Flight 93

[Jonnyclueless]

Dont worry im on your side. Ive just seen so many new people get banned because the deniers here constantly report their posts.

Please stop trolling.

BTW, the reason they shot down flight 93 was because they didn't want anyone to know it was a new prototype plane.

 

[beachnut]

Dont worry im on your side. Ive just seen so many new people get banned because the deniers here constantly report their posts.

You are safe, you posts are only reported for lack of evidence (or off topic). Like this one off topic again. What does your complaining have to do with 93 being reported shoot down by 9/11 truth false information experts? Do you have anything about the shoot down false ideas?

 

[funk de fino]

Dont worry im on your side. Ive just seen so many new people get banned because the deniers here constantly report their posts.

Reported.

hypocrite

 

[Unchained Spirit]

You have fantasy. You define the coordinate system, but essentially, half the universe is above me, and half is below; I can define it, you have failed. But the title is not my doing; but research seems to be your weak suit. Understanding is out of the question.

Please show us the official flight path. I doubt you have it.

Here ya go, sport, www dot offrampbums.com/93path.jpg
(I don't have enough posts to upload a pic or post a link yet... maybe by tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM, time for me to turn in soon)

As for the rest of your post, I think you're just projecting your own lack of research skills and understanding/comprehension on me. It's really childish, imho. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? If it's just your desire to play games, I can do that too... and beat you at it all night long. It's not hard to deconstruct your rather weak/lame "debunking" attempts.

 

[funk de fino]

Here ya go, sport, www dot offrampbums.com/93path.jpg
(I don't have enough posts to upload a pic or post a link yet... maybe by tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM, time for me to turn in soon)

As for the rest of your post, I think you're just projecting your own lack of research skills and understanding/comprehension on me. It's really childish, imho. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? If it's just your desire to play games, I can do that too... and beat you at it all night long. It's not hard to deconstruct your rather weak/lame "debunking" attempts.

That will require evidence that the FDR and the CVR and Jeremy Glicks phonecall are incorrect?

Can you do it?

Are you up to it?

 

[beachnut]

Here ya go, sport, www dot offrampbums.com/93path.jpg
(I don't have enough posts to upload a pic or post a link yet... maybe by tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM, time for me to turn in soon)

As for the rest of your post, I think you're just projecting your own lack of research skills and understanding/comprehension on me. It's really childish, imho. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? If it's just your desire to play games, I can do that too... and beat you at it all night long. It's not hard to deconstruct your rather weak/lame "debunking" attempts.

93 did not fly (directly) over the lake. Proven by the FDR. Now if you look up, you would see 93 over the lake. I suspect anything over the lake level seen from the lake was over/higher than the lake. As you can see above, from real data, 93 was as high as 10,000 feet as it approached the impact area. But since you have not source the quote, you are a hearsay expert right now, and just talk. I posted data, I think that beats your false statement. But then you have to go and look up stuff you don’t have. Good luck finding some stuff to support your fantasy.

When you wake up from 9/11 truth fantasy, and realize there is no Pulitzer Prize after 6 years, you can start to learn about 9/11.

I beat your official path with heading data, your official flight path is lacking. Wowzer. lol (got the quote yet?)

Got a Pulitzer Prize with all your info on 9/11? Nope? Why? Because it is all false! Wow, I answered all your questions for you; just pay attention, you may learn something about reality.

 

[Unchained Spirit]

Source the quote. You fail to understand, over. And you fail to source to the person who said over? Or are you just making up stuff as you go?

So far you have not posted an official flight path, or Stop's location on the lake, or his exact quote. His quote. But if you believe in 9/11 truth you have a problem.

Maybe you should try following the link in boloboffin's post that I replied to. You should also read and familiarize yourself with the rules of this board. You know, the ones that won't allow me to post a link or picture until I have a certain number of posts. I gave you a link to Jim Stop's story (the guy who was fishing at the marina when the plane flew over his head). You *can* figure out how to type the URL in your browser and replace the word "dot" with an actual dot, can't you? Why do you refuse to read? Go back up the thread and read again, I don't feel a need to repeat myself to someone who can't comprehend simple sentences. Do I need to use smaller words for you?

 

[beachnut]

Maybe you should try following the link in boloboffin's post that I replied to. You should also read and familiarize yourself with the rules of this board. You know, the ones that won't allow me to post a link or picture until I have a certain number of posts. I gave you a link to Jim Stop's story (the guy who was fishing at the marina when the plane flew over his head). You *can* figure out how to type the URL in your browser and replace the word "dot" with an actual dot, can't you? Why do you refuse to read? Go back up the thread and read again, I don't feel a need to repeat myself to someone who can't comprehend simple sentences. Do I need to use smaller words for you?

I saw your photo of the official path; all the witnesses, even the one you posted support the path. Sorry, you lost this one; try again with a topic you have facts on.
Even Jim said the plane up in the air. It was. Good job. But Jim did not say "directly over him". Do you have an actual quote from Jim? When you can post a real address to Jim's actual quote, I can wait; even another 6 years.

The sad part for you is, the passengers on flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes and took action, you have had over 6 years and still have no clue. Are you a shoot down fantasy guy with no evidence?

 

[Unchained Spirit]

I saw your photo of the official path; all the witnesses, even the one you posted support the path. Sorry, you lost this one; try again with a topic you have facts on.
Even Jim said the plane up in the air. It was. Good job.

I haven't lost anything. You're delusional if you think the picture I provided backs up the witnesses seeing a plane come OVER Indian Lake, though. I'm already figuring out that talking to you is a waste of time and an exercise in futility. Let me know when your comprehension level rises above that of a second grader, then maybe we can try this again. Your little screed sounds worse than the fundy nutbags who knock on my door and try to convince me to worship their magical mythical sky fairy.

 

[beachnut]

I haven't lost anything. You're delusional if you think the picture I provided backs up the witnesses seeing a plane come OVER Indian Lake, though. I'm already figuring out that talking to you is a waste of time and an exercise in futility. Let me know when your comprehension level rises above that of a second grader, then maybe we can try this again. Your little screed sounds worse than the fundy nutbags who knock on my door and try to convince me to worship their magical mythical sky fairy.

You have failed to produce a quote or evidence Jim said the plane was directly, 90 degree to level, over him. But you have time, it has been 6 years, and you seem to have no evidence yet to support your ideas. What are your ideas on the fantasy shoot down stuff?

... Let me know when your comprehension level rises above that of a second grader, ....

It will be easier when you present some evidence to support what ever you are trying to say about a shoot down, the present topic you seem to avoid like you avoid facts and evidence.

And the witnesses even saw the plane upside down as the FDR reports. And this heading proves Jim Stop did not see the plane over the lake. It takes some knowledge of heading and flying, but you may be able to figure this out. But so far you have just posted hearsay as your support. What is your idea on the shoot down fantasy spread by some?

As you can see from the altitude data, the plane was over, as in higher than the lake. But still you have not posted proof the plane was over Jim on the lake. What people said he said, does not constitute proof he thinks the plane was directly over him. And gee, I am a trained aircraft accident investigator and comprehend that you failed to supply more than hearsay so far.

Let me know if you need help figuring out the FDR data; I understand it, and have worked in aviation for over 35 years.

You are right, you have not lost, you have not even qualified to compete in an evidence based discussion. Why are you lacking knowledge and evidence to support your ideas, but have hearsay? Why does 9/11 truth use only hearsay and spread false information, such as the shoot down fantasy? Any ideas on that?

 

[Unchained Spirit]

You have failed to produce a quote or evidence Jim said the plane was directly, 90 degree to level, over him. But you have time, it has been 6 years, and you seem to have no evidence yet to support your ideas. What are your ideas on the fantasy shoot down stuff?

I can't make you comprehend what "overhead" means, sorry. As for 6 years, *you* might have spent that much of *your* life shilling on a discussion board, but that doesn't mean I have. I've only been into this for a few months. As far as a shootdown goes, I haven't been convinced one way or the other, but I lean more towards the fact that it WASN'T shot down. That's just because I think the debris would be scattered farther... but then again, that would depend on the altitutde the plane was at when it was shot, and whether or not that shot totally disintegrated the plane or just put a hole through it. You know... was it hit by an air to air missile, or strafed with a machine gun?

