• 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

Unchained Spirit said:
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?
Click to expand...
Have you seen one piece of evidence from 9/11 truth yet? You have the shoot down correct, the evidence does not support a shoot down.

Below is Jim Stop's story as told by a news source.

As you can see the only quote attributed to Jim is "I heard the engine whine and scream,". This means the news source just said he looked up and saw flight 93 overhead based on the notes they took. This is pure hearsay and you have interpreted overhead to mean straight up, and there is not one shred of evidence to back up your idea. Most first and second graders understand cause and effect; I thank you again for adding me to that group.
Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.

“I heard the engine whine and scream,” Stop said.

He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html)
Click to expand...
Go ahead look up, what angle are you looking up at? Gee the news story left out the facts and you have made up the false idea in your head that 93 flew over Indian Lake. Have you failed to interpret Jim's quote correctly? All you can really say is, he said, "I heard the engine whine and scream,", the rest is hearsay and false information spread by you.
 
Last edited:
SDC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome. My nasty tone came out because of someone else starting right off the bat talking trash about "failed arguments" and "lack of research skills", etc. Wouldn't you describe that as someone else telling people "they were idiots and he was a genius"? Like I said before, I give back what I'm given. Speak to me in a respectful manner, I'll return the same. If someone gets snotty with me, I'll return the same, also. You can bank on that. I'm not this other person who y'all seem to think I am or something... I don't know what to tell you about that other than "sorry to disappoint you, but that ain't me".

Can we get back on topic now?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Have you seen one piece of evidence from 9/11 truth yet? You have the shoot down correct, the evidence does not support a shoot down.

Below is Jim Stop's story as told by a news source.

As you can see the only quote attributed to Jim is "I heard the engine whine and scream,". This means the news source just said he looked up and saw flight 93 overhead based on the notes they took. This is pure hearsay and you have interpreted overhead to mean straight up, and there is not one shred of evidence to back up your idea. Most first and second graders understand cause and effect; I thank you again for adding me to that group.
Go ahead look up, what angle are you looking up at? Gee the news story left out the facts and you have made up the false idea in your head that 93 flew over Indian Lake. Have you failed to interpret Jim's quote correctly? All you can really say is, he said, "I heard the engine whine and scream,", the rest is hearsay and false information spread by you.
Click to expand...

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". 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?
 
Southwind17 said:
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?



Arrogance.



Condescension.



Arrogance.

Do you see where I'm coming from?



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?
Click to expand...

Please read back up through this thread, then point out *anywhere* where I said the plane was shot down. Hint: You won't find anything. In fact, you'll find where I said I *don't believe* it was, because of the debris pattern.

As for those 3 little words "in Indian Lake" being left out, can you see how that would change the whole context of the meaning. The post I replied to was insinuating that someone else shouldn't be believed because "he was quoting Miller as saying "there were no human remains found". That could be interpreted as someone trying to say that there were no human remains found "at the crash site", or anywhere else. Do you follow where I'm going with this?

Wouldn't you agree that it's important to keep facts straight for posterity?
 
Ladies and gentlemen, we have another no-claimer. What a surprise...

Can someone from the Woo department send over someone a little more original?
 
another red-ibis clone I see. arguing semantics of a word that isn't even attributed to the witness. it was a word that was used by the person who wrote the article; not said by the witness.

overhead is a VAGUE term, and the only way you're going to get a straight answer as to what Jim saw is to ask him yourself. So unchained are you going to attempt to do something, unlike your other troofers here?
 
Unchained Spirit said:
No, what he says is "Coroner Wallace Miller now claims that no human remains were found on Indian Lake." Why did you leave that part out?



I can't speak for RedIbis, but the folks at Indian Lake Marina apparently do:
"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.



You don't read very well, do you? This is what Jim Stop said about the plane:
"Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane".
(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)

As you notice, he said the plane flew OVER him. Not to the right, not to the left, not in front, not behind, not a mile away, but OVER him. Why don't you question why this is so inconsistent with the official flight path, which puts the plane 2 to 3 miles away from the lake, coming in the opposite direction? In the official flight path, the plane never crosses the lake. Perhaps it would serve you well in the future to learn how to research better, or at least *read* the posts you link to... unless you're purposely spreading disinformation, that is.
Click to expand...
Very suspicious when someone with less that 50 posts knows how to argue the very same questions that had been answered HERE before......
unchained spirit? click!
 
Yup. Arguing semantics. The last refuge of an untenable position. Check.
 
twinstead said:
Yup. Arguing semantics. The last refuge of an untenable position. Check.
Click to expand...

That's funny because I picked it up from you non-truthers. How many times have y'all repeated the phrase "words have meanings"? I guess you only mean that when those "words" support your claims, but not when they shoot down your claims, right?

Right??????

Yeah, that's what I thought...

How long before you post something relevant or meaningful?

Just wondering....
 
Unchained Spirit said:
That's funny because I picked it up from you non-truthers. How many times have y'all repeated the phrase "words have meanings"? I guess you only mean that when those "words" support your claims, but not when they shoot down your claims, right?

Right??????

Yeah, that's what I thought...

How long before you post something relevant or meaningful?

Just wondering....
Click to expand...

Your condescending, arrogant, and puerile juju has no effect on me. You can't change your wrongness, nor am I responsible for it.

Just keeping it real.
 
The bit along the lines "I'll be respectful if you will, otherwise I will respond harshly" (my paraphrase) is purest MJD1982. Boyohboy, he was a piece of work, and shed absolutely no light on anything, despite his absolute faith in his own genius.

Hmmm... The use of "y'all" seems an obvious attempt to appear a Yank (!! though of course, as we real Yanks know, no Yank as in northerner would ever say "y'all"), but "maggot" is much more a British usage.

I know, I know, the Mods will speak to me harshly...
 
Unchained Spirit said:
That's funny because I picked it up from you non-truthers. How many times have y'all repeated the phrase "words have meanings"? I guess you only mean that when those "words" support your claims, but not when they shoot down your claims, right?

Right??????

Yeah, that's what I thought...

How long before you post something relevant or meaningful?

Just wondering....
Click to expand...

How long before you post a single fact?Just wondering...
 
SDC said:
The bit along the lines "I'll be respectful if you will, otherwise I will respond harshly" (my paraphrase) is purest MJD1982. Boyohboy, he was a piece of work, and shed absolutely no light on anything, despite his absolute faith in his own genius.

Hmmm... The use of "y'all" seems an obvious attempt to appear a Yank (!! though of course, as we real Yanks know, no Yank as in northerner would ever say "y'all"), but "maggot" is much more a British usage.

I know, I know, the Mods will speak to me harshly...
Click to expand...

No worries, the only way the mods will say something is if they read it themselves, or if someone else reports it. I have thicker skin than that. Here, check this thread out
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3755571#post3755571

boloboffin knows who I am, and it's not this person you're thinking of..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom