point in less than 4 hours, is there? So if you would like to continue, kindly pick one of your points above, and I will comment. Then let's stick with that before moving on.
    1
  247.  @CATSWITHKYLA  "Pictures can be framed." They certainly can. But there has to be some compelling evidence that they were. I don't believe there is. As I have mentioned now many times here and on other threads, Ethiopian flight 302, before they started digging up the wreckage, looked remarkably similar. A hole in the ground and little else visible, but some other pieces some distance away, just like flight 93. Please google "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and 9/11's United Flight 93" If you want to do this like a scholar and a scientists, you must consider all the evidence. Let me know what you think of these pics. Thanks
    1
  248. To the unrigorous mind, perhaps.
    1
  249. That shows again the joke that Youtube posters know how to do research. Especially the truthers. The County Coroner Wally Miller stated he ID'd almost all the passengers using mainly DNA and dental records. He said there were no bodies, but never said "no body parts." These little but very important distortions of the record is one way reality gets transformed in the retelling, until the real truth is lost. Nice try.
    1
  250. Which one is that?
    1
  251. Finding paper items in fiery airplane crashes is neither new nor interesting.
    1
  252. ​ @mpatrickthomas  You're claiming that exploding fuel must always travel faster than any and all paper items aboard. And also burn them completely before escaping out the far side of the building. Kindly provide positive proof by citing an expert on the spread of fire and explosions. Can you do it?
    1
  253. Oh sure, for example: "But the one hundred foot fuselage itself had disappeared entirely. In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking cauldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines flight 710 - and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard. ... The residue of flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigators had never come across before. There were no bodies." I guess that must not have been a reel crash. More examples on request.
    1
  254. Especially your thruther neighbors, who have little ability to process the big picture.
    1
  255. It wasn't shot down. Why wouldn't they have fought back? Based on what? Your personal speculation?
    1
  256. Since anyone with a brain can figure out that faking flight 93 had no discernible effect on the outcome of nineleve, the theory is nonsense. Plus everything else you said is wrong too, as pointed by The CriticalStinker.
    1
  257. But there's no logical reason to fake flight 93. Think Big Picture.
    1
  258.  @martincoulombe8960  I believe pilots myself. When I used to work as a limo driver, I would often ask commercial pilots about the so-called Hanjour maneuver. Most of them had no problem with it. Maybe you should try yourself sometime, although at this late point in time, you might get fewer replies. You see, the media lies theme is not very useful because the truthers lie even more. And they never choose to publish their articles in science or engineering journals.
    1
  259.  @martincoulombe8960  "hey will lead you to a dead-end" Except that you do accept them when they confirm your bias, such as the BBC's announcement that building 7 fell before it fell. I am quite sure you trust that media story 100%. Right?
    1
  260.  @martincoulombe8960  And as I'm sure CriticalStinker could have told you, DRG traffics in lies, to quote Ronald Wieck. He corrected DRG's claim that flight 11 had no working airfones by calling up the airline directly. Yet even after this correction, DRG never changed his story. BTW the video in question is perhaps the best and easy to understand explanation why gravity brought down the TTs and not CD.
    1
  261. No it wasn't.
    1
  262. The claim has been around for 22 years. What's the new information?
    1
  263.  @Marc816  I think they mention this theory in the Popular Mechanics book on 911, which came out many years ago. At one point the text could be found online for free.
    1
  264. It can. US Air 427 left debris 2 miles distant despite not being shot down.
    1
  265. Found, pictures of it online, DFDR report published online.
    1
  266. Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 was almost an exact repeat of flight 93.
    1
  267. Especially if you have been told these things by the Truth movement. Not even the government can match its pitiful record of fantasy and delusion.
    1
  268. No proof.
    1
  269. The devil's in the detail. And in this case it doesn't support it. There were only TWO remote debris fields. One was about 1.5 miles away and consisted of a few tiny pieces of debris. That's it. The 2nd, some 8 miles downwind, consisted merely of a bank check, and a few other very light weight items, carried there by air currents. If it were shot down, there would be big hunks of wreckage, as is usually the cases with shoot downs witness Malaysian flight 17.
    1
  270. There were wing prints in the grass!
    1