It will be easier when you present some evidence to support what ever you are trying to say about a shoot down, the present topic you seem to avoid like you avoid facts and evidence.
And the witnesses even saw the plane upside down as the FDR reports. And this heading proves Jim Stop did not see the plane over the lake. It takes some knowledge of heading and flying, but you may be able to figure this out. But so far you have just posted hearsay as your support. What is your idea on the shoot down fantasy spread by some?

So you're calling Jim Stop a liar? What about the marina owner and employees who heard the plane come overhead? You're the one avoiding facts. Are you saying the plane *did* fly over the lake?

As you can see from the altitude data, the plane was over, as in higher than the lake. But still you have not posted proof the plane was over Jim on the lake. What people said he said, does not constitute proof he thinks the plane was directly over him.

Here, try a little experiment. Extend both of your arms out in front of you. Now raise your left hand up a foot or two. Got it? Good! Now look at both your hands. The left one is *higher* than the right one, but it's not *OVER* it, is it? Please try to learn the difference between "higher" and "over"...

And gee, I am a trained aircraft accident investigator and comprehend that you failed to supply more than hearsay so far. Let me know if you need help figuring out the FDR data; I understand it and have worked in aviation for over 35 years.

Yes, the anonymous internet is great isn't it? We can be anything we *want* to be, can't we? Can I be a supersecret CIA operative? You like to tout your (well hidden) comprehension skills, yet you can't comprehend the simple fact that I can't post links or images yet, can you?

 

[beachnut]

I can't make you comprehend what "overhead" means, sorry. As for 6 years, *you* might have spent that much of *your* life shilling on a discussion board, but that doesn't mean I have. I've only been into this for a few months. As far as a shootdown goes, I haven't been convinced one way or the other, but I lean more towards the fact that it WASN'T shot down. That's just because I think the debris would be scattered farther... but then again, that would depend on the altitutde the plane was at when it was shot, and whether or not that shot totally disintegrated the plane or just put a hole through it. You know... was it hit by an air to air missile, or strafed with a machine gun?




So you're calling Jim Stop a liar? What about the marina owner and employees who heard the plane come overhead? You're the one avoiding facts. Are you saying the plane *did* fly over the lake?



Here, try a little experiment. Extend both of your arms out in front of you. Now raise your left hand up a foot or two. Got it? Good! Now look at both your hands. The left one is *higher* than the right one, but it's not *OVER* it, is it? Please try to learn the difference between "higher" and "over"...



Yes, the anonymous internet is great isn't it? We can be anything we *want* to be, can't we? Can I be a supersecret CIA operative? You like to tout your (well hidden) comprehension skills, yet you can't comprehend the simple fact that I can't post links or images yet, can you?

Actually, people have looked up my FAA information, and it proves I am a pilot. So much for being anonymous. You may be, and so be it, but I messed up and the biggest liars in 9/11 truth know who I am and where I live because I messed up.

As for your hearsay, and your failed interpretation of witness statements, maybe maturity and knowledge will help. Good luck.

If you were a real good researcher you would know much more, and not make so many mistakes in every post. Anonymous, cute...

But my flying was paid by the tax payers of the United States. I want to thank them all for letting me serve my country and fly jets, and other planes. Sorry, but I have investigated real aircraft impacts and accidents, you lack knowledge on the subject and you have made major errors on 93.

You need to present your quotes from Jim, you have not so far. So far I have not found a direct quote placing the plane directly over him. And your interpretation of the sound being directly over the lake is really lame.

You have problems with reality, or truth?

Here ya go, sport, www dot offrampbums.com/93path.jpg
(I don't have enough posts to upload a pic or post a link yet... maybe by tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM, time for me to turn in soon)

about 2 hours ago... soon is 2 hours?

So you don't think the plane was shot down, but you think it flew over the lake? No one said the plane flew over the lake.
Flight 93 did not fly over the lake. But you think it did? All you need now is proof. How long will it take; you have wasted 6 years so far.

 

[Unchained Spirit]

Actually, people have looked up my FAA information, and it proves I am a pilot. So much for being anonymous. You may be, and so be it, but I messed up and the biggest liars in 9/11 truth know who I am and where I live because I messed up.

Hey, you're anonymous to me. I don't know who you are, nor do I really give a hairy rats behind. I don't believe you, and you sound like you suffer from paranoid delusions of grandeur.

As for your hearsay, and your failed interpretation of witness statements, maybe maturity and knowledge will help. Good luck.

That's too stupid to even reply to...

If you were a real good researcher you would know much more, and not make so many mistakes in every post. Anonymous, cute...

Still hung up on those delusions of grandeur, huh? Yes, you're *still* anonymous

But my flying was paid by the tax payers of the United States. I want to thank them all for letting me serve my country and fly jets, and other planes. Sorry, but I have investigated real aircraft impacts and accidents, you lack knowledge on the subject and you have made major errors on 93.

I have a feeling that the only thing the taxpayers are paying for you is your government project housing and the food you eat. They still give crazy checks & food stamps to the paranoid delusional, don't they?

You need to present your quotes from Jim, you have not so far. So far I have not found a direct quote placing the plane directly over him. And your interpretation of the sound being directly over the lake is really lame.

I've already presented the quote to you, but I can't make you comprehend it. The fact that *you* haven't found a quote yet speaks poorly of *your* research skills, not mine. As for the "sound" being over the lake, you *did* read the accounts of the marina owner and employees, right? Do you think marinas are located out in fields, like barns? Hint: They aren't, they're located on lakes or other bodies of water. Read up on them some time, huh?

You have problems with reality, or truth?
about 2 hours ago... soon is 2 hours?

1 hour & 21 minutes = 2 hours? It's really NOT your concern when I go to bed though, is it? Again, you're projecting your own paranoid delusional thoughts onto me. Perhaps you should seek interventive medical help. Soon. Like "now".

So you don't think the plane was shot down, but you think it flew over the lake? No one said the plane flew over the lake.
Flight 93 did not fly over the lake. But you think it did? All you need now is proof. How long will it take; you have wasted 6 years so far.

Umm.. yes, SEVERAL people said the plane flew over the lake. Please learn how to read, and comprehend what you're reading, before replying again. Your childish ramblings have grown old & stale already.

Your concern has been duly noted...

 

[Southwind17]

I just like to keep the facts straight is all.

All you've done so far in this thread is argue semantics about what "overhead" means. All RedIbis and theauthor have done is pose largely futile, naive questions regarding, in their mind, seeming anomalies in the official account of Flight 93. Is that the entire basis of your collective doubt over the official line?

If it's keeping facts straight that you're really interested in, why don't you, RedIbis and theauthor summarize the enquiries and investigations you've undertaken, and present the facts that you've identified, highlighting where such facts show the official account to be wrong. That might be a useful and constructive approach to presenting a compelling argument.

Accepting that you have the same right as everybody else on this forum to express your views and opinions, your arrogance and condescension as a newby, whilst possibly excusable, is not particularly endearing. Let's hope you're a quick learner, at least when it comes to manners and respect. I have my doubts, though, but look forward to your telling response.

 

[Unchained Spirit]

All you've done so far in this thread is argue semantics about what "overhead" means. All RedIbis and theauthor have done is pose largely futile, naive questions regarding, in their mind, seeming anomalies in the official account of Flight 93. Is that the entire basis of your collective doubt over the official line?

All I've done is argue semantics? Go back up and read post #166. I've done much more than argue semantics, I've pointed out that someone posted deliberate disinformation by leaving out the words "in Indian Lake". Why aren't *you* outraged, or at least mildly upset, by that?

If it's keeping facts straight that you're really interested in, why don't you, RedIbis and theauthor summarize the enquiries and investigations you've undertaken, and present the facts that you've identified, highlighting where such facts show the official account to be wrong. That might be a useful and constructive approach to presenting a compelling argument.

Go back up this thread and find the link I posted that shows the official flight path, then point out to me where it shows the plane going over the lake. Hint: It doesn't. Wouldn't that make *you* question *why* people heard, and saw, the plane coming over the lake? Remember the marina owner and employees saying that it came over so low and loud that "the lights flickered and the building shook"? If it *wasn't* Flight 93, what plane *was* it? Don't you think that's a legitimate question?

