Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Banijay History" channel.

I think it reflects widely held myths about the infallibility of the US government. I don't take this view at all. Terrorism in general is a weak spot for any government. Even the Soviet Union was unable to intercept a 747 overflying their most sensitive military airspace back in 1983. For some 35 minutes it slowly lumbered across the region before slipping back into international airspace. If this could happen during the cold war, you bet it could happen 20 years later when the US was looking the other way.
11
For the same reason they never did in any other hijacking until 9/11/.
3
That's just another example of truther misinformation. This is exactly what one expects from a movement which cannot do proper scholarship or research.
2
@katashley1031 The NY Times also had an article on this before 9/11. All anecdotes to be sure. But also backed up by the IEEE spectrum study that followed 37 commercial airliners along the east coast in 2003. Calls were connected at all phases of flight. You can also call telecom people themselves. I learned a lot by talking to them. All you learn from reading truthers is how they have nothing to say. It's pure fantasy. The very notion flight 93 needed to be brought down in a field in the middle of nowhere rather than a major target; or that we needed to have some heroes, is pure nuts. So not only can they not connect the small dots, they can't even connect the big ones.
2
The crater actually looks just like Ethiopian flight 302's . Have a look by googling M Wests site, whose name I cannot post because Google is a disgrace in the PR department. The only debris that got 10 miles away (it was actually 8 miles) where not plane parts at all, just paper and insulation, carried there by wind currents found downwind of the crash site.
2
@anshumanjaiswal5787 I can explain them very well too. They are not based on legitimate science or reliable evidence. This should be apparent to anyone who does a cursory search. Within moments, one can see all the typical hallmarks of CT mongering: no peer review, self-published, more like telemarketing than science.
2
@timeittakestoletgo1687 Not only that, since 9/11 flying in general has reached unheard of levels of safety. If one counts all commercial airline flights, excepting commuter/regional aircraft, there has been but a single death in the US in the past 20 years (the Southwest engine explosion a few years ago.) Between 1960 and 1980, there were literally dozens of airliner disasters in the US, with less than half the number of flights as today. The last 20 years is therefore cause for extreme celebration. Not fear. Of course psychology operates on a different level though.
1
PS I'm sure you have no interest though.
1
You can hear as much engine noise on countless other recordings No cell service high up is a truther invention. No proof whatsoever. Why do you uncritically accept the poorly done research found at truth sites? That's the real question.
1
I think because it took a certain amount of time for this info to reach everyone inside the towers. I just finished reading "102 minutes," first hand accounts of survivors. It was total chaos, no preparation for something like this. The firemen in the North Tower couldn't even be reached over an hour later due the failure of Giuliani to take the steps needed to update the pathetic walkie talkies. The new high tech replacement phones had already arrived years earlier, but the mayor had no interest in updating the dire state of emergency equipment. They were found in the trunks of some government vehicles, having been sitting in unopened boxes for years. This is just another example how pathetically unprepared the US was all around. In one passage in the book, two different security officers are seated literally next to each other. As people call down from the upper floors of Tower 2 whether they should evacuate, one officers says stay where you are while simultaneously the other officer tells another caller to evacuate. Pure chaos. Some people came all the way down, only to be told to go back t their offices. This another reason it's so hard to take the 9/11 truth mvt seriously. They envision a seamless, efficient series of events, perfectly coordinated by the blundering, bureaucratic government that couldn't even keep the Monica Lewinsky scandal secret. Pure nonsense.
1
There's a case for a shoot down. But IMO it's very weak. No one saw it being shot at. The FDR shows the plane was undamaged until impact. The timeline of the callers and their actions correlates with the plane's mvts. Shoot down theory also very week in other ways. For example, 8 mile debris field is often cited, BUT it was all light debris, and all found downwind of the crash, not over the plane's fight path.
1
I can give you some respect for Judy Wood. But Loose Change was about as unscientific as it gets. Since A&E posits an entirely different mechanism of collapse than does Wood, surely they both can't be based on "unbiased scientific evidence." Why refute yourself in the very first post?
