Why Flight 93?

[uk_dave]

However, hundreds of plane crashes witnessed and tapped show a black fireball instantly. The burden of proof is not on me. I could post tons of video proving exactly what I am saying.

But you can't post a picture of the aftermath of a plane which was hijacked and then flown at very high speed into precisely the same terrain as shanksville.

So you really have nothing with which to compare the available visual record with. Only your own incredulity.

That aint enough.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not 'spewing' anything. I have areas of concern, and I note them. If you have a problem with it, quit reading them. Got it?

Now, thank you for all those pointless links. They did not address my issue in the least little bit. I realize there was a fireball.
But look at the photo's that were taken from aircraft.
There is a large section of tree's that were burnt badly. Yet, no fire. How do tree's burn that badly and just go out in a few minutes?
It does not make sense to me.

It is called fire goes out because green stuff does not burn. You must live in CA where everything burns when you drop a cigarette. You are not too good at this stuff, like a rookie, you have yet to present a new piece of woo about 9/11 and you are rehashing things already put on the woo list. Your fire stuff is kind of weak since you did not even discuss fire rescue on 9/11 at the crash site of 93. Please get your stuff together; you need to debunk yourself before becoming the worse truther who says he is not a truther. Is there an award for a truther who does not think he is a truther?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

DA it would really help if you quit with the questions and just posit what you thought happened. really this "just asking questions as if you were a truther" is tiresome, YOu come off a truther, so you are getting treated as such

Actually, just stop with the "Devil's Advocate" bull. It really is tiresome. And you are showing that you are not willing to look for the answers yourself.

why should we explain why things happened to you? You could easily contact an professor at your local college to explain to you the physics of how things happen. But you rather come to a forum.

Truly, this is the same type of behavior that Im experiencing with another "Im not a truther; but I repeat and ask the same questions as truthers do" member on Myspace. She is doing the exact same thing you are doing, and when pointed to where she can get her answers; she DEMANDS answers from those who would know less than those she could contact. And she claims she's not a "truther". Unfortunately her actions and replies say otherwise.


Your actions and questions speak otherwise.

Really, stop playing the devil's advocate card, you were given answers and your replies are disingenuous. You were given the right people to contact, instead you post here.

You make claims, but provide no support.
You make vague references, yet when we look at hte specifics, your references fall to pieces.

please, just give it up.



Post what you think happene,d and why you think so, and back it up with evidence. No "debris fell here , 8 miles away". Specific evidence like "a piece of paper from flight 93 fell 8 miles away, by the road that lead from the crash scene to the lake".

How much is wrong with all the BS you just said....
I thought this forum was about debate and education?
So, I should not post questions on here, which is exactly what others encouraged me to do because you don't like it?
You're tired of it? Then go away.
And when have YOU refuted anything I've said? Not at all. Your opinions of me are not valid. I do not care what you think about me.
Look into things for myself?
If you had read my posts, you would see that I have done just that.
That is why I did not post about this topic until I read everything.
Got it now, buddy?

I am not playing 'Devil's Advocate' here.
I am debating questions, testimony, and evidence. They only reason you don't like it is because of why you think I am asking it.
You are wrong, period.

People 2.5 miles away see debris raining down seconds after impact. They think a boat blew up. They rush to see what happened. Debris still raining down. Someone tells the F.B.I about it, the F.B.I is skeptical but checks it out, they are reporting leaving with a large trash bag full of debris....
And you're saying what I said does not match?
Curious.

 

[uk_dave]

People 2.5 miles away see debris raining down seconds after impact. They think a boat blew up. They rush to see what happened. Debris still raining down. Someone tells the F.B.I about it, the F.B.I is skeptical but checks it out, they are reporting leaving with a large trash bag full of debris....
And you're saying what I said does not match?
Curious.

How much of that testimony is really accurate?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It is called fire goes out because green stuff does not burn. You must live in CA where everything burns when you drop a cigarette. You are not too good at this stuff, like a rookie, you have yet to present a new piece of woo about 9/11 and you are rehashing things already put on the woo list. Your fire stuff is kind of weak since you did not even discuss fire rescue on 9/11 at the crash site of 93. Please get your stuff together; you need to debunk yourself before becoming the worse truther who says he is not a truther. Is there an award for a truther who does not think he is a truther?