Accepting that you have the same right as everybody else on this forum to express your views and opinions, your arrogance and condescension as a newby, whilst possibly excusable, is not particularly endearing. Let's hope you're a quick learner, at least when it comes to manners and respect. I have my doubts, though, but look forward to your telling response.

Sorry, I'm not here to "endear" myself to anyone. Respect is earned, not automatically given. You've earned a little bit, since your post and request wasn't unreasonable. That other poster, beachnut, jumped out of the gate being disrespectful. I give back what I'm given, and I can go rounds with the best of them. A few more posts, and I should be able to post links and/or photos. I think it'll help a lot.

 

[beachnut]

Umm.. yes, SEVERAL people said the plane flew over the lake. Please learn how to read, and comprehend what you're reading, before replying again. Your childish ramblings have grown old & stale already.

Your concern has been duly noted...

You are way too easy to keep off topic. So far you got nothing correct on 9/11 or the other rant you present. Failed to present the actual quote of Jim Stop show he said 93 flew over him (as in directly over). But then 93 did not fly over him; you just say it did. Do you always make up stuff about 9/11, or are you just repeating stuff from your google search?

No one places 93 over the lake, thanks for calling me a second grader, they understand cause and effect needed to understand the witnesses, which you have failed to do.

Got evidence? At least you agree there was no shoot down. Machine gun fire, was funny, are you a WWI buff?

 

[SDC]

Unchained spirit, welcome to the forums. But I must say you are starting off with wholesale insults against other members. And anyway, why should anyone trust you? As opposed to, say, trusting Beachnut, who has shown time and again that he's got the chops in his areas of expertise.

I would be grateful -- I doubt I'm the only one -- if you modified your nasty tone. Your style reminds me of... oh, what was his moniker; MD... something; British fellow, whose posts largely seemed to consist of telling everyone else they were idiots and he was a genius.

 

[Southwind17]

All I've done is argue semantics? Go back up and read post #166. I've done much more than argue semantics, I've pointed out that someone posted deliberate disinformation by leaving out the words "in Indian Lake". Why aren't *you* outraged, or at least mildly upset, by that?

Go back up this thread and find the link I posted that shows the official flight path, then point out to me where it shows the plane going over the lake. Hint: It doesn't. Wouldn't that make *you* question *why* people heard, and saw, the plane coming over the lake? Remember the marina owner and employees saying that it came over so low and loud that "the lights flickered and the building shook"? If it *wasn't* Flight 93, what plane *was* it? Don't you think that's a legitimate question?

Thank you for clarifying matters. Allow me to summarize for you then:

1. Someone made a post that left out the words: "in Indian Lake"
2. There seems to be an anomaly between the official flight path and the actual flight path. The basis of this seeming anomaly is a few eye/sound witnesses.
3. Oh, sorry, there isn't a three, or more, that's it!

Conclusion from the above: Flight 93 was shot down. I wonder how that line of reasoning would fare if presented to a grand jury?!

Do you see my point now?

Sorry, I'm not here to "endear" myself to anyone.

Arrogance.

Respect is earned, not automatically given. You've earned a little bit, since your post and request wasn't unreasonable.

Condescension.

I give back what I'm given, and I can go rounds with the best of them.

Arrogance.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

A few more posts, and I should be able to post links and/or photos. I think it'll help a lot.

Help, how? Links and photos are all well and good, but tend to fall into the category of "circumstantial". What's needed is hard facts, not questions and speculation. I'd still like you to summarize the "facts" that you have identified that contradict or disprove the official account, and then demonstarate how those facts lead to a different, and compelling, conclusion. Do you think you could do that for us?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So far his "facts" are basically his interpretation of what a witness means by 'overhead'.

Way to go Sherlock Holmes...

 

[SDC]

What is with the wholesale use of the word "disinformation," anyhow? What is the point of using that particuarly clumsy word? As opposed to say, "lie" or "deliberate falsehood." I assume that's what is meant. Is "disinformation" used just because all those syllables make it sound more official? Is that the point?