The "Official" Flight 93 Crash Story-- Is It Plausible?

[spooked911]

Flight 93 officially crashed into an empty field in Shanksville, PA at 10:03am. It reportedly started rolling onto its back before striking the ground at about a 45deg angle, traveling roughly 580mph with 5,500 gallons of fuel still onboard. Only one person actually saw the plane strike the ground. Hardly anything of a plane looked to be left and no bodies were seen. The only evidence left on the surface was a shallow 10ft-deep crater, a burned out section of forest nearby, and relatively few, mostly small pieces of debris scattered about. The local coroner was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked and commented that it looked "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Other debris allegedly from the crash was reported up to 8 miles away. First responders to the scene had thought that the plane either mostly disintegrated on impact, or that it bounced off the ground and continued into the forest. Days later during the excavation, it was discovered that most of the 155ft-long plane had burrowed deep into the ground.

When the plane crashed, the explanation was that right wing struck the ground first, sending the Boeing 757 into a cartwheel motion. This caused the underside of the front of the plane come in contact with the ground next, causing the cockpit and first-class cabin to break off and shatter, sending its pieces throughout the field and into the woods. An axle from nose wheels tumbled into the forest, snapping a tree. The rest of the plane on back continued its downward passage through the soft reclaimed soil until it accordioned against a layer of bedrock deep below the surface.

A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane "went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn." As the plane tunneled deep into the ground, the soil began to immediately fall back in on itself, leaving only what looked like a shallow crater instead of deep hole. The field used to be a strip-mine and had been refilled. The ground was reportedly still loose and un-compacted at the time of the crash. Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if "the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground."

When investigators began excavating the crater, they had to dig down 15ft to start finding pieces of the plane. On Sept 13, they unearthed one of the plane's engines and at around 4:45pm, they found the Flight Data Recorder at a depth of 15ft. On Sept 14, they found the Cockpit Voice Recorder at a depth of 25ft at around 8:25pm. They excavated down to about 45ft. Most of the buried debris was found between 15ft and 35ft down. About 80% of the 757 was in the ground -- making that roughly the equivalent of 24 cars-worth of debris having to be pulled out of the ground!

On Sept 24, the FBI announced they had finished their investigation at the scene and had recovered about 95% of the United Airlines Boeing 757. The biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin with about four windows. This fuselage fragment was stripped cleanly of all interior lining and window parts. The heaviest piece was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds, that was found in a catchment pond about 300 yards south of the crater. No groundwater contamination by jet fuel or hydraulic fluid was detected.

The FBI also found items belonging to the victims that including a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, bank-machine receipts, the corner of a business card, a shoelace, some shirt buttons, a necktie still knotted, two Bibles found above ground, pages inside still unburned, and a flight attendant's personal logbook and in-flight procedures manual. A badge and credentials inside of a passenger working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were also found, which a family member commented that the credentials inside their wallet were "practically intact" and that it "just looked like it wasn't damaged or hadn't gone through much of anything at all, which is so bizarre and ironic." Items found belonging to the hijackers included a passport, knives they used, a jacket that contained their schedule for 9/11, a copy of a letter written by Mohamed Atta, and a red bandanna worn by one of them, still in pristine shape.

All of the 44 passengers were eventually identified, some through fingerprint and dental records, but most through DNA with the four hijackers being identified by a process of elimination. Remains were found underground and amongst the cockpit wreckage above ground. A single tooth with a silver filling was found embedded in a nearby tree. Investigators had only recovered about 8% of the total mass of all the passengers. The coroner had expressed that he never saw a drop of blood at the scene.
------------

IMO, some of this is plausible, but other parts are simply ludicrous. All in all, major parts of the story appear to be fabrications.

[deconstruct911]

1. I find it very unlikely flight 93 was headed for Washington

when you look at where the put options on that airline trace back to.

[zappaman]

2. Is it plausible?

Absolutely.
You're welcome.
:hi:

[spooked911]

3. The plane, going over 500 mph, cartwheeled when the wing hit the ground?

Seriously?

Unburned bibles on the ground outside the crater?

Seriously?

Not a drop of blood?

Seriously?

80% of the plane went under ground, and the ground covered up over it?

Seriously?

[travis80]

20. cartwheeling! ha ha ha!!! what will FBI whip up next? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

24. You know the word cartwheeling came from FBI? Source, please. n/t

[spooked911]

83. the cartwheeling explanation came from coroner Wally Miller

who appeared to get it from an official source, most likely the FBI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54&feature=player_embedded

Oh yeah, I love the way Miller smiles after he tells the story, as if he knows full well it is BS.

[travis80]

107. OMG, Miller is really saying it kinda cartwheeled!!! simply laughable

and he says "the explanation was...", so that could only mean the explanation is what the FBI told him because they were in charge of giving the official explanation. holy cow!!! i can't believe the FBI whipped up such a laughable story like that. no wonder they never released a detailed explanation of the alleged crash! ahhahahaha!!!

[travis80]

108. Miller also gives a different story that 93 hit sideways, not inverted.

just one more inconsistency with the official story!

[defendandprotect]

144. Also LOVE Coroner Miller ....

his reports are quite telling about what is really going on --

he just repeats changed stories -- no attempt to explain the one before --

but meanwhile he's telling' truth which undermines everything cover up is trying to say.

[travis80]

145. yes, before the plane supposed crashed upside down. now he's saying FBI said

the plane crashed on it's side. can't have it both ways.

[defendandprotect]

146. Well ...

my recollection is that his first statements were that there

was NOTHING there -- until a day or so later when he said it looked

like a dump truck had come in and unloaded its contents into the hole!!

I haven't caught up with whose crystal ball delivered the "upside down"

or the "side" landing!! Had read previously about the cockpit having

spun off and landing back in the area of a cabin? Stories are more

ridiculous every time you hear a new one.

But -- I do think that 9/11 based on the Pentagon fakery points to NO PLANES

being used -- and therefore no "crash" in Pennyslvania, either --

but the cover up stories continue to be increasingly comic -- but entertaining!!

:eyes:

[zappaman]

26. what's so funny about that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAiYkX-Woh0&feature=related
you must be an aviation expert.

[travis80]

27. is that what Flight 93 did? n/t

[zappaman]

33. I don't know

Do you?
Still waiting on Spooked's source that said it did...

[travis80]

35. from sources i read, 93 did nothing like your video did.

the news said most of it plunged deep below the ground.

[zappaman]

36. ok

so who, besides Spooked, is saying it cartwheeled?

[travis80]

38. "cartwheel motion" after wingtip hit is what it says, not full cartwheeling. nt

[KDLarsen]

4. Compared to the "Unofficial" story, it is quite plausible

I mean, there doesn't even appear to be concenus on what the "unofficial" story is. Some say it was shot down, others say it landed in Cleveland, while third parties claim the aircraft never existed in the first place.

[travis80]

31. but not compared to the "unofficial" story, it's not plausible? n/t

[Larry L. Burks]

227. There were no planes. Any where

There are no master records to any plane that is said to have crashed on 9/11.

No Master Records == No Planes

[zappaman]

228. keep up the good work, Larry!

no one has noticed that or they just tend to pretend not to notice...

[Larry L. Burks]

231. Thanks for the coment

Larry

[BeFree]

5. well, hardly, but...

G Dumbya B thought he ordered it shot down.

That is plausible.

[spooked911]

57. plausible that he thought that?

or that it was shot down?

There's no evidence for the second-- shooting it down wouldn't cause the official crash scene, that is for sure.

[travis80]

6. is this really the official story?!? it's purely laughable!!! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Actually, Ziad Jarrah was also IDed with DNA. n/t

[travis80]

8. bolo, is what spooked posted what you debunkers believe happened to 93? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

9. I would like to see spooked cite everything he just wrote about the "official story."

Since it is the "official story," there would only be one or two citations, right?