Which proves you do not read very well.
I stated clearly that they (firefighter) were there. That was the point to my question as to why the fire damage got worse in the woods than pictured in the video if firefighters were there?
How? Why? No fire, no additional fire damage, correct?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hmmm, now why would there be burn marks in an area with flammable material and not in an area that lacks flammable material. Chalk it up to one of life's great mysteries...

 

[Devil's Advocate]

How much of that testimony is really accurate?

Oh I see, we can question and discard any testimony that goes against 'our' version of the story.
Interesting.

 

[beachnut]

Which proves you do not read very well.
I stated clearly that they (firefighter) were there. That was the point to my question as to why the fire damage got worse in the woods than pictured in the video if firefighters were there?
How? Why? No fire, no additional fire damage, correct?

Firemen were not at the impact when 93 hit! That proves you cannot think vs my reading problems, which seem to be fine.

The fuel was ignited at impact due to the fact the engines were working and the core of the engine is at 700 degrees C, auto ignition of jet fuel is 450. Fire burnt all around in the direction of momentum, of the fuel.

The trees in PA were not dry (if the trees had been dry the fire would have been out of control), the fire went out, firemen were then on the scene to put out the rest. New accounts suck, you have to use more sources than your poorly cherry picked junk.

The smoke from 93 on the famous photo is exactly what a jet fuel impact crash looks like there are many examples.

B-52 smoke, AirBus smoke, 93 smoke, all jet fuel! Two accidents, one on purpose.

What is your point? If it is to display poor research of 9/11 truth, then you have won.

 

[uk_dave]

Oh I see, we can question and discard any testimony that goes against 'our' version of the story.
Interesting.

Noooo I didn't say that. C'mon now.

The witnesses experience debris raining down. How much of that is going to become hyperbole in the media reports given that a single trash bag of debris is actually removed?

People exaggerate and the media is sometimes piss poor at reporting facts in favour of reporting what people expect to read.

So which is the most reliable, the continual rain of debris (culled no doubt from many different eyewitnesses over a period of time) or the single trash bag of debris?

And again I have to ask how you can be so balls on sure about your expectation of what the shanksville site should have looked like when you don't have a shanksville site to compare it with? Unless you're an experienced air crash investigator, I can't see how you can have any expectations whatsoever.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

[/COLOR]
Firemen were not at the impact when 93 hit! That proves you cannot think vs my reading problems, which seem to be fine.

The fuel was ignited at impact due to the fact the engines were working and the core of the engine is at 700 degrees C, auto ignition of jet fuel is 450. Fire burnt all around in the direction of momentum, of the fuel.

The trees in PA were not dry, the fire went out, firemen were then on the scene to put out the rest. New accounts suck, you have to use more sources than your poorly cherry picked junk.

Ok, I'll ask again....how did the fire damage INCREASE AFTER[b/] firefighters were filmed there?
The video shows firefighters there, and there is barely any tree's blackened.
(Only one is smoking, and lots of green all around))
Yet in later photographs, the damage is a lot worse.
Meaning, just for you beachnut, that the damage to the trees in later photographs happened AFTER.....AFTER the firefighter arrived.
Do you understand my question now?

 

[uk_dave]

Ok, I'll ask again....how did the fire damage INCREASE AFTER[b/] firefighters were filmed there?
The video shows firefighters there, and there is barely any tree's blackened.
(Only one is smoking, and lots of green all around))
Yet in later photographs, the damage is a lot worse.
Meaning, just for you beachnut, that the damage to the trees in later photographs happened AFTER.....AFTER the firefighter arrived.
Do you understand my question now?

Is the shot you're talking about taken from the same position on both occasions?

 

[DGM]

Which proves you do not read very well.

I stated clearly that they (firefighter) were there. That was the point to my question as to why the fire damage got worse in the woods than pictured in the video if firefighters were there?
How? Why? No fire, no additional fire damage, correct?

It doesn't look to me like the same camera location or even the same spot. Look at the picture you posted. now envision a video of the crater from the top right(draw a line through the crater). There would show no burnt woods. To make that statement the camera positions would need top be the same.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The reason DA does not want to specify what he thinks is because it's very easy to pick apart someone elses work, and the same would happen. The holw basis stems on focusing on what the experts and scientists have found and poke holes at it. but since holes can be poked in anything and the alternative conclusions have 1000's more holes than what the experts concluded, it's suicidal intellectually to do so.

