Flight 93

[beachnut]

Gravy should source them, or according to Debunking 101 call these people himself. Simply linking to a long thread that casts serious doubt on the official account of Flight 93 is lazy and shoddy research.

The premise of that link is how much eyewitness accounts suggest many possibilities besides the low probability of the official account. Great job debunkers and skeptics.

Are you failing to bring the tools to understand the data and make a rational conclusion? Is this all over your head?

Are you stuck on trivial points and not making progress towards your goal of nothing?
Still off topic. How do you do it? Since the plane was intact when it hit, the shoot down theory fails not only on that point but many other reasons a rational person can look up and figure out themselves.

 

[RedIbis]

Are you failing to bring the tools to understand the data and make a rational conclusion? Is this all over your head?

Are you stuck on trivial points and not making progress towards your goal of nothing?
Still off topic. How do you do it? Since the plane was intact when it hit, the shoot down theory fails not only on that point but many other reasons a rational person can look up and figure out themselves.

There are eyewitnesses who suggest the plane was not intact when it crashed. Do you simply dismiss those?

 

[Garb]

Yes, the coroner says that the material will be turned over to the airline, not that it was turned over.

No it doesn't.

Can you provide an updated report that verifies this happened?

Why yes, in fact I can.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html

Take a look at the SAME ARTICLE.

At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.

95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.

has been turned over to United Airlines.

has been turned over to United Airlines.

 

[DavidJames]

Personal attacks instead of addressing my questions. Well done, as usual.

Why don't you grow up, stop asking questions start doing honest research to find the answers. That's what grown ups do. That's what intelligent people do. That's what people who are genuinely interested in the answers do.

You don't.

Of course you will consider this a personal attack. It is not. It is an attack on your tactics. It is an attack on your lack of honesty in your approach. It is an attack on your disingenuous attitude towards seeking "the truth"

But you will ignore all that and think it's personal because it's easier that way. It allows you to continue your dishonest, disingenuous childish game of asking question.

 

[OldTigerCub]

There are eyewitnesses who suggest the plane was not intact when it crashed. Do you simply dismiss those?

There is FDR data that shows that the plane was in perfect working order and completely intact until it's impact with the ground. This would seem to counter the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the plane for only a second or two as it sped at near mach 1 into the ground at Shanksville.
Not that the witnesses were lying, but a fast moving object and the stress brought on by the events of the day may have played tricks on their minds or eyes as they tried to recall exactly what they saw.

 

[TexasJack]

Eye witness testimony can be highly unreliable and many times must be disregarded when it doesn't corroborate with the physical evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And we still have yet to investigate the locomotives heard at the WTC building!

 

[Ranb]

What aircraft recovery? We have claims that 95% of the plane was recovered. What happened to it? Where's it stored? I asked for the link that the wreckage was handed over and didn't get one.

Who is claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered? In the link posted above; http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html the claim was made that 95% of the wrecked was returned to the aircraft owner. This does not mean that 95% of the plane was recovered, just that they did something with most of the wreckage they found.

Ranb

 

[theauthor]

How much of flight 93 is in iron mountain?

 

[tsig]

I have no idea. I'm primarily concerned about the alledged crash site and if this is where Flight 93 went down.

Would a severed finger be OK or would you rather fill your hands with a bloody liver?

 

[tsig]

Personal attacks instead of addressing my questions. Well done, as usual.

Red eats the dead.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Red eats the dead.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civillity

 

[OldTigerCub]

How much of flight 93 is in iron mountain?

You would have to ask United Airlines about that. Iron Mountain is a multi-purpose storage facility with spaces rented out to all sorts of entities and businesses such as banks, retail, legal, governmental bodies and private citizens. There is anything from data backups to antique cars to crime scene evidence stored there.
(it's right up the road from Slippery Rock, Pa. if ya want to visit)

 

[Confuseling]

Really? If you're so sure why is there no photo or video of a good portion of the plane in the ditch?

Again, why is Gravy's revered research linking to a thread that suggests pieces of Flight 93 fell down around Shanksville prior to crashing?

Anyone?

Don't control surfaces sometimes rip off planes under abnormal maneuvers?

 

[gdnp]

Why do conspiracy theorists insist that flight 93 was shot down ?

The majority of posts in this thread have now fallen into the usual trap of trying to prove logically why it is implausable, illogical, and incorrrect that flight 93 was shot down. But this is not the question of the OP.

The question of the OP is why the conspiracy theorists insist that flight 93 was shot down, which has nothing to do with the evidence.

Although it is dangerous to overgeneralize about what is sure to be a diverse group, I suspect that most make these claims out of deep paranoia and low self esteem. Their basic premise is that the government lies, therefore everything the government says is a lie. Since the government said flight 93 crashed, they claim the government shot it down. If the government had said they had shot flight 93 down with a missile from a jet, then they would have claimed it had crashed for some other reason. It's like being in Monty Python's room for an argument: whatever the official story, they will claim the opposite.

Why do they do this? A question for psychiatrists, not debunkers. I suspect they whole process validates their feelings of self-worth. They are paranoid. They make an absurd claim. Everyone gangs up against them. This both reinforces their feelings of paranoia (everyone is attacking me!) and self-worth (I am the only one here who is so smart that I can see through the lies! Look at all of these people responding to my posts! I am so important!

So the basic answer to the question in the OP: why do they make these claims?

Because they can. Because we pay attention to them when they do.

 

[T.A.M.]

The majority of posts in this thread have now fallen into the usual trap of trying to prove logically why it is implausable, illogical, and incorrrect that flight 93 was shot down. But this is not the question of the OP.

The question of the OP is why the conspiracy theorists insist that flight 93 was shot down, which has nothing to do with the evidence.

Although it is dangerous to overgeneralize about what is sure to be a diverse group, I suspect that most make these claims out of deep paranoia and low self esteem. Their basic premise is that the government lies, therefore everything the government says is a lie. Since the government said flight 93 crashed, they claim the government shot it down. If the government had said they had shot flight 93 down with a missile from a jet, then they would have claimed it had crashed for some other reason. It's like being in Monty Python's room for an argument: whatever the official story, they will claim the opposite.

Why do they do this? A question for psychiatrists, not debunkers. I suspect they whole process validates their feelings of self-worth. They are paranoid. They make an absurd claim. Everyone gangs up against them. This both reinforces their feelings of paranoia (everyone is attacking me!) and self-worth (I am the only one here who is so smart that I can see through the lies! Look at all of these people responding to my posts! I am so important!

So the basic answer to the question in the OP: why do they make these claims?

Because they can. Because we pay attention to them when they do.

Very insightful, and likely accurate gdnp. No doubt, their is an element of attention seeking. They do not get recognition from authorities or the media. The JREF forum is about the only place paying them any real attention this late in the game. This however, is perhaps reasons for their movement as a whole, not directly for the "flight 93" lie.

Here is my list of reasons they make the claim:

1. Fits in with their world view and their view on the attacks over all (big brother did it)
2. One of the more plausible theories.
3. Hard to prove untrue.
4. Makes the pieces of the puzzle fit for them. They use pieces that are faulty to start with (the incorrect debris field covering 8-10 miles, etc...), so they must put forward a scenario that covers this, and a mid air shoot down seems to.

TAM

 

[Clippy]

Is there a diagram that shows where the different parts of the plane were recovered?

There is plenty of pictures of the area that the truthers claim did not show enough evidence of a crash. So little they claim there was no plane.

If it was shot down there would have been larger pieces of the aircraft visible, over a larger area and there would have been passenger bodies.

Look up Lockerbie, some residents actually found passengers who were still alive, there were huge pieces of the aircraft found and the wreckage was spread for miles.

If you think it was shot down what do you think shot it down?

Where did I say it was shot down? I asked you for a diagram. If 95% of the plane was recovered, I am interested to know where these parts were recovered. If you don't know whether such a diagram exists, then it's ok to just say so.

 

[DGM]

Clippy:

Investigators are using yellow and red flags to stake spots around the site to mark where they had located parts from the aircraft, human remains or personal items belonging to the plane's 38 passengers and seven crewmembers. The painstaking, inch-by-inch search turned up the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder on Thursday, the "black boxes" that could explain what happened

http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/010913penn.html

I have not seen this map myself but it seem they did make one. Perhaps a FOIA request will turn up what you want.

 

[Confuseling]

Don't control surfaces sometimes rip off planes under abnormal maneuvers?

The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft seconds before ground impact, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. The Safety Board found that the first officer, who was the flying pilot, inappropriately manipulated the rudder back and forth several times after the airplane encountered the wake vortex of a preceding Boeing 747 for the second time. The aerodynamic loads placed on the vertical stabilizer due to the sideslip that resulted from the rudder movements were beyond the ultimate design strength of the vertical stabilizer. (Simply stated, sideslip is a measure of the "sideways" motion of the airplane through the air.)

The tail more or less snapped off, it seems. Tragic.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2004/041026.htm

 

[gdnp]

This however, is perhaps reasons for their movement as a whole, not directly for the "flight 93" lie.

To some degree we are dealing with a tautology here. In order to be a "flight 93" conspiracy theorist, one has to contradict some portion of the official dogma of what happened on flight 93. The two most obvious points to attack are the presence/identity of the hijackers and the reason for the crash

Here is my list of reasons they make the claim:

1. Fits in with their world view and their view on the attacks over all (big brother did it)
2. One of the more plausible theories.
3. Hard to prove untrue.
4. Makes the pieces of the puzzle fit for them. They use pieces that are faulty to start with (the incorrect debris field covering 8-10 miles, etc...), so they must put forward a scenario that covers this, and a mid air shoot down seems to.

TAM

Here I think we are in general agreemnent: Taking these one by one:
1) agreed

2) I find none of the alternative theories particularly plausible, but since they begin with the premise in #1, "big brother did it", one can apply the Sherlock Holmes principle: once the impossible has been excluded, whatever is left, however plausible, must be the truth. Their problem is that once the truth has been discarded the subsequent reasoning is irrelevant. It's like a mathematical proof where you divide by 0 in step 1. No matter how flawless your reasoning in steps 2 through 20, you are going to arrive at the wrong answer.

3) Depends on your definition of proof. I think the preponderance of evidence, such as flight recorder data referred to above, effectively rules out a missile. However, since one can always claim that this was falsified, it will never be proven to their satisfaction no matter how much data you throw at them.

4) An inevitable problem when one starts from a faulty conclusion rather from the facts. It's like taking a jigsaw puzzle with a picture of a bird and deciding it is a picture of a house. If you take the blue feathers from the bird's breast and use them to make a sky, and the brown feathers from the tail and place them on the ground, and then use the tree branches to make the walls, and then throw out the rest of the pieces, and then place it in dim light, stand really far away, and kinda squint your eyes, you can get something that sort of looks like a house. It may never stand up to close scrutiny, but if challenged you can always claim you are missing some of the pieces, or that even if it isn't a house it might still be an elephant, and then repeat the process.