[travis80]

10. are you asking for that because you don't know the official story

or that you can't believe parts of it could happen like that?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. I'm asking so that I know what spooked is working from and calling the "official story".

[travis80]

18. do you have a problem with any parts that spooked posted regardless? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

21. First he sources, then we can match his telling to the source. n/t

[travis80]

28. it just sounds like you either disagree that some parts are the official story

or some parts would just be impossible. curious what you think before spooked gives sources.

so lets hear it.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. It sounds to me like I'm saying I want spooked to source his "official story." n/t

[travis80]

50. well in the meantime, which parts of his posted story do you take issue with? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

54. First the sourcing, then the discussion. n/t

[travis80]

58. what are you afraid of Bolo?

leaving yourself a lot of breathing room in case spooked's posted story turns out to be the official one?!

[Bolo Boffin]

67. I've seen spooked's research skills on display before.

I want to see his documentation on every statement.

[travis80]

72. sounds like you're saying what he posted is not the official story. correct? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Let's see his sourcing and find out together. n/t

[travis80]

75. why? why can't you tell us which parts you take issue with?

if 93 really crashed there, you shouldn't have too much to worry about.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Let's see his sourcing and find out together. n/t

[travis80]

78. we'll just leave it as you're too scared to give a position on his posted story.

i don't blame you really. if i was defending the official story and came across the detailed version, i'd try to run from it too.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Seems to me it's spooked running from sourcing his story.

And you're giving him cover.

[travis80]

81. he asked you which parts do you take issue with.

i took it as when you told him, he'd produce those sources. so which ones?

[Bolo Boffin]

84. All of them. It's spooked's research abilities I am questioning. n/t

[travis80]

88. you're quite the sidestepper. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

90. You are getting close to being insulting. You may wish to check DU rules. n/t

[travis80]

91. what should i say when you're sidestepping then? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Check DU rules. You probably should do this before your next post. n/t

[spooked911]

59. there are a few dozen different sources.

What specific part of the story do you take issue with?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Produce them. n/t

[spooked911]

94. I will, if you give me a reason why you care so much.

First, they are pretty easy to find, if you care to look (google is your friend, I believe you like to say).

Second, if the story is so plausible, why do you need the official sources?

[travis80]

96. oh, double snap! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Spooked, I have seen your attempts to reproduce what happened before.

Your chicken wire experiments are legendary and had no resemblance whatsoever to the actual WTC towers.

Now you present an "official story" for 93. I'm asking you for your sources so that we can judge the fidelty of your research against the actual sources. You should have nothing to fear if you have researched well.

[travis80]

101. where's your official story version bolo?

how about you produce your sides, then we'll compare it against spooked's? sounds like a fair way to break this stalemate.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. A fair way to break this stalemate is for spooked to source his claims.

His claim is that the OP reproduces the "official story" faithfully. The burden of proof is his. Let's see him support his claim.

[spooked911]

148. again, what part of this do you take issue with?

It's not like I'm claiming a mini-nuke destroyed the plane here.

[Larry L. Burks]

230. Funny that you should mention mini-nukes What mini-nukes are you talking about?

Did you know that a DEW based on the technology of worm holes and curved space can curve space to the point that it can rip atoms them self apart.

When ever this happen it can produces a proton particle, electron particle, And a radon particle.

Did you know that they found chemicals and compound that can only form if the conditions are right ( curved space) and there is the present of a radon particle.

Did you know that some people got sick from radiation poisoning, snow blindness and sun burn. Peoples skin turn red. Then it turned brown. Then it pilled off.

Did you know that when ever there is a nuclear reaction it produces a electrical magnet pulse that will cause all radio to stop working.

Where you a ware of the fact that the first responder radios all stop working on 9/11 for a little while?

Well did you.

[spooked911]

189. do you have a problem with what I wrote about the official story or NOT?

If not, then why do you need my refs?

If so, why can't you point out one problem?

Not to mention that I gave some sources already.

[zappaman]

190. everyone seems to have a problem with you calling it

"the official story" without any backup.
why?
well, you don't exactly have the best record around here...

[spooked911]

203. again...

what is wrong with what I wrote?

Don't shoot the messenger dude.

But if you do take issue with part of it, let me know where!

[spooked911]

105. I have nothing to fear here.

But honestly, it's a bunch of scattered sources, and it's just easier if we started with parts you're most skeptical of. If you're not skeptical of any of it, then no problem.

I already gave my link for the cartwheel claim, above.

But, just to help you a bit more...

This article has a bunch of details in it:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

Here is the link for Purbaugh being the only guy to see the plane hit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021010093337/http:/www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

[immune]

61. Here's an official story for you

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

It would make a good thriller chiller fiction movie. The only thing missing is that Home Alone kid.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. There are only a couple of statements at that source that apply to the OP

"The airplane rolled onto its back....the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour."

That's all that impacts the OP that I can see. We need more sourcing, please.

[spooked911]

206. sources for WHICH details?

surely you don't question 95% of what I wrote?

Why is this so difficult for you? It's almost funny.

[mrarundale]

11. Where do you supposed the DNA sample came from BB?

Since we can assume his body was not recognizable.

[travis80]

12. that's incredible odds, ID'ing 100% out of only 8% remains.

more evidence of fishiness.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Plus, some victims had pieces of their bodies discovered in all five search zones. n/t

[travis80]

19. post #16

and would like to see a source for your post.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Source

"The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five sectors." –Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, quoted in Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes," p. 262.

[mrarundale]

117. They must have used a crop duster ...eom

[Bolo Boffin]

13. The DNA sample of Jarrah's came from his girlfriend's German apartment.

The DNA sample it was matched to came from the Flight 93 crash site.

[travis80]

16. how many photos of the scene did you see with body parts or blood? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

23. What does that have to do with anything? n/t

[travis80]

29. kinda goes towards your post #22. if body parts were found all over the place

you'd think not only there were be photos showing body parts all over the place, but at the very least, Willy Miller would have seen blood at the scene. strange he didn't witness a single drop.

and sectors? was the scene marked in grids?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Kinda goes toward being morbid. n/t

[travis80]

51. what plane crash isn't morbid? now please answer my question. nt

[mrarundale]

17. matched to what?

His "girlfriend's apartment"? Please! If I were an unscrupulous individual I could think of a lot of bogus stuff I would like to sell you.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Source

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x241361

[travis80]

30. "The FBI Laboratory compared the DNA profiles"

who was in charge of the Shanksville scene?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Most of your questions can be answered here

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

3 pages!

[travis80]

44. so basically you have blind trust that the FBI isn't lying? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

48. So basically you have blind trust that the FBI is? n/t

[travis80]

52. nice sidestep. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

55. I would not have called your tactic a sidestep. Thank you for self applying. n/t

[travis80]

60. if you answered my question along with asking yours, then i would have been sidstepping

but you didn't answer my question, so i'm not sidestepping. i'm waiting for you to answer my question. then i'll answer yours.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Yours is the original sidestep. I responded to a sidestep with a sidestep. n/t

[travis80]

70. what did i sidestep? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

71. The wtc7lies website. n/t

[travis80]

74. no, i saw it. that's where saw the FBI was in charge of the scene.

not that i didn't know they were in charge. just seeing if you knew who was.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. So are these people lying?

[travis80]

86. nice sidestep again. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

89. It's a sidestep to point out that it's not just down to trusting the FBI? Interesting. n/t

[travis80]

93. i'm still waiting for you to answer my original question before you started sidestepping. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Your original question is the original sidestep. n/t

[spooked911]

100. how would we know, for petes sake?

do you have a statement from each one of them? Do you know all of them will swear to the official story?

[spooked911]

188. again-- how do you know what those guys have seen or what they know?

seriously.