You cannot as easily perpetuate a belief in a conspiracy when it's being shot down. Much easier to pray on the inevitable contradictions in someone else's work than look at the ones in ones own theory. And this works out great because no matter what theory is presented, one can look only at the flaws and they never have to worry about not being able to claim a conspiracy or something not adding up. It's a self fulfilling destiny. So long as one keeps the focus of their own theories.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Is the shot you're talking about taken from the same position on both occasions?

The shot in the video shows the site very well. The impact point is the focus for reference and what is behind it in the video. About three darkened trees, one of which is smoking. Everything else is green. But in later photo's, the whole area south - south west of the impact is blackened. (Burnt from fire apparently)
How did the area of damage grow when there is a fire truck clearly seen in the video when the damage was barely noticeable earlier in the day?

 

[DGM]

Which proves you do not read very well.

Sorry, I'm not sure where this quote came from in my last post. I did not type it. OMG weird.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The reason DA does not want to specify what he thinks is because it's very easy to pick apart someone elses work, and the same would happen. The holw basis stems on focusing on what the experts and scientists have found and poke holes at it. but since holes can be poked in anything and the alternative conclusions have 1000's more holes than what the experts concluded, it's suicidal intellectually to do so.

You cannot as easily perpetuate a belief in a conspiracy when it's being shot down. Much easier to pray on the inevitable contradictions in someone else's work than look at the ones in ones own theory. And this works out great because no matter what theory is presented, one can look only at the flaws and they never have to worry about not being able to claim a conspiracy or something not adding up. It's a self fulfilling destiny. So long as one keeps the focus of their own theories.

Ok, when did I say there was a conspiracy? Where did I say it?
I stated clearly where I 'stand' on this issue. Do not make false accusations based off your bias opinion.
Do not accuse me of something that is clearly stated earlier.
It is your fault if you do not care to read it, not mine.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sorry, I'm not sure where this quote came from in my last post. I did not type it. OMG weird.

Nope. I got a screen shot. That is proof you said it.
You said it because you're mean.






lol j/k

No worries.

 

[beachnut]

Ok, I'll ask again....how did the fire damage INCREASE AFTER[b/] firefighters were filmed there?
The video shows firefighters there, and there is barely any tree's blackened.
(Only one is smoking, and lots of green all around))
Yet in later photographs, the damage is a lot worse.
Meaning, just for you beachnut, that the damage to the trees in later photographs happened AFTER.....AFTER the firefighter arrived.
Do you understand my question now?

You are wrong. Watched the video, I seen the forest in question still smoking alot. Simple stuff. I have yet to find a challenging question from a truther, or even a veiled truther. Why is that? Why are all things involving 9/11 truth so easy to see as misinformation, poor comprehension, and really bad logic?

 

[uk_dave]

The shot in the video shows the site very well. The impact point is the focus for reference and what is behind it in the video. About three darkened trees, one of which is smoking. Everything else is green. But in later photo's, the whole area south - south west of the impact is blackened. (Burnt from fire apparently)
How did the area of damage grow when there is a fire truck clearly seen in the video when the damage was barely noticeable earlier in the day?

But is the damage recorded from the same position?

The thing is photos can appear to be very different when taken from different angles.

And where is the logic? One would have to assume that if the 93 site was a set up the perps would have enough sense to make sure the anomalies you have raised didn't exist. Unless we're in the realms of 'the NWO actually like to leave us clues' in which case I wish they'd left a few more clues at the wtc coz I can't ****ing see it.

 

[Corsair 115]

It is a straight line point to point on a map. So explain to me how the explosion sent debris two and a half miles in the matter of seconds.

Where does your "matter of seconds" come from? Perhaps you should try being a devil's advocate with some of your own suppositions.

Questions still outstanding that I've asked which you still have yet to respond to:

How many of those photos of crashes that you have looked at involved a high speed plunge at a steep angle into the ground?

Do you accept that Flight 93 was nearly inverted at the time of impact, as lapman has stated and as the FDR data Gravy has posted indicates?