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou The same with Loose Change. If you put the scientific method on mute, you get absurdity.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou That actually says to me you have not demonstrated a truly scientific approach to flight 93. I could be wrong. But I have yet to succeed in engaging any skeptic in a genuinely serious and scientific discussion on the subject of flight 93. I hope you can be the very first. So I kindly and respectfully invite you to have a thorough scientific discussion on every aspect of this crash. Let me know if you'd like to do that.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou A skeptic is a totally neutral and respectful term. What word was I supposed to use in its place?The fact that you turn down a friendly and sincere attempt to have a discussion just proves my point. You are more concerned about your emotions than science. And I have NEVER had anyone really engage me in a serious discussion. You are just further confirmation of this. Being super offended at a perfectly respectable offer is proof you are not a serious poster.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou I offer you the last word, and then we are done.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou You must be patient! The reason I did not get back yet is because YouTube placed me on one of its ridiculous 24 hour posting bans due to alleged "possible hate speech violation." In the last month I have been bombarded with these frivolous messages despite trying my hardest to be civil and polite. So my apology to you. And no problem about the language issues. All forgiven. If would would like to continue, I propose we start here: You wrote: "whose occupants - including luggage - were apparently ALL recovered miles and miles away from the crash site" Can you clarify that for me? Am I correctly interpreting this to mean that the passengers and luggage of flight 93 were found miles away? OK, thanks.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou OK, thank you.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou I thank you for your reply. I asked you a specific question. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. You wrote that flight 93's occupants and luggage "were apparently ALL recovered miles and miles away from the crash site" Again, I am assuming you are talking about the occupants and luggage of flight 93. If this is a language issue, then please explain. Because I have never heard anyone state the occupants of flight 93 were all found miles away. What is your source for that? Thank you.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou Well, photos of the black boxes, part of an engine, and a 5-7 foot long piece of fuselage with United airlines colors on it have been posted online. I can probably still get the links for you. There's a photo of the smoke plume immediately after impact. And there's the crater itself, perfectly consistent with the dimensions of a 757. There are links to many many other wreckage fragments, but because they are not recognizable, I would accept, for the sake of fairness, you not trusting these smaller pieces. In addition there's a web page I can show you which compares the flight 93 crater to that of a remarkably similar crash crater, Ethiopian Airlines flight 302. Now, where are your sources for the occupants being miles away? Thank you.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou Just wondering, did you still want to have that scientific debate? I can't respond again until tomorrow, so any reply by me will have to wait until then.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou As of right now, I don't think I got them, except for part 4, which I see. But there's a way to check on that. If I am correct, this reply will be the 29th reply to this thread. If you go to "newest first" option, then keep scrolling down, you'll get the whole thread, and it says there were a total of 28 (and now 29) replies. If that is what you get on your end, then let me know which number reply the other parts are to be found. edit: I am not really free to reply again until after 8pm EDT (US) tonight.
1
@fra2723 As of right now I have not received part 1 , and for part 5 all I have is "5th and last part: I hope you got all the previous parts, otherwise let me know and I'll send it to you again!" I am assuming fra2723 is the same poster as FrancesD-bo2ou . Are you also the original poster JeffDoerr ? It can get a little confusing. That said, I have enough to chew on for now, so let me get going on that. My preference is to do things one at a time so that points don't get lost in the shuffle.
1
@fra2723 "everyone wondered where the plane and all the passengers were supposed to have gone. They never saw any and none were really found. Or do you really think it wouldn't have been caught on any camera?" I agree at least to the extent that we were given a very ungenerous sample of pictures. But the evidence here does include some pictures, as mentioned above. There is also a mound of other evidence: The radar tapes that tracked the plane's movements, the passenger phone calls, the county coroner who, with the help of the armed forces, managed to ID some 30 something occupants, I can give you the names of a bout a dozen witnesses who stated they saw the moment of impact; the seismic stamp of the impact (which was actually the most interesting oddity to me;) the FDR was recovered, photographed and the flight path studies have been online for many years. We have the state trooper who found part of an engine in a catch basin. There were some 1,100 people representing over 70 organizations involved in the recovery. I don't recall any anomalies reported. There's even a fuel study that measured how much contamination was in the soil; light debris also fell 8 miles downwind Even if you aren't convinced by all this evidence, there is IMO no way one can say with any scientific certainty that this crash didn't happen. Maybe some level of doubt. But no scientific disproof.
1
@JeffDoerr They delete mine all the time too. But if you make insults, then some of those algorithms might be justified.
1
@fra2723 I will look again.
1
@fra2723 Thank you for all your replies. I do have a lot more to say, but of course it's up to you if you want to continue. "All made up and fabricated afterwards." As I see it that's a belief without any supporting evidence. So it can't count as science by itself. Also, if they wanted us to believe the plane crashed in Shanksville, why would they sprinkle debris 8 miles away? Regarding Ethiopian flight 302, I can prove to you the craters were uncannily similar. You have to google this exact phrase "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and 9/11's United Flight 93" The problem is, you didn't find the pre-excavation photos. The above search term will take you right to them. Here's a quote from the author of that page: It is sad that it took another tragedy to bring focus to the spaciousness of the 9/11 Truthers' arguments. And sadly another tragedy, the crash of Ethiopian Flight 302, may fill the same role this year in the arguments surrounding the fourth plane on 9/11: United Flight 93. . . . 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." Do have a look please.