[spooked911]

213. again-- how do you know what those guys have seen or what they know?

would appreciate an answer

[spooked911]

216. again-- how do you know what those guys have seen or what they know?

pretty please?

[Raphael Weber]

202. I don't understand what that proves

I always found it strange that basically nobody saw anything on 911 in Shanksville that indicated a plane had crashed. Though I admit this doesn't prove anything.
On the other hand I have not the slightest idea what a photo from Sep 29 shall prove about what was seen in the crater on Sep 11??? So the question "So are these people lying" is completely irrelevant in my eyes.
Besides: do you have a link that Jarrah had been identified by his DNA as you have stated below?

[travis80]

239. bolo's trying to play on people's emotions and avoid science. nt

[travis80]

46. i noticed that site doesn't really give an official story

why is that?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Go find me a link to the official story.

I believe that in this quest, you may find the answer to your own question.

[travis80]

53. yes, the US gov never produced a detailed one. more evidence of inside job.

but since they didn't and you debunkers are like the official story protectors, i'm surprised you guys haven't tried to piece a more detailed story together like spooked did. maybe because spooked's story is the official story and you know how laughable that story is.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Hey, you've had almost ten years to "piece together a more detailed" alternative

What is it?

[travis80]

62. oh i misread, our alternative is no plane crashed and the scene was staged.

i think the truth movement has had that alternative story for quite a few years now.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. You think the OP is what actually happened? Really? n/t

[travis80]

68. no, i think it's what officially happened. don't you? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

69. I've asked you for the detailed alternate you think happened. n/t

[travis80]

76. why? we aren't the ones who are making the initial claim that 93 crashed there. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Scared to present an alternate version? I don't blame you. n/t

[travis80]

99. no, because we don't have to prove what really happened, but that the official story didn't. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

103. But your only tactic so far to prove the official story didn't is "ha, ha, ha!"

That's all that this OP is - an exercise in stretching one's own personal incredulity so that one doesn't have to believe anything one doesn't wish to believe. Until this "official story" is documented, I don't see the need to defend it at all. I've been burned before by accepting the research abilities of many 9/11 Truth advocates. Never again.

Spooked is making the claim that this is the "official story." It's his burden of proof to verify this. Until that happens, it's all sidestepping.

[travis80]

109. kinda funny an official story supporter needs sources to confirm the official story.

i figured a seasoned debunker, such as yourself, would know all the details of the alleged crash by now. funny.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. I don't feel the need to defend something put together by spooked sight unseen.

I've said that a couple of times in a couple of ways.

[travis80]

114. well i just reviewed all the sources and they all pan out. so do you support this story?

if you still have any issues, just say which ones and i'll sources them for you.

[AZCat]

123. Not that Bolo needs to take cues from me...

but I wouldn't trust your claim to have reviewed the sources for us (although it is kind of you to have done so). Why should anyone accept the claim of an anonymous poster on an internet forum without first reviewing the sources on their own? Is uncritical acceptance the sort of behavior we want to encourage? I don't think so.

[zappaman]

124. this will explain the source

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/08/hopefully-my-last-analysis-of-flight.html

[AZCat]

125. I've long been aware of spooked's blog.

I used to check it regularly. Thanks for linking to that post, though - it brings back a lot of memories. William Seger probably is more familiar with those sketches - he has done the rounds with our old buddy spooked more than I, at least on Shanksville.

[travis80]

126. AZCat, do you agree with the story spooked posted here? nt

[AZCat]

127. Why do you care if I "agree" with a narrative...

produced by spooked911? Is there some relevance to my agreeing or disagreeing with the OP? What value is there to an opinion of an unsourced set of assertions, other than the inherent value such an opinion has to the holder of said opinion?

[travis80]

128. funny you guys make fun of spooked all the time, but then are too afraid to answer

whether you agree with the story he posted.

[AZCat]

129. That's an interesting response.

One might think that you posted it in order to avoid answering the questions I posed in my post, because it isn't particularly relevant otherwise.

[travis80]

131. i'm curious if you agree with the posted story, or not.

not sure why it's so difficult for you guys just to comment on it.

[AZCat]

132. And I am not sure why you consider my opinion relevant.

Why not instead consider facts? Unfortunately those generally require sourcing, of which spooked's OP is woefully deficient.

[travis80]

142. just curious, that's all. so do you agree with the posted story? nt

[AZCat]

204. So you don't have any reason my opinion is particularly relevant.

Then why ask for it? Is there any reason you can't get an equally valuable opinion from some stranger on the streets of your hometown? Surely - if opinions are all you're after - such a method would produce more satisfying results?

[zappaman]

130. no one is afraid

what everyone wants to know is how is the story Spooked presents "official"?
Notice he uses quotes on "official".
why don't you present the sources you claimed to have found?
what are you afraid of?

[travis80]

133. which specific parts of it do you need sourced and why? nt

[zappaman]

134. the parts you claimed to have looked up will do nicely n/t

[travis80]

136. sure, one at a time causes there's so many. which one first? nt

[zappaman]

139. start anywhere you'd like

you claimed to have checked the sources, why not show us?
unless...you didn't?

[travis80]

140. which specific part of the posted story do you have issue with and why?

than i'll source it for you.

[spooked911]

207. the reason I put official in quotes

is because it was compiled from all the official, mainstream sources, but was never written out in this complete way. I am not saying it is not official, just that it is the official record compiled from all sources available.

Now the question is whether you have a problem with any of what I wrote, and if so, what?

[Ghost in the Machine]

222. "Is uncritical acceptance the sort of behavior we want to encourage?" Well, Bolo does..

Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-31-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. Ah, so when I say that I was able to access it before it was published
I'm not telling you the truth?

immune (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-31-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. How should I know if you could or couldn't
Edited on Sun Oct-31-10 11:18 PM by immune
FOR SURE? You guys dish out plenty of demands for proof of everything, but you don't like taking it. Goosies and ganders.

Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-31-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. You could be gracious and civil and accept my word. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=299622#299957

[zappaman]

135. "i just reviewed all the sources and they all pan out"

how did you accomplish this when no sources were given?

[travis80]

137. google is your friend. nt

[zappaman]

138. good non-answer

which means you didn't source anything, did you?
LOL

[mrarundale]

39. "Unknown human remains"

hmm, I wonder how those got there....Huge opportunity for fraud. Bandana intact, body parts not...

[Raphael Weber]

147. DNA

Hi,

I'm very interested in the DNA issue.
Can you please provide a link that the DNA was actually matched.
So far I've only heard that everybody on UA 93 was identified by exclusion.
Thank you.

[travis80]

32. that story is not only implausible, but impossible.

do the debunkers agree with that?

[zappaman]

34. I don't agree

what is impossible?
and who says it happened that way except Spooked?

[travis80]

37. i'm saying the story spooked posted is impossible for a 757 to do that

regardless if it's the official story, or not.

do you believe a 757 crash could do that in the story spooked posted?

[zappaman]

40. at this point

I don't believe anything Spooked posts

[travis80]

45. thanks for admitting you're biased.

but what i'm asking is do you think all of what he posted is possible for a 757 to do?

[zappaman]

49. "do you think all of what he posted is possible for a 757 to do?"

which is what exactly?

[travis80]

63. can you not read spooked's post all of a sudden? nt

[zappaman]

122. no, this does not make sense to me...

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/08/hopefully-my-last-analysis-of-flight.html

[spooked911]

209. what part?

perhaps you could be more specific.

[travis80]

85. good post spooked! you got the debunkers questioning the official story

and they don't even know it! ahhahaha!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

92. :eyes:

Questioning spooked's ability to reproduce the facts isn't questioning the "official story." After all, spooked compared the collapses of the WTC building to the most inane concrete block/chicken wire construction experiments he could devise in his back yard. I am trying to ascertain whether spooked's "official 93 story" has as much resemblance to what happened and what was reported as his chicken wire experiments.

