• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

Pfft..."The toe cutter knows who I am!"

?

I am familiar with the trollish ways of unchained spirit. He's Ghost in the Machine over at DU, and I've not seen him here before this account. He's quite distinctive.

I do not know him or who he is. I do know that you have better things to do than spend much time dealing with him.
 
In a logical world, overhead means.. well,... *overhead*. It doesn't mean *in the sky over t my right* or *in the sky over to my left*, or anything else. It means exactly that... *overhead*, as in "above my head".

Actually, Unchained Spirit, I'm not sure what you mean by "a logical world". I know of no such place. I do know the World in which we live our lives, however, which is the one I think you're alluding to. In which case, I'd argue that, on the whole, "overhead" means exactly what you say it doesn't: "in the sky over to my right", "... over to my left", etc. You've not interacted with the general public much in your 45 years, it seems.

But if you want to argue semantics I'll indulge you for a moment:

From my experience (I'll be 45 next, too) planes have to travel generally forwards, and at relatively high speed, to stay up. I could go on to explain to you why that is, but I reckon you already agree. Any plane that is "overhead", to use your definition, will be so for, oh, typically a fraction of a second. At all times before it becomes "overhead" and after it has been "overhead", which is all of the time other than that fraction of a second, it is, using your definition, most definitely not "overhead".

Now, do you wish to press your argument, which places complete reliance on your, clearly, flawed definition of "overhead"? Be my guest, please.


You should really look up the accounts of John Fleegle, Jim Brant and Carol Delasko, from the Indian Lake Marina:

""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.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

Do you have any idea what went over the marina & lake? I'd like to know, wouldn't you?

"Then we heard engines screaming close overhead." These guys are inside a building and you're arguing that their account of a noise places the plane "overhead" (your definition, which surely, in any event, relies on a visual)!

"We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom." So these guys never saw a plane at all, they just heard one, "close overhead"!

"... who ran outside moments later". That would be after the explosion then, long after the plane was "overhead", then, would it, i.e. no longer overhead?!

Get real buddy.
 
Last edited:
If the aircraft sounded like it was overhead, it wasn't overhead.
 
Contradictory statements? Care to post them?

So whose timelines should I believe, NORAD's or the Zelikow report's?


The seismic data is your claim you have to show its relevant and accurate. Not good at this are you?

If you can't see its relevance, there's not much I can do to help out there.

As to whether it's accurate, I think the default assumption has to be that it is. Your dismissal ("The seismic means nothing. Not all clocks are synchronised.") is about the lamest I've heard with regards to the seismic data. I'll refer you to 911myths.com for some better ones.

FDR, I know you are avoiding this like the plague cause it destroys your fantasy.

What do you think is happening in the CVR that the relatives have heard and we have the transcripts for? What about the phone calls, specifically Jeremy Glicks?

Well, my fantasy is that we haven't been told the whole story about flight 93, or at least the version given has inconsistencies which haven't been resolved.

Funk, how about you reply to the OP. Do you think it makes sense? Would the pilot who shot down flight 93 be considered a hero?
 
Please keep on topic and don't derail on personalised issues. Keep it civil and friendly.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Clippy, the timeline you should believe is the RADAR data. Unlike seismic readings there is no timing guess work. And what inconsistencies?
 
Last edited:
Can we get a concise list of the, say, top 5 discrepancies in the 'official account' of flight 93 for us in the gallery?
 
I have to say this may be the worst one I've ever heard! Some people actually claim the calls to home were gov't officials imitating voices! Oh come on how could they know who and what to say? Insane!
 
""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.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm

Do you have any idea what went over the marina & lake? I'd like to know, wouldn't you?
No, flight 93 did not fly directly over the lake. You have made an error in logic, and interpreted news stories wrong. You cannot make up stuff you want. You must use some logic. So far you have failed to make a case for a lake fly over. Try again. Guess you failed to find Jim Stop's quote you were pushing as a fact earlier? Got evidence? It still stands, on topic you agree in no shoot down; off topic, you have no evidence to support your fly over. Therefore the “official flight path” stands. I hate calling what happen “official”, it is what happen, and you disagree with reality. Have a great weekend. It is sunny in San Jose and you can see the mountains of the coastal range clear. The sky is clear “overhead”.
 