1
@fra2723 I just made a perfectly reasonable long post and YouTube's barbaric algorithms completely wrecked my efforts. I'll have to try a repost later. If YouTube were a country, and posts were people, they would be tried by the ICC and found guilty of crimes against h-----.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou "To compare the crater of Flight 93 with the one of EA302, AFTER the evidence of the latter has been already removed, is anything than a serious "dbkng" of the real truth." You seem to be confused. The comparison photos of both are BEFORE anything has been touched.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou Why don't you just take the road of honesty and admit you were mistaken. It's not a big deal to me But in terms of the flight 93 debate, the pictures I referenced were ALL pre-excavation pictures. ALL OF THEM. That changes the whole (or hole for that matter) equation because without a doubt, the lack of visible debris, and the idea a plane could could bury itself, have been the two most robust arguments against the flight 93 crash site. "I know what I have in front of my eyes." I have no idea what you have in front of your eyes. "Perhaps some bird has managed to prevent the pictures from appearing on the internet over there" "over there" meaning the flight 93 crash site? The F-I has never been interested in catering to the desire of people to see the evidence. They cannot be trusted, no objection by me. But that proves nothing, since we have mounds of other evidence F93 crashed there. "In any case, the pictures here tell a completely different story." "Pictures here" meaning what, the ones I referenced? In BOTH cases these are PRE_EXCAVATION, and they show eerily similar craters and an almost complete lack of visible debris. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The official flight 302 report makes all of this unambiguously clear.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou "I don't know if you are capable of it" I don't know what error I committed. I was referring to your erroneous statement about comparing apples with oranges. I was comparing apples with apples.
1
An article appearing in "Quartz" By Abdi Latif Dahir PublishedMarch 10, 2019 dated the same day as the crash shows the CEO standing in the empty crater. So that confirms two of the comparison pics were taken before the wreckage was dug out.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou And you will also see an empty crater with the CEO of ET dated March 10, the day of the crash, standing in it. Right? Please say yes so we can keep this conversation rational.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou "And if you claim that "The comparison photos of both are BEFORE anything has been touched.", than I MUST tell you that this simply not correct" I just gave you the final report and a dated article proving two pictures are from before they dug up the wreckage. EMPTY of major debris. You have no proof to counter that. It's just an unsupported bias.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou That's not true and you know it. I acknowledge all the wreckage pics of EA 302. That is not the point!
1
@fra2723 OK, I think we have come to the end of any more useful discussion. You asked me if I had any more general reflections. I do, and Youtube keeps inexplicably deleting them. So I will try again. Like, you, I ultimately try and use common sense, a Big Picture assessment rather than exclusively focus on the micro details. And common sense to me is the real proof here. Ask this question: what is the point of "creating" a useless crash in the middle of nowhere? The theory F93 was needed to begin with has no sensible answer. Had there been no F93, the outcome would still be the same. To me, this is just another example of the inability of the truth mvt (not you) to connect the dots. They just don't get the big picture. Your theory also requires that all the evidence was simply made up. But you have provide not an ounce of proof these claims are all lies. Convince me with a sensible narrative why flight 93 was needed in the first place. Because this is the first time in history that a gov is alleged to have targeted blades of grass in the middle of nowhere.
1
@fra2723 This cannot be so for obvious reasons. Between the start of the F93 hijack and the crash, only 38 minutes elapsed. That means that in some short period of time, probably less than half an hour, the alleged conspirators would have had to have faked many phone calls coming from the passengers, which means hiring actors to stage those calls, and/or hiring actors to pretend to be relatives who received the phone calls. Or using non-existent voice morphing technology without pre-knowledge of the victim's voices. And all this in mere minutes. And, even more important, why even bother with phone calls to begin with? There was no need for them. In addition they would have had to blow up the ground to create the impact crater. That requires advanced planning. Rather than go through all this contorting, why not just accept the far more straightforward explanation. But I commend you for trying.
1
@FrancesD-bo2ou "It's just dsgtng how you act" You need to control yourself a little bit. You have gone overboard with all these personal jabs. This discussion is over unless you agree to stop these gratuitous outbursts of anger. Thank you.
1
@fra2723 We are done.
1