[travis80]

102. well which parts of spooked's post do you take issue with?

i've been asking you for like forever now. sheesh.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. I take issue with spooked's research abilities. I've been telling you this

for like forever now. sheesh.

[deconstruct911]

110. I think all of us would/could better understand your issue

If you simply took out the part(s) of the OP and show how your sources differ from Spooks findings? Sorry if you have already done that, this thread has filled up with posts quickly today.

[travis80]

111. and i asked which parts, so i can help source them for you. sheesh. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

113. And I told you: all of them.

Have you noticed that so far spooked has produced a Youtube video of Wallace Miller, a story from the Australian paper The Age, and the British paper The Mirror?

Can you guess my next question?

[travis80]

115. no, what? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Two newspaper interviews and one video interview of Wallace Miller.

Explain to me how this becomes the "official story."

Immune has given more links to official sources than spooked has!

[zappaman]

118. here is Spooked's source

http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/

and for more laughs...

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/08/hopefully-my-last-analysis-of-flight.html

[travis80]

120. bolo, shouldn't you warn zappaman about DU's rules about insulting? nt

[zappaman]

121. how is that an insult?

it's called a link.
have you checked them out?

[travis80]

119. Waller Miller wasn't an official working at the scene?

newspapers don't report the official story?

[travis80]

154. bolo? nt

[immune]

150. Official sources?

More like official jokes. Did you read that incredible official story line I linked to? Those guys put the keystone cops to shame, nobody knew nothin' about nothin'.

[defendandprotect]

141. Official myth re Flight #93 is ridiculous ... from beginning to end ....

Didn't coroner also say that there was nothing in the hole on 9/11 -- but

a day or so later, it looked like a dump truck had been brought in and

unloaded into the hole -- junk and metal bits -- ?

Think that was the coroner --

Someone should take all these witness reports from ALL of the events and put

them on stage -- it's sadly hilarious.

[travis80]

143. debunkers, lets say spooked's posted story is the official story

would you still support it?

[William Seger]

149. Let's say it's NOT the "official story"

Would you still be claiming it was a hoax based on your own befuddlement? Not much doubt about that, huh.

It's not the "official story," so let's not say it is. It appears to be a collection of unsourced anecdotes, and like any other collection of anecdotes, some of the details may be accurate and some may not. It isn't possible to make any judgment about which is which without knowing who said what and why they said it.

If your argument is that if some of the purported details are wrong, then it makes sense to think the 93 crash was a hoax, then we can address that argument without actually sorting through the details: It's a completely illogical argument. Conspiracists use it for exactly one reason: That's all they have.

[travis80]

151. answer my question first, then i'll answer yours. nt

[William Seger]

152. I did answer

My answer is that your question is inherently meaningless.

"If your argument is that if some of the purported details are wrong, then it makes sense to think the 93 crash was a hoax, then we can address that argument without actually sorting through the details: It's a completely illogical argument."

Fuzzy definitions like "official story" lead to fuzzy thinking.

[travis80]

153. it's not inherently meaningless if it's the correct official story

i've check it and it all seems to be accurate.

are there any parts of it you don't think is the official story? you guys act like none of it is.

[William Seger]

155. Define "official story"

... and I'll show you what I mean when I say fuzzy definitions lead to fuzzy thinking.

[travis80]

156. you know what it means so go ahead and show me what you're getting at. nt

[William Seger]

181. So, your definition is too fuzzy to put into words?

If you can't even state a cogent definition for the term "official story," what could it possibly mean to ask if someone does or does not "support" it? I already said what I'm getting at: fuzzy definition -> fuzzy thinking.

Wouldn't you get much more meaningful answers if you rephrased your question in terms that you can define? What are you getting at?

[travis80]

183. the story about an event given by gubmnt officials

often reported by the media to the public.

k, your turn.

[William Seger]

185. Not so fast

So your definition of "official story" is anything said by any government official, to anyone, about any aspect of the events, without any regard for the basis or the context of those remarks?

And your question is, if everything Spooky claims in the OP is "official story" by that definition, you're asking if "debunkers" "still support it?" Is that correct?

[travis80]

186. nope, not correct. nt

[William Seger]

191. So you get my point now?

By your sloppy definition of "official story" you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who ever "supported" it, whatever that might mean, much less would "still support" it.

[travis80]

192. no, because you interpreted my definition wrong.

i never said "by any government official." they would had to be involved in the event and be in the know.

[AZCat]

205. Actually, you referenced unspecified "gubmnt officials".

There wasn't anything about them being involved or in the know.

[zappaman]

157. "i've check it and it all seems to be accurate.":

well then, it should be very easy for you to show your sources since this is the second time you have claimed to have checked the sources, even though the OP didn't reference any...

[travis80]

158. which parts are you having problems with?

there's a lot of sources, so too time consuming to post them all. let me know which parts you're having problems with.

[zappaman]

159. can't be that time consuming

you claimed to have done it twice.
take your time...days if you'd like.
there's no hurry.
how about starting with one?

[travis80]

160. ok, which one are you having problems with? nt

[zappaman]

161. start here

"When the plane crashed, the explanation was that right wing struck the ground first, sending the Boeing 757 into a cartwheel motion."
Please source this from an "official" source and explain what "cartwheel motion" means in this case.
Just so we are clear, Spooked and David Ickes sites are not official...

[travis80]

162. spooked already posted it. it came from Wally Miller, an official at the scene. nt

[zappaman]

163. that is not an "official" source

that's a guy saying he heard that is what happened.
where is the official source for this?

[travis80]

164. no, he said "the explanation was..." meaning what the head officials explained to him. nt

[zappaman]

165. "meaning what the head officials explained to him"

says who?
you presume to know quite a bit.
again, point me to the official explanation that says this.
I thought you had already looked all this up?

[travis80]

167. you saying Waller Miller wasn't an official at the scene working under the FBI? nt

[zappaman]

169. he's a coroner

him explaining how he heard the plane hit is not official.
surely, there must be an official explanation that confirms this?
I thought you had found it?

[travis80]

171. what's your problem with his explanation? does it not sound possible? nt

[zappaman]

173. I'm not saying I have a problem with it

just asking for an official source which you clearly cannot provide.
by the way, you are the one who seems to have a problem with it.
your words from an above post...

OMG, Miller is really saying it kinda cartwheeled!!! simply laughable
and he says "the explanation was...", so that could only mean the explanation is what the FBI told him because they were in charge of giving the official explanation. holy cow!!! i can't believe the FBI whipped up such a laughable story like that. no wonder they never released a detailed explanation of the alleged crash! ahhahahaha!!!

what is so funny?

[travis80]

175. i asked which part of the posted story you had a problem with. you brought up the cartwheel

now you're saying you don't have a problem with it. make up your mind.

[zappaman]

176. I asked for an official source

I have a problem with it only that it is not an official source, which you and Spooked claim is part of the "official" story.
again, what is so funny about this?
people died on that plane, did they not?
and you just laugh.
pitiful.

[travis80]

178. no, i'm laughing at you. i asked what you had a problem with

then you seem to be defending it. that's funny.

what's an "official" source it your eyes, since a county coroner working at the scene under the supervision of the FBI is not enough for you?

[zappaman]

179. nice try

if you are laughing at me, please explain the following...

"OMG, Miller is really saying it kinda cartwheeled!!! simply laughable
and he says "the explanation was...", so that could only mean the explanation is what the FBI told him because they were in charge of giving the official explanation. holy cow!!! i can't believe the FBI whipped up such a laughable story like that. no wonder they never released a detailed explanation of the alleged crash! ahhahahaha!!!"

wow. how funny.

[travis80]

182. ok, i'm laughing at you AND that explanation.

is that explanation what you think happened?

