Um yes and there is literally tons of evidence that shows exactly what happened but as usual when presented with it you go off on a tangent in a blind attempt to validate your delusions and dreams. You have no proof at all, your silly little sites are just make believe and when called on it you get pissy. Your a trip!

No frothing at the mouth, no BS, I've along with others here done tons of research and answered every single one of your inane questions in the past 3 or 4 posts yet no matter of proof is good enough for you as you know better.

I'm done with this post too as all of your questions have already been answered its just you refuse to listen. Cheers.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38207

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682


Two Articles found through whatreallyhappened. The only evidence they note supporting the possibility of it being shot down is a handful of eyewitnesses. One which I would like to quote now:

Quote:

Witness Susan Mcelwain told a reporter she observed a small jet: "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50 feet above my minivan ... it was so low, I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound." So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.

From what she described it was most likely an F-15 or 16 and there is Absolutely NO WAY it could have passed over her that close and she think it was quiet. She is one from many that is not a credible witness.


I found other articles, but they were not credible enough to warrant a discussion over.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

Flight 93:

http://www.flight93crash.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93.html


Same day, different plane.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

All of the above give enough reasonable evidence to bring the "oficial version" (the fairy tales of GWB) into very serious question.


quote:
Witness Susan Mcelwain told a reporter she observed a small jet: "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50 feet above my minivan ... it was so low, I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound." So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.
-------------------------------------------

If youve ever worked around fighters, you know full well that when throttled back to flight idle (as in when recovering from a dive) they are relitivley quiet. Noise level depends on the throttle setting.





Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

But no military plane in use today has a "big spoiler like a car" But a business jet sure does! And guess what? Thats exactly what flew over the field per a request of the FAA to see what happened to the plane. The same plane that did the fly over reported seeing a plume of smoke and thats why they were asked to check it out. Not a military jet a private business jet. In fact the pilot has been interviewed several times on TV. But the biggest reason you can KNOW it wasn't a military jet way the witness herself and the description of the plane. No where does she say she saw any missles or anything on the belly of the "white plane" And at a distance of no more then 50 feet away she would never have been able to miss them.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I found those first two articles;however, I did not find them to be from a credible source. They have no references except other articles written by other people. It is secondhand bull.

Quote:

If youve ever worked around fighters, you know full well that when throttled back to flight idle (as in when recovering from a dive) they are relitivley quiet. Noise level depends on the throttle setting.

I have worked around fighters and I know full well while maintaining the lowest possible flight speed, which I have witnessed from at least a hundred yards away it is still louder than the witness described it.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

So basicly hearsay? Which is not edmisable in any court of law.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Also I would like to point out that she said it was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

For a JET it would have to be moving extremely slow for it to hardly make any sound. Even then from 50 feet, as I said maintaining lowest possible flight speed it is still LOUD.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

Jbody2nr wrote:

I have worked around fighters and I know full well while maintaining the lowest possible flight speed, which I have witnessed from at least a hundred yards away it is still louder than the witness described it.

Best you stay at least a hundred yards away from them then.

Lowest possible flight speed is in a place called the backside of the power curve. Throttle setting (hence noise level) is high in order to sustain flight.

A plane recovering from a dive would be at FLIGHT IDLE........very low power setting to reduce thrust in order to bleed off the speed gained from the dive.
--------------------------
Also, the witness describes the plane "40 to 50 feet" above her minivan.

HUH ??????

Little thing called the FAR (fed. air regs) dictate an absoloute minimum of 500 feet--even ATC request wouldn't cause a pilot to go below that for a look-see. In fact, considering the flying speeds of even the slowest biz-class airplane (a pilatus PC-12- turboprop, not jet) and giving a wide latitude for aircraft type misidentification (the witness cant tell the difference between 50 feet and 500) a good observation altitude would be 500 to 750 feet. Any lower and you are going too fast and paying too much attention to just flying to be bothered site-seeing. At 50 feet even in a little puddle-jumpers the ONLY thing on your mind is not hitting the trees or the power lines/towers.

However, a fly-over by a biz-class STILL doesnt explain wreckage miles away, an impact crater consistant with an out-of-controll impact OR the witnesses who claim to have see it shot down.






Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

I laugh at 91sunbird sse, for as long as we live, if it is ever proven that the govt had a hand in this, than I will go bow down to you and we should all make you prez.
but when I’m 80, dying and nothing is proven, I’ll still remember what happened from my memory and what I saw, from what I learned, and from what I gathered.
and when your 80 and dying, you can lie there and THINK about what happened and how it was all a conspiracy and how everybody else is wrong for what they think

you go believe your stories about how people change words around to make it fit for their story, you go believe that a missile hit the pentagon, you go and believe that bombs were on the front of the planes that hit the wtc.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY WRECKAGE FOUND MILES AWAY !!! THAT WAS PAPER !!!
Paper can be blown be the wind. All this has been proved false please stop siting evidence that has been shown to be wrong. All it does is give you less credibility in the argument and make you seem gullible.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Paper, human remains and other debris.

(with media sources)
--------------------------
The secondary (and tertiary) debris fields:

The Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.

But investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in two separate places evinced an explosion.
http://www.eastandard.net/eahome/story15092001004.htm


Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

"John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.

He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris. "

Comment: If the debris was somewhat continuous, as you'd expect if the debris all originated at the main crash site, the FBI wouldn't have been skeptical, and wait over 24 hours until the next afternoon to check it out. It's only 2.5 miles away to the lake. But when they got there they rented boats and bagged up a bunch of debris.

"Fleegle, marina owner Jim Brant and two of Brant's employees were among the dozens who witnessed the crash from Indian Lake. Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack.

All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom," said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.

Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. "It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake," she said. (archived at http://library.triblive.com - search Delasko from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01)

Comment: If debris was simply dropped from 5,000 feet - it would take a couple minutes just to fall straight down on the lake. They hopped in their cars right away - and still saw the debris fall BEFORE they left.

Witnesses say they heard the plane fly over, felt their building AT THE DOCK shake. The debris evidence also supports the plane flying over Indian Lake AND that plane was falling apart. This debris would have taken 15-20 minutes to float at 10mph and then descend on Indian Lake from the main crash crater. The testimony and evidence do not support the NTSB story that the debris floated from the main crash site.

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues."
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."
(archived at http://library.triblive.com - search whole engine from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here)

Crowley related that 95 percent of the airplane had been recovered. The biggest piece of aircraft found was a fuselage skin measuring about 6 to 7 feet. The heaviest piece was from one of the engines and weighed 1,000 pounds.
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html#final

Comment: It's important to recall that every description of the main crash site is that the airplane was OBLITERATED. Very small debris was spread over a couple hundred yards. This is exactly what you'd expect to see when an Airliner impacts nearly vertically as Flight 93 did. Nothing survived this impact... yet a 1000lb fan was found elsewhere. It fell off before impact, just like Flight 587's engine that was found basically intact did.

John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake [2.5 miles away from main crash site]
... said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there. (Archived at http://library.triblive.com - search burning seat cushion from 9-10-01 to 9-20-01 or read it here. It's unclear exactly how far this seat cushion is from the primary crater.)


Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html


Original site:
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

----------------------------------------

So, according to all reports within a few days of the event there WAS debris miles from the site, not just "papers" and in fact the "authorities" have very conviently made it all dissapear into the mists of time in the minds of the gullable.

At the risk of repeating myself.......

Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles (13 km) away in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-7147291-0.html




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.

__________________________

Konw what this witness is describing?????? I dont know why I dint "click in" earlier. Probably because the mystery aircraft 's primary job is ground-attack. BUT, no reason it couldnt be used for air-attack against a large unarmed target.

2 engines at the back, big rear wing like a spoiler--with 2 upright fins.

Sounds a lot like a warthog

http://www.danshistory.com/a10.html








Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

NO BODY PARTS WERE EVER RECOVERED BEYOND THE POINT OF IMPACT !!!
No coroners were ever sent to recover any body parts anyplace but the impact site.
No debris was found beyond the engine which was several hundred ft from the impact site.
Nothing but paper was ever recovered beyond that field. And again paper gets blown by wind.

These are facts. Here in the real world this is what we base things on. Facts not hearsay or he said she said they did stuff, but facts. I challenge you to find photographic evidence by any police agency or coroners office that shows they recover any body parts anyplace but the impact crater and the immediate area not to exceed 100 ft. I would love to see the pictures of one body floating in that lake. I would love to see an actual coroners report or an actual police report showing they actually found these pieces you claim they did. A website that says someones brothers friend knows a guy who heard a cop at the Dunkin Donuts saying they found parts in the lake is hearsay and not proof.
Having a cop tell a website he heard they found parts is also hearsay. I want a police report and / or a coroners report that shows where the body parts were found. Now since the news media and regular citizens were all over the crash site camera's firmly in hand and trying to get a "scoop" on another tid bit of news I would venture to guess if they had heard of body parts found elsewhere they would have responded post haste to get that "scoop". But since no photos have ever been produced and the official report doesn't acknowledge any body parts anywhere but the crash site then neither do I or any other rational minded person. Again all you have is hearsay and a conspiracy theory, Nothing more.

Now as for wreckage if the plane was indeed shot down, first off so what? it was a missile at that point anyway. But we'll say for arguments sake a missile did in fact take down flight 93 the debris field would have been huge! Plane parts would have been all over the place not just contained to one small portion of that field. Again facts prove you wrong.

Facts > conspiacy theory.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I just listed 8 links above to MEDIA OF THE TIMES reports.........not whats available after 5 years of cleansing and "getting the storey straight" but the observations, reports and actions AT THE TIME.


Here is the report from the Pitsburg Post-Gazzete on Sept 13th, 2001--48 hours after the event--saying they DID FIND human remains at the site of a coal mine miles from the wreckage.
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Now, who am I gonna believe? Them ?

or your rhetoric which is obviously contradicted by the facts as reported. ?

(BTW, having been in the military, spent 5 years working for a government department, and 10 in aviation---the very last thing I believe is an "official" report. Official reports are for politions and other assorted morons who are too stupid to realize official reports are little more than "tell-them-the-approved-version-and-play-ball-with-them" pieces of paper that contain about as much resemblence to reality as jenna jameson does to a virgin.)





Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

91 Sunbird SSE wrote:So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.

__________________________

Konw what this witness is describing?????? I dont know why I dint "click in" earlier. Probably because the mystery aircraft 's primary job is ground-attack. BUT, no reason it couldnt be used for air-attack against a large unarmed target.

2 engines at the back, big rear wing like a spoiler--with 2 upright fins.

Sounds a lot like a warthog

http://www.danshistory.com/a10.html

care to explain why we would send a ground attack plane, with very little air to air capabilities after another airplane, thats just dumb

my question is this. If you people honestly beleive that our governement murdered over 3000 people to rally support for a war (which btw would have rallied support for war in afghanistan not iraq, which the fighinng in afghanistan was already in favor anyways), then how could you still live in this country and not be so disgusted with it that you leave. I know i sure would


You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

stupidity reigns!!

I don't live in the country.

Look, Pentagon very simple: aircraft have hit mountains and left more debris, either the pentagon has a Level 60 mage with a staff of aircraft hole making and vaporisation, or something else hit it.

The debris that was left behind was pretty clearly NOT 757 debris. (Loose Change 2nd edition details the information pretty clearly, 757 engine rings have triangular vents, the ones recovered at the Pentagon were the wrong size, and had oval vents)

The Twin Towers: the structural steel used in the building structural core was designed to not deform under load during a fire @ 3500 degrees for 6 hours. The fires were about 1500 degrees, and only went for 1.5 hours. Also, with the kind of damage inflicted on both buildings (ie, damage on one-two sides) the building would have been forced to collapse on an angle, yet the collapse was lateral and for the most part, plumb.

lilbit01: your friend may well have seen AN aircraft, but a 757? As well, with humans that were alive at the time?

Watch the movie. If you decide to not believe it at that point, and have no doubts, I have a bridge to sell you.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

LMAO GAM........flight 93 landing at cleavland and a dummy plane being used was something I wasnt even going to get into with this crowd. Thier eyballs would be spinng as they stomped thier feet insisting the white houses verion of events is real.

ah, waht the hell--just for the fun if it.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

mikec2003 wrote:

91 Sunbird SSE wrote:So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.

__________________________

Konw what this witness is describing?????? I dont know why I dint "click in" earlier. Probably because the mystery aircraft 's primary job is ground-attack. BUT, no reason it couldnt be used for air-attack against a large unarmed target.

2 engines at the back, big rear wing like a spoiler--with 2 upright fins.

Sounds a lot like a warthog

http://www.danshistory.com/a10.html

care to explain why we would send a ground attack plane, with very little air to air capabilities after another airplane, thats just dumb

my question is this. If you people honestly beleive that our governement murdered over 3000 people to rally support for a war (which btw would have rallied support for war in afghanistan not iraq, which the fighinng in afghanistan was already in favor anyways), then how could you still live in this country and not be so disgusted with it that you leave. I know i sure would

Because using a ground attack aircraft on an interception mission would elicit EXACTLY the kind of responce you just gave. Talk about the perfect plausable deniability !! (even though the warthog is fully capable of air-to-air firing,)


And I thought the new version of the reasons for the war in iraq was Saddamn was evil and needed removing---which came after the WMD excuse was recognized as bull@!#$---which came after the Iraq involvement in 9-11 was recognized as Bull@!#$, since osama happens to be a saudi, not iraqi.

Damn, the bull@!#$ piles up fast around bushie-boy, doesnt it?




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I don't live in the country.

Look, Pentagon very simple: aircraft have hit mountains and left more debris, either the pentagon has a Level 60 mage with a staff of aircraft hole making and vaporisation, or something else hit it.

The debris that was left behind was pretty clearly NOT 757 debris. (Loose Change 2nd edition details the information pretty clearly, 757 engine rings have triangular vents, the ones recovered at the Pentagon were the wrong size, and had oval vents)

The Twin Towers: the structural steel used in the building structural core was designed to not deform under load during a fire @ 3500 degrees for 6 hours. The fires were about 1500 degrees, and only went for 1.5 hours. Also, with the kind of damage inflicted on both buildings (ie, damage on one-two sides) the building would have been forced to collapse on an angle, yet the collapse was lateral and for the most part, plumb.

lilbit01: your friend may well have seen AN aircraft, but a 757? As well, with humans that were alive at the time?

Watch the movie. If you decide to not believe it at that point, and have no doubts, I have a bridge to sell you.

Thank you! That's the most obvious thing about all of that. Those two towers both fell straight down! STRAIGHT DOWN! And in all of the videos it sure as hell looks like one of those planned implosions.

There is no @!#$ way a plane crashing into the those buildings would have made them fall straight the @!#$ down. There is really no way a plane should have made them fall down at all.

Zeke: I've covered a lot of other things in the other thread I started.

To be sure, if there was a failure in the central core, it would have taken out ALL the buildings within half the length of the towers. The method of failure is inconsistent with the damage the structure suffered, it would have bent and fallen sideways if it were, in fact, an uncontrolled demolition.

Also, there was a building in NYC (I forget the name... the roof is slashed so the top looks like a diamond) IIRC... it was built and certified, but it wasn't able to handle the windload so there were crews of structural welders that basically went in on friday night at 7pm, and didn't leave until Monday at 4 am... they were re-inforcing the building one floor at a time. They were discovered at one point after they had opened up one outside wall and didn't have time to fix a leak they caused... A demolitions team could have access to the building under the premise of technology upgrades or building inspection. It doesn't help that GW Bush's cousin or brother owned the security company that was in charge of the WTC plaza.

There are a lot of convenient happenstances in the story. The investigations are truncated, and there are so many holes and inconsistencies in the official story that are big enough, well... to drive a jet through... well, at least the tail section through.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

91 Sunbird SSE wrote:So from a vantage point of perhaps 50 feet from the airplane, she observed that "it had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side ..." Her statement makes it clear she observed this twin-engine jet on the deck just prior to Flight 93 crashing.

__________________________

Konw what this witness is describing?????? I dont know why I dint "click in" earlier. Probably because the mystery aircraft 's primary job is ground-attack. BUT, no reason it couldnt be used for air-attack against a large unarmed target.

2 engines at the back, big rear wing like a spoiler--with 2 upright fins.

Sounds a lot like a warthog

http://www.danshistory.com/a10.html

I cant believe what your saying. Do you really think they would use an A10 to shoot down a Commercial Jet? Not only is the plane being desribed from an uncredible witness that doesnt know the difference between 50 and 500 feet, as you described earlier, there is NO way it would have made it there in time to fit in with the timeline. If you go back and read all the articles you will find that there was only three minutes unaccounted for, THREE MINUTES. Only a high speed jet could get in/shoot down/and out in that amount of time.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, just one second. First Sundird you say how eye witness accounts are completely worthless because none can be trusted AND THEN you quote eyewitness accounts when it suits your arguement. Um, which is it? Because if eyewitnesses aren't trust worthy then that means ALL EYEWITNESSES. Not just a select few that you pick and choose. So you've shot down most of your own argument!

Gam, we've been over this before and I shown you the pics of all the plane bits removed from the Pentagon and even shown you the engines were indeed the correct ones no matter what the conspiacy theroist nuts claim. We've also been thru the twin towers and you've conceeded that not everything could be explained in either direction so stop fueling the fire for these poor guys! They have it rough enough as it is trying to live day to day thinking the world is out to get them without your help. Geez!!

And Sunbird I'm still waiting for those police or coroner's reports what gives? Can't find none? Gee I'm so shocked! Untill you find the actual reports you have no proof any body parts were ever recoved an place other then the crash site.





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope, live a little. Life is no fun if you believe everything you're told. If we did that we'd still think the Earth was flat and we were the center of the universe.

JuggaloZeke wrote:Jackalope, live a little. Life is no fun if you believe everything you're told. If we did that we'd still think the Earth was flat and we were the center of the universe.

NO NO NO, I'm the center of the universe. Didnt you know?


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.