Clippy, the timeline you should believe is the RADAR data. Unlike seismic readings there is no timing guess work. And what inconsistencies?

Can we get a concise list of the, say, top 5 discrepancies in the 'official account' of flight 93 for us in the gallery?

Well, just to answer this in parting. The FAA's memo to the Commission suggests the military knew about 93 before it crashed, which contradicts the Zelikow report.

But I'm done on this thread. I came on here asking someone a question about a diagram. A question to which I never received an answer. I got a request to comment on the OP. I did so and asked for comment on whether one of the OP's premises was reasonable. No one seems to want to answer this. I now join you in the gallery.
 
Well, just to answer this in parting. The FAA's memo to the Commission suggests the military knew about 93 before it crashed, which contradicts the Zelikow report.

But I'm done on this thread. I came on here asking someone a question about a diagram. A question to which I never received an answer. I got a request to comment on the OP. I did so and asked for comment on whether one of the OP's premises was reasonable. No one seems to want to answer this. I now join you in the gallery.

So because there is no such diagram, which would be the result of there being no purpose for one since everything was so small and scattered, that means you got no answer?

And keep in mind that the 9/11 commission is not nesc something meant for accuracy (nor was the Zelikow report), but rather to find out what happened so they could make recommendations as to how to prevent it from happening in the futre. Hence arguing over the difference of a couple of minutes of when the actual impact was is completely meaningless.
 
?

I am familiar with the trollish ways of unchained spirit. He's Ghost in the Machine over at DU, and I've not seen him here before this account. He's quite distinctive.

I do not know him or who he is. I do know that you have better things to do than spend much time dealing with him.

Yes boloboffin, *you* don't want to spend time on me because I've proven you wrong before, and busted you for posting blatant disinformation before. Why don't you tell the good people here exactly *what* that disinformation was? I'm sure you remember it, don't you?

Here's a reminder, bolo: You told someone who asked how debris got in Indian Lake that "Indian Lake was not 6 miles away. It was yards away from the crash site.", didn't you? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204435#204441

You said that knowing that it was a complete and total lie. When I called you on it, you offered up a picture showing the small pond near the impact crater and said "I guess I was taken in by perspective in this picture"... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204435#204443

Then, in the lamest attempt at covering one's butt that I've ever seen in my life (and I'm the father of 2 teenagers), you stated "1.5 miles equals 2,640 yards".... :rolleyes:

You can hide & bury your head in the sand all you want to, bolo, but it *still* doesn't change the facts, does it?
 
Actually, Unchained Spirit, I'm not sure what you mean by "a logical world". I know of no such place. I do know the World in which we live our lives, however, which is the one I think you're alluding to. In which case, I'd argue that, on the whole, "overhead" means exactly what you say it doesn't: "in the sky over to my right", "... over to my left", etc. You've not interacted with the general public much in your 45 years, it seems.

Yes, you are correct. I should have said "in a *literal* world". I would have to argue against your "on the whole, "overhead" means exactly what you say it doesn't: "in the sky over to my right", "... over to my left", etc.". Here's you a real life example of how that works: I have two military jets that fly over once a week here. Sometimes they come "right overhead", which means they come right over the top of MY house. Other times, they come over a little further down the road, over the neighbor's house. Now see, that would be "right overhead" if my *neighbor* was describing it to someone, but if *I* were describing it, I would say that "they came over the neighbor's house, to the left of me".

"But if you want to argue semantics I'll indulge you for a moment:

From my experience (I'll be 45 next, too) planes have to travel generally forwards, and at relatively high speed, to stay up. I could go on to explain to you why that is, but I reckon you already agree. Any plane that is "overhead", to use your definition, will be so for, oh, typically a fraction of a second. At all times before it becomes "overhead" and after it has been "overhead", which is all of the time other than that fraction of a second, it is, using your definition, most definitely not "overhead".

Now, do you wish to press your argument, which places complete reliance on your, clearly, flawed definition of "overhead"? Be my guest, please.

Yep, read above and please point out what'd flawed about what I said.


"Then we heard engines screaming close overhead." These guys are inside a building and you're arguing that their account of a noise places the plane "overhead" (your definition, which surely, in any event, relies on a visual)!
{emphasis mine}

No, if I'm inside, I can tell the difference whether the jets I mentioned cone over my house, or further down over the neighbors house. They *shake* my house when they come overhead, they don't when they come over the neighbor's house.

""We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom." So these guys never saw a plane at all, they just heard one, "close overhead"!

Ok, I can maybe cede this point, as I consider the "close" to mean "low". I've lived near airports *and* an Air Force Base, and when we say a plane was "close", we mean "low".

""... who ran outside moments later". That would be after the explosion then, long after the plane was "overhead", then, would it, i.e. no longer overhead?!

And that changes the fact that the plane *had been* overhead.... how?

"Get real buddy.

I'm as real as they come, my friend, as real as they come. I don't pretend to be anything I'm not as I have no reason to. I've been me for 45 years already, and I don't know how to be anyone else. It's really just that simple.

Thanks for being civil, I appreciate it a lot.... it helps further discussion a lot better, don't you agree?

PEACE!

Doug
 
Last edited:
Then, in the lamest attempt at covering one's butt that I've ever seen in my life (and I'm the father of 2 teenagers), you stated "1.5 miles equals 2,640 yards".... :rolleyes:

You can hide & bury your head in the sand all you want to, bolo, but it *still* doesn't change the facts, does it?
I didn't read the thread you cited, but, on the surface, it would appear that bolo took 5,280 yards and multiplied it by 0.5, getting 2,640 yards and forgot to add the original 5,280 yards to it.

Seems and honest mistake. Did he admit he was wrong?
 
Not shot down, and never over Indian Lake; Flight 93. Anyone can down load the FDR and prove this. (except, maybe, 9/11 truth)


Here's you a real life example of how that works: I have two military jets that fly over once a week here. Sometimes they come "right overhead", which means they come right over the top of MY house. Other times, they come over a little further down the road, over the neighbor's house. Now see, that would be "right overhead" if my *neighbor* was describing it to someone, but if *I* were describing it, I would say that "they came over the neighbor's house, to the left of me".
Wow, you have proven you can say overhead and mean directly, 90 degrees up, over you. But flight 93, as shown by evidence was not over the lake the minutes before impact. But you make up stuff to falsely claim it was. That is poor investigation efforts, leading to failed conclusions.
 
Last edited:
If the aircraft sounded like it was overhead, it wasn't overhead.
Short and correct.

... overhead means.. well,... *overhead*. It doesn't mean *in the sky over t my right* or *in the sky over to my left*, or... http://www.flight93crash.com/MyPittsburghLIVE.htm
Do you have any idea what went over the marina & lake? I'd like to know, wouldn't you?
Longer, and wrong.

Answer, nothing went over the lake related to 93's impact.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read the thread you cited, but, on the surface, it would appear that bolo took 5,280 yards and multiplied it by 0.5, getting 2,640 yards and forgot to add the original 5,280 yards to it.

Seems and honest mistake. Did he admit he was wrong?

I really am not going to drag trash here from another website. That does smack of stalking.

But I will say that there are 5280 feet in a mile. :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry to jump in... my involvement will be brief...

No, if I'm inside, I can tell the difference whether the jets I mentioned cone over my house, or further down over the neighbors house. They *shake* my house when they come overhead, they don't when they come over the neighbor's house.
-----------------
Just like people playing music in their cars at full blast causes vibrations of things in my home. The orientation taken into *literal meaning* is baseless, the car can be below, to my right, to my left, but the sound can feel like it's completely surrounding me, and I won't know if it is across the street or 3 blocks away. I can name a number of other circumstances, but sounds don't always tell you an object's 'position' relative to you.

Sorry if my 'analogy' isn't particularly great, but it's all I could come up with in such short notice.


And that changes the fact that the plane *had been* overhead.... how?

but sounds don't always tell you an object's 'position' relative to you.
Sound is not always an ideal means of determining a 'relative' location.


Doug[/QUOTE]

Short of that, that's about as much as I have to say... I'll comment when I feel it becomes necessary again...
 

Back
Top Bottom