[zappaman]

184. again, why is it funny?

is that the official explanation?
You and Spooked are claiming it is.
if so, please provide the sources you claimed to have checked.
why is this so difficult for you if you have already done so?

[travis80]

187. funny how truthers are having to tell debunkers what the official story is. nt

[zappaman]

193. funny

except they haven't.
still waiting for your proof that this is the "official story" since you have twice claimed to have verified the sources.
why can't you do this?
hmmmm...I'm starting to think you never did.

[travis80]

194. which parts of that posted story do you think didn't happen? nt

[zappaman]

196. ok, because its fun playing your little game

ALL OF IT.
Source all of it like you have claimed twice and take your time.

[travis80]

197. none of it happened? cool, that means you don't think Flight 93 crashed either!

welcome to our side.

[sgsmith]

166. Lets do some crash comparisons

Aviation is a little unique in that nearly all fatal crashes are investigated, and the cause of the crash identified. Some of the causes are vague - "unintended flight into level terrain", "pilot lost control" - but others are quite specific. All commercial crashes are investigated and some very specific recommendations are developed. Basically, nearly every type of crash situation has been seen and investigated before.

On that premise, let's look at a few statements up thread from spooked911:
The plane, going over 500 mph, cartwheeled when the wing hit the ground?
Seriously?

Unburned bibles on the ground outside the crater?
Seriously?

Not a drop of blood?
Seriously?

80% of the plane went under ground, and the ground covered up over it?
Seriously?

Has there ever been a crash where the plane disappeared into the ground? Hell no you'd say, until you read about Northwest Orient Airlines flight 710, back in March 1960. That airplane, a Lockheed Electra four engine turboprop, broke apart in mid flight and plummted to the ground from about 18,000 ft. 63 people on board died.

From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826119,00.html:
The plane and its final explosion blew out a smoldering crater 50 ft. wide and 25 ft. deep. Civil Aeronautics Board crash specialists found empty, neatly laced shoes, a stray airmail letter, a bloodstained blouse, a prayer book lying open at the Litany of the Saints ("Lord have mercy on us . . ."). On the branches of nearby trees were towels and shirts, a child's sunsuit, some underwear—all hanging lifelessly amid the grey, acrid smoke that curled up from the crater for hours afterward.

From http://www.emarkay.com/Electra/
At the main crash site, a crater about 20 feet deep and 40 feet in diameter held the crushed and compacted remains of the plane and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant. The approximate 100 foot long fuselage was reduced to a 30 foot mass at the bottom of the crater. The intact right wing was found about three miles away to the north, at German Ridge, and other parts were scattered about on the snowy ground. US Air Force pilots conducting a training mission nearby witnessed the crash. They, and other civilian aircraft in the vicinity had also recently reported some moderate to severe "clear air" turbulence between 15,000 to 25,000 feet.
...
Back at the crash site, on the farm of George Wagner, the smoke and snow mingled with clay, grass and aluminum. The Indiana State Police had mobilized almost immediately, and as the first mobile units arrived at the scene, ISP aerial units pinpointed the location of other debris. The location in Millstone, IN was remote, and there was not even a paved road to the site. Units of the Indiana National Guard quickly arrived, and then, U.S. Army units from Fort Knox, KY. They conducted a comprehensive search for additional remains of both plane and passenger, but found only twisted metal fragments. Soon, agents from the FBI arrived, in the event that this was a crime scene, and for the time, it was presumed as such. As details emerged, that in the bottom of the crater there were the compacted remains of over 60 people; 6 thousand pounds of flesh and bone, it was recommended that the crater be bulldozed over - to entomb the victims in place forever. However, political, financial, legal and the other needs of our modern society demanded both an investigation and closure.

If this was Mythbusters, we might say "Unburned bibles on the ground outside the crater?" and "80% of the plane went under ground, and the ground covered up over it?" were busted.

And to how a airplane could "cartwheel" upon crashing, look at how pieces and parts cartwheel out of the impact fireball in this crash video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFIB1L3BPU&feature=related

[zappaman]

168. so, the crash site should have looked like this?

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/08/hopefully-my-last-analysis-of-flight.html

[travis80]

170. how are those close to identical? it says blood was found there for one.

and you misunderstood the cartwheel Wally Miller was taking about. he wasn't saying 93 cartwheeled across the field. he said the wingtip hit first then you see him doing a cartwheel motion with his hand to explain how the cockpit section broke off and flung into the woods.

[zappaman]

172. if that is the case of the "cartwheel"...

what do you find so funny about it?

[travis80]

174. funny you should ask that. see post #171. nt

[zappaman]

177. what is so funny?

"OMG, Miller is really saying it kinda cartwheeled!!! simply laughable
and he says "the explanation was...", so that could only mean the explanation is what the FBI told him because they were in charge of giving the official explanation. holy cow!!! i can't believe the FBI whipped up such a laughable story like that. no wonder they never released a detailed explanation of the alleged crash! ahhahahaha!!!"

[travis80]

180. is that what happened then? nt

[spooked911]

208. I am familiar with the Electra crash

or at least I have read a fair amount online about it.

First, there was blood with the Electra crash.

Second, the Electra crashed because the wings broke off in flight, and it fell straight down, nose first. It didn't hit the ground at a 45 degree angle, more like a 90 degree angle.

Third, the cockpit didn't break off and fly away. Nor did the plane both blow up, spreading debris for hundreds of yards around. The fuselage of the Electra buried itself-- telescoped-- in the ground. I have no problem with that. I always had the problem of flight 93 both telescoping AND blowing up.

Fourth, about cartwheeling, that B52 was going much much slower, which makes a huge difference for momentum.

Fifth, there are a couple of 33's in that Electra story, along with the bit about the CIA agent who was a passenger, so I wonder if there might have been some funny business with this crash as well as with UA93.

[travis80]

195. debunkers, which parts of the posted story do you think didn't happened? nt

[zappaman]

198. all of it

you claimed to have sourced it all, so I am saying I don't believe any of what Spooked posted is the "official story".
now, will you finally post all the sources you have claimed to have found twice?
or will just be more games on your part?

[travis80]

199. ok, zappaman doesn't think Flight 93 crashed by his answer

how do you other debunkers feel?

[zappaman]

200. yeah just as I thought

more games.
have fun!
looking forward to you proving there was no planes any day now!
:rofl:

[deconstruct911]

201. "more games"

Are you disappointed? I thought you were here for the entertainment...... Maybe that was someone else.

[spooked911]

210. you don't believe any of what I posted, even though I gave sources for

parts of it?

Wow!, What a skeptic you are.

[ryan_cats]

285. Put words in anyone's mouth lately?

What a slimy, underhanded and completely transparent move on your part.

You know that's not what he meant yet you post like you've won the debate but to be honest, you're not even on the debate podium; you're still out in the street with your sandwich board saying, "The end of 9/11 truth is nigh."

BTW, where are those twice checked sources? Let me pull your B.S. Since no one is posting the sources here, you prove that you think there aren't any, how do other truthers feel?

[spooked911]

211. I still would love an explanation for how

the cockpit could shatter and break away upon impact, while after that energy dissipating event, the rest of the plane manages to burrow *completely* into the ground that the cockpit couldn't penetrate.

Also, how the wings could leave such perfect impressions in the ground and completely disappear.

[zappaman]

212. I still would like an explanation for how

anyone would think this makes sense...

[spooked911]

214. awesome-- so you agree

the official story is ridiculous, right?

[Bonobo]

215. Nice to see the the "credulous crew" running in circles.

This thread is a laugh riot!!!

[travis80]

217. wow, the skeptics are still ducking! n/t

[travis80]

218. Skeptics, what's your most detailed version of the Flight 93 crash story?

Spooked911 posted a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=303147&mesg_id=303147">very detailed version of what he thinks is the most complete official story of the alleged Flight 93 crash.

The skeptics don't seem to agree with Spooked's detailed version of the alleged crash story, so I politely ask the skeptics to offer up their most detailed version of the alleged crash. Start with how Flight 93 was within a mile of the field.

The main reason for this is so truthers know which is the actual goal post to shoot at and to not have to shoot at a moving goal post.

[Bolo Boffin]

219. Spooked was asked to produce the sources for his "official story." Get your facts straight.

I'm alerting this thread as a stupid callout thread.

[William Seger]

220. "The main reason for this"

... is that "truthers" prefer a very peculiar form of reasoning: Start with the conclusion, then try to rationalize it.

Out in the real world, it is not a "theory" that Flight 93 crashed into that reclaimed strip mine; it's a well established fact. Very well established, and it's beyond absurd to think you're going to overturn a fact that well established by nitpicking the details in something you keep referring to as the "official story," which you refuse to adequately source yet insist that non-conspiracists are required to "support" it. Then you refuse to even attempt to explain WTF you're even getting at. What a stupid game, and here's a good example: Spooky says the "official story" is that 93 "sorta cartwheeled" as it hit the ground, because the "official" coroner said so. The coroner? Shouldn't the "official story" be the NTSB report, which said it was inverted when it hit? But what difference does it make to you, when you've already announced that you're going to reject either description, for no rational reason -- nothing but imaginary physics and naked assertions tailored to make you're own incredulity sound like a rational conclusion. Do you seriously think that's good enough to overturn well established facts?

At this point, I think it's quite safe to predict that "no plane theory" will never advance beyond the lunatic fringe.

[Larry L. Burks]

233. Bill? There are planes? Are you sure? What Planes would that be?

There are no Master Records to any plane that is said to have crashed on 9/11.

No Master Records == No Planes

I know that you keep asking people to back up their statements with their proof.

Producing evidence to back up your clam. Is a two way street.

Produce the evidence that the all the Master Recordsof all the planes that are said to have crashed on 9/11.

No one has been able to produce the Master Records. Because they don’t exist.

It is a felon to falsifies any of the document in the Master Record.

[zappaman]

221. what spooked left out....

[travis80]

223. wow, didn't expect such a hostile response politely asking for the official story!

looks like the skeptics are not too confident with the official story.

[William Seger]

224. The "official story" is that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville

Sane people are 100% confident of that, and if you can't fit that well-established fact into your conspiracy delusions, then I guess you do need to prove it didn't happen. The "hostile response" is to your pathetic attempts to do that by quibbling over details. If you think any of the details are incorrect, then knock off the stupid games and prove it. Then, if it's not too much trouble, make you best stab at formulating a logical argument. So far, it isn't clear that "proof" and "logic" are concepts you are familiar with.

[plain1]

225. Absolutely true: I commend your perspicacity.

That is the official story. Can you believe it?

[zappaman]

226. I would agree with you

but only if I were "immune" to logic.

[plain1]

229. That does seem to be the case

"immune" to logic.

[apocalypsehow]

232. Nailed it. +1. n/t.

[Larry L. Burks]

234. If you know any thing about air planes

If you know any thing about the amount of red tape and paper work that goes a lone with those large commercial air line jets.

There is a mountain of paper work. That stretches back for 20 years. Probly longer.

The paper trail? Where it at. Where is the history of those aircraft.

All that paper work has to be singed by some body. Those people have to be real people’

The taxes paid to the IRS. The fees. The fuel . The cost of repairs and over halls..

The record of all the places that plain has been.

All thousands of people that flue on them.

The evidence is over whelming.

There is no paper trail.

All I’m asking is for one simple thing.

Show me the Mater Records

This is the number one reason why none of all of this has ever gone to court.

And never will.

This little know fact puts a hole in the chest of the Official Storyas big as a cannon ball.

The Official Story is DOA.

[zappaman]

235. Good work, Larry

I'm guessing the powers that be are attempting to shut you down, so stay safe!

[Larry L. Burks]

236. That’s not Necessary.

There no one left now to tell the tell except me. I and I a lone live to tell the tell.

When I am gone. Then there will be none.

[zappaman]

237. that's sad

I would hope that there would be a least one person to carry your flag.

[travis80]

238. if you're so confident that 93 crashed, then why can't you give us the whole story?

is it because deep down you know the devil is in the details and they are neither plausible, or possible?

[zappaman]

240. ok

The plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township at 10:03:11. The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour at a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep, and 30 to 50 feet wide. All 44 people died.

Kelly Leverknight was watching news of the attacks when she heard the plane. "I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down. It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there. Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke." Another witness, Eric Peterson, looked up when he heard the plane, "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion.

The first responders arrived at the crash site after 10:06.

Flight 93 fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater. Investigators found some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania. Other tiny aircraft fragments were found 1.5 miles away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania.

All human remains were found within a 70 acre area surrounding the impact point. Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. As he walked through the wreckage, the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds, or eight percent of the total.< The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[br />Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24. They identified another by September 29. Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27. All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented investigators could not determine if any victims were dead before the plane crashed. Death certificates for the 40 victims listed the cause of death as homicide and listed the cause of death for the four hijackers as suicide. The remains and personal effects of the victims were returned to the families. The remains of the hijackers, identified by the process of elimination, were turned over to the FBI as evidence.

Investigators also found a knife disguised as a cigarette lighter. They located the flight data recorder on September 13 and the cockpit voice recorder the following day. The voice recorder was found buried 25 feet below the crater.

Anything else?

[travis80]

243. you forgot the wikipedia link to your copy-n-paste

here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

and it leaves out a lot of key details. look at spooks to get an idea.

[zappaman]

245. yeah, it was from wikipedia...

and..so?
what did I leave out that would show a plane did not crash?
what "key details" did I leave out?
I looked at spooked's ridiculous site...Killtown's as well.
why don't you tell us what happened and present the evidence that backs you up?
why play games?
c'mon, I told you what happened.
disagree?
then you tell me.
:rofl:

[travis80]

248. as i said, look at spooked's to get ideas which details you left out. nt

[William Seger]

242. I already told you: I'm not playing that stupid game.

For the sake of argument (and to get around your apparent inability to offer an intelligible definition of "official story"), let's say the 9/11 Commission Report is the closest thing we have to an "official story." Now, here's what YOU need to do: Pick some detail from the Report that you think you can disprove; put up something that at least remotely resembles an attempt at disproof; then see if you can come up with something that remotely resembles a logical argument for some other version of the story.

I do believe the reason you haven't already done that is because you can't, and the whole purpose of this stupid "official story" game is to blow smoke over that embarrassing fact.

[travis80]

246. an intelligible definition of "official story" -- um, more than a paragraph summary. nt

[zappaman]

247. I told you

so what is your version?
the same as SPOOKED's?

[travis80]

249. spooked's version is the most complete official story i've seen. nt

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

252. I've made it - I've literally lived long enough to have really & truly "seen it all." Unbelievable.

:rofl:

[travis80]

254. i know, the official story is pretty ludicrous, ain't it? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

255. No, the content of the reply in #249 is ludicrous. But, then, you knew that, didn't you?

:eyes:

[travis80]

258. what did i say that was so funny? nt

[AZCat]

241. Why are you shooting at a goal at all?

It seems a bit ridiculous that the opinions of a mostly anonymous group of internet forum posters somehow dictates your approach to ascertaining what you think is the most correct version of the events of September 11th. Why do you consider our opinions relevant?

[travis80]

244. i'm just asking the official story believers to tell me what the official story is.

is that too much to ask?

[AZCat]

251. Why don't you go figure it out yourself?

You don't seem like you trust us very much, so why rely on us for something that shouldn't be difficult to do on your own?

[travis80]

253. spooked did (see post #1). you skeptics didn't seem to accept it, so...

i'm simply -- and politely -- asking for your "correct" version. didn't know it would be asking too much.

[apocalypsehow]

256. "IMO, some of this is plausible, but other parts are simply ludicrous. All in all, major parts of

of the story appear to be fabrications." - this is "spooked's version." These two sentences sum up the CT'er view of the "OCT." And it is simply a lot of (unsubstantiated) speculation and assorted opinions that consistently takes great liberty with the established facts, strung together and regurgitated over & over & over & over again ad naseum upon cue.

Please try again.



On edit: clarity.

[travis80]

259. you saying spooked's version isn't what happened? nt

[apocalypsehow]

261. This is "spooked's version" as regards this OP:

"IMO, some of this is plausible, but other parts are simply ludicrous. All in all, major parts of the story appear to be fabrications."

And it is precisely as I stated above: entirely predicated on a woven fabric of unsubstantiated opinions and fact-free, baseless assertions. But nice try....

[travis80]

262. is that a yes? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

265. Non-responsive - it's been established what spook is wrong about in this OP. Please try again. n/t.

[travis80]

266. so one more time, spooked's version is not the official story? nt

[apocalypsehow]

267. Non-responsive - it's been established what spook is wrong about in this OP. Please try again. n/t.

[travis80]

268. i'll take that as a yes to my question. nt

[apocalypsehow]

271. So, you, too, admit spooks assertion that the so-called "OCT" was false is itself false? Great!

Welcome to the world of reason, logic, facts, and actual evidence here on the side of us "debunkers"!

:thumbsup: :toast: :beer: :hi: :party:

[travis80]

272. no (i think). i think spooked's version is the correct official story. if you guys disagree,

then feel free to post the correct version.

[apocalypsehow]

274. What you've attempted to do is burn up this sub-thread with a too-clever-by-half semantics game.

It hasn't worked.

In the future, I'd restrict myself to actually dealing in facts, evidence, and reasoned arguments for any given position you actually hold, as opposed to transparent "gotcha!" games that border, if not actually cross, into the realm of the jejune... :hi:

But that's just me, of course.

[travis80]

275. "restrict myself to actually dealing in facts, evidence" - k, what are they? nt

[apocalypsehow]

277. And right on cue, an attempt once again to change the subject. Textbook. n/t.

[travis80]

279. how am i changing the subject? nt

[apocalypsehow]

280. And again, the attempt is made to distract from the manifest failure above. Risible stuff.

:rofl:

[travis80]

282. now i think you're just trolling. later. nt

[apocalypsehow]

283. The fact that you were incapable (above) of prevailing with facts and unable in subsequent replies

to distract attention away from your manifest failure to do so is hardly "trolling": more like, "carrying the better side of the debate."

And I have done so: your concession - a personal attack snarled on the retreat - is duly accepted. :thumbsup:



Edit: grammar.

[AZCat]

257. Why do you care if we don't accept it?

Shouldn't you be interested in which version is the most true, rather than trying to determine which version is most supported by "skeptics"?

[travis80]

260. i'm looking for the version that is what officially happened.

i figured since you skeptics support the OCT and you guys are supposedly super smart, you guys would know. sorry if i was wrong about that.

[AZCat]

263. I don't know why you're looking the truth on an anonymous internet forum.

That's the internet equivalent of looking for your soul mate in the red light district.

You want to find the truth? Get off the fucking computer and put your boots on the ground. That is where you'll find the official story, not on YouTube. Why depend on unverifiable information if you're so concerned about getting the story straight? Why not go interview the eyewitnesses to the events, visit the sites where they happened?

[travis80]

264. i guess i thought you skeptics would know the official story. sorry if i was wrong. nt

[AZCat]

269. Why would you depend on us for something that seems to be so important to you?

Go find your own answers. Don't you owe yourself that much? Unless you've sourced the information yourself, how can you trust it?

[travis80]

270. i thought i found my answer with post #1, but you skeptics say that's not the OS

so i was trying to give you guys the opportunity to tell me what the OS is. sorry that i thought you guys could. you seemed smart.

[AZCat]

273. I think the problem is a little more complicated.

You seem to think there exists an official unified narrative explaining the events of September 11th. Rarely are events so simple. Years ago I read an interesting article on Custer's last stand where the author argued that while the popular narratives of the battle contradicted each other, such contradictions were inherent to any event witnessed and reported by humans, even considering physical evidence. The author went on to claim that the more recent the event the more pronounced the "splintering" of narratives, since nowadays it is so much easier to collect eyewitness accounts. This makes it pretty difficult, if not impossible, to produce a coherent narrative of modern events. There are usually some common elements that either can be agreed upon or are so strongly supported by physical evidence that they make any disagreement with eyewitnesses moot, but that doesn't cover every detail. While entities like the 9/11 Commission might try to weld all the information together (and might mostly succeed), usually not everything matches up. If anything qualifies as an "official story" it would be the products of such efforts, but it would be ridiculous to expect those products to successfully address every discontinuity.

The best way to understand an event, in my opinion, is to gather information first-hand from whatever sources you can reach because that way you can properly evaluate context and don't have to depend on a middleman to evaluate it for you. I don't think this will create a unified narrative either, but hopefully it will help you understand an event as represented by the various perspectives better than watching YouTube videos and posting on internet forums.

[travis80]

276. 2nd time you brought up youtube videos. how does that relate to this thread? nt

[AZCat]

278. It's merely an example...

of a common form of internet "research" in the conspiracy community. YouTube isn't in itself a bad thing, but over-reliance on YouTube in the absence of actual evidence or primary sources is.

[travis80]

281. as to finding out the real OS, spooked's version seems to be correct. i checked all his claims

and they all came from mainstream sources.

[zappaman]

284. good for you

so, I once again ask you to post what you found.
you verified his claims, so wouldn't it strengthen your case to present those links to us so we can verify them as well?
or will you just go back to your silly games?

[travis80]

286. sure, which parts do you need links for?

spooked already posted some, but there are a ton that would take me a while to post all the rest, so most of what spooked posted is well known, it should be only a few things you'd need verification for, so just tell me which of those few things you need links to and i'd be happy to post them for you. thanks.

[zappaman]

287. well, if you have checked thru his story

numerous times like you have claimed, it shouldn't be hard to provide just a couple of links.
why are you dodging this?
just provide a couple of links that convinced you so you can convince me.
if you can't, then I will have to assume you checked nothing.
you made the claim, now back it up.

[travis80]

288. i'm not dodging. how many times have i asked you which parts you need links for?

btw, spooked already did provide a couple of links. did you miss them?

[zappaman]

289. yes I did

and yes you are dodging.
it's actually quite funny.
you claim to have checked out Spooked version numerous times, but can't provide ONE...SINGLE...LINK of any kind.
maybe because you checked it out on other CT sites?
c'mon, post just one link that is even vaguely official.
you can do it.
just one link...

[travis80]

290. ok, here...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html


now when are you guys going to give us the "correct" version of the official story?

[zappaman]

291. that's weird

it doesn't mention any "cartwheeling".
In fact, the only person who said it "cartwheeled" was a coroner who said he "heard it".
Even weirder is if you search for confirmation of the plane "cartwheeling", all you get are hits for sites like Spooked's and Killtown and other CT sites.
Why is that?
Wouldn't that be on an official site?

[travis80]

292. you didn't say you wanted a link for that, even though i asked you which part you wanted a link for

many, many, many times. i think you are being disingenuous.

[zappaman]

293. LOL

so link that then.
see if you can link to a non-CT site.
I can wait...

[travis80]

294. do you know how many times we've been asking you which parts to link?

man.

[zappaman]

295. I just asked you to give me a link for the "cartwheeling"

man.
from a non-CT site.
if you can't do it, just say so.

[travis80]

296. cartwheel motion, not cartwheeling.

i accidentally said "cartwheeling" after laughing too hard at the official story.

[zappaman]

297. now you're playing word games?

feel free to provide a link for "cartwheel motion" that doesn't come from a coroner or a CT site.
if you can't, just say so.
BTW, I find nothing funny about what happened that day.
I suppose you do?

[travis80]

298. not from an official who was working at the scene under the direction of the FBI?

guess you're not going to accept anything if your standards are that high.

ps - at anytime, feel free to post the correct official story if you don't agree with spooked's. geez, how many times have i asked you that now?

[zappaman]

299. if might behoove you to raise your standards

instead of laughing about such a serious crime.

[travis80]

300. not take the word of a county coroner, who was there under the direction of the FBI?

why, is he lying?

[zappaman]

301. why would I take the word of coroner about something to do with aviation?

maybe a pilot should have performed the autopsy?
anyway, it's been fun but you have nothing and are no longer entertaining me, so I will let you go back to laughing at this tragedy.
however, when you break the case, please bring it here first!

[travis80]

302. k, will do! nt

[AZCat]

309. Do you think that is sufficient?

Is the mainstream media really that good of a source for information?

[travis80]

310. you skeptics seem to think so on your debunker blogs and sites. nt

[AZCat]

313. Really? I didn't realize I had a blog or a site.

More importantly, why are you letting someone else's standards dictate your own?

[travis80]

314. don't be snide. you know what i meant. if you debunkers use MSM reports, why can't we? nt

[AZCat]

315. Really? I thought you might have thought I had a site.

I don't think it wise to rely on the mainstream media for information, regardless of your affiliation. I would hope that someone posting on a Democratically-affiliated website would be well aware of the consequences.

[travis80]

316. where do you think the MSM gets their info about something like a plane crash? nt

[AZCat]

317. It depends.

Early reports would probably be based on little to no solid information and might make statements which later are proven to be untrue. Later reports might be better quality, but it depends on the particular aspect of the crash being discussed.

[travis80]

318. most of the MSM info in spooked's version are from later reports. so what's the problem?

i've asked you skeptics many times now if there are any other parts of spooked's version you have problems with other than Wally Miller's "cartwheel-ish" description.

[AZCat]

319. I can't believe I have to point this out to you.

Perhaps you've heard of Judith Miller? Should we have all accepted her reporting circa 2002-2003 in a venerable mainstream media source without question?

[travis80]

320. spooked's version is not from one source. again, which other problems you have with it? nt

[AZCat]

321. Was Judith Miller the only one reporting such things?

I think you've lost the thread of the sub-discussion here. It isn't "what does AZCat think is wrong with the OP" but rather "why isn't travis80 seeking the truth on his own instead of relying on the opinions of an anonymous group of posters on an internet forum for the "official story" of an event that probably defies easy simplification into a unified narrative?"

[travis80]

322. well a truther interviewed Wally Miller. even filmed it. but you guys didn't accept what Miller said

so apparently you guys know the official story better then Miller, who worked at the scene under the supervision of the federal govt, does.

[AZCat]

323. Apparently you haven't been reading my posts for comprehension.

Remember when I commented on Custer's last stand? I think that applies. Perhaps you should reread that post.

[travis80]

324. why can't you answer what other problems you have with spooked's version?

only a little of it was previously unknown.

[AZCat]

325. Why is my opinion (and the opinion of other "skeptics") important to you? n/t

[travis80]

326. cause i think you guys are very smart and value your opinions. so which parts? nt

[AZCat]

327. We are anonymous posters on an internet message board.

You know none of those things, and it would be naive to rely on us to define "truth" for yourself.

[travis80]

328. you are really avoiding answering my question. why's that?

makes me think you're not very confident in the official story to keep ducking it.

[AZCat]

329. You can think whatever you want. It's a (somewhat) free country, after all.

Haven't you some idea what my reason might be, based on the content of my posts? I thought I had laid my reasons out pretty clearly in them.

[travis80]

330. yeah, you know the official story is ludicrous, so you avoid it. if not,

then show that you stick up for it by tell us what it is instead of ducking the question.

[AZCat]

331. It seems you are not familiar...

with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">false dilemma. Why don't I reject both of your choices and select the one I pointed out several times in my posts, namely that I think my opinion is irrelevant to your determination of the validity of the OP and that expressing it serves no real purpose?

[travis80]

332. so you believe a plane crash, but don't care how it officially did? blind faith? nt

[AZCat]

333. I don't actually understand your post.

Please take a little time to edit it and improve the language for clarity.

[travis80]

336. sorry, i overestimated your comprehension abilities.

you believe a plane crashed, do you even care if the physical evidence matches what the official story says, or do you just have blind faith that they match?

[AZCat]

346. I'm sorry if I can't read gibberish.

Most of us communicate on this forum in written English, not gibberish. Please keep that in mind when authoring future posts.

Where did I say I believe a plane crashed? Aren't you making assumptions? And why are we talking about the physical evidence? I thought we were talking about whether you were willing to form your own conclusions regarding the narrative of events on September 11th without consideration of the opinions of a group of anonymous posters on an internet forum who you don't seem to hold in very high regard.

[SDuderstadt]

334. It also seems "travis" is not familiar with hardly any of the evidence...

he claims he has looked for, but cannot find.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page3

I am addressing this to you because I believe "travis'" entire premise and tactic to be totally disgusting.

[AZCat]

335. Perhaps, but there is potential for enlightenment in every individual. n/t

[Name removed]

337. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

338. Poor, poor Travis...

apparently no one believes his goofy bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

339. I'd love to see Travis'...

"refutation" of all the evidence I've posted.

[travis80]

340. would loved to have told ya. too bad you boycotted me. nt

[SDuderstadt]

341. If Travis could refute the evidence I provided...

he'd actually be doing it.

Apparently he doesn't understand that "boycott" means I won't engage with him directly in his game-playing. I, of course, reserve the right to tear his "reasoning" to shreds with other posters and point and laugh at his hysterical attempts to defend his screwy bullshit.

[zappaman]

342. awwww

I'm not boycotting you.
So tell me

[travis80]

343. too bad i boycotted you for all your troll posts and insults. nt

[zappaman]

344. LOL

you're keeping all your evidence secret?
:ROFL:

[travis80]

303. any other parts of spooked's version skeptics have problems with

besides Wally Miller's cartwheel-motion comment? it's clear you skeptics disagree with that. so anything else, or just that one little bit?

[Name removed]

304. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[travis80]

305. any other parts skeptics? nt

[travis80]

306. no other parts skeptics? nt

[travis80]

307. again skeptics, if there are any other parts to spooked's version you want sources for

just list each of them and we'd be happy to provide the source to you.

god bless

[travis80]

308. skeptics, was Wally Miller's wingtip-hit-then-cartwheeled claim only part of spooked's version

you had a problem with?

[travis80]

311. spooked, looks like the skeptics only had a problem with what Wally Miller had to say

they don't seem to have any other disagreement with your version other than that. before it sounded like they disagreed with most of it. guess they were just game playing . . . as usual.

funny thing is that Wally Miller's explanation of the explanation is the only explanation i can think of to explain how the cockpit could break off, but the rest of the plane buried. sure would love to hear how the skeptics would explain that if the version Miller describes isn't what officially happened.

[zappaman]

312. still waiting for you to post some EVIDENCE that the scene was staged

You must have some EVIDENCE to back up your silly claims, yes?

[travis80]

345. skeptics, since it seems only problem you had was Miller's quote, do you think

the rest of the story spooked outlined is plausible?

[travis80]

347. isn't it funny skeptics want to stay away from the full details of the 'crash'?! nt

[zappaman]

348. Isn't it funny CTers want to stay away from posting EVIDENCE of their speculations? n/t