• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Flight 93 Shot Down?

Why are you wasting your time if you have no interest, nota bene? You do understand what your moniker means, do you not?

No, I just randomly chose my screen name. :roll:

But you should look under my screen name and then wonder anew why I might be reading a thread in which I have no interest. ;)
 
I actually forgot this thread was on Flight 93. I don’t discuss that because, as I think I said in this thread, if the gvmt shot it down, I wouldn’t be surprised.

If they shot down Flight 93, then they murdered 2900 some people and demolished six to ten buildings, Maggie.

But doubt we’d ever know that for sure.

It's easy to find out, have a real investigation. Isn't the USA supposed to be a rule of law country with an established judiciary?

As to the crash site, if they really felt it necessary, they could sacrifice a perfectly good airplane, and with black box data, duplicate the crash to see what remained.

They don't even want to do a real investigation, never have, why in the hell do you think they would do this?

I do know that they found remains of 40 crew and passengers through DNA and four unidentified that they assume to be the hijackers’. That’s enough for me.

Do you really know this, Maggie? Remember, these are the very people who lied about pretty much everything.

Since either way it happened would be understandable, I have no interest in debating it.

You find your government murdering innocents to be "understandable"?
 
I actually forgot this thread was on Flight 93. I don’t discuss that because, as I think I said in this thread, if the gvmt shot it down, I wouldn’t be surprised.

If they shot down Flight 93, then they murdered 2900 some people and demolished six to ten buildings, Maggie.



It's easy to find out, have a real investigation. Isn't the USA supposed to be a rule of law country with an established judiciary?

As to the crash site, if they really felt it necessary, they could sacrifice a perfectly good airplane, and with black box data, duplicate the crash to see what remained.

They don't even want to do a real investigation, never have, why in the hell do you think they would do this?



Do you really know this, Maggie? Remember, these are the very people who lied about pretty much everything.

You find your government murdering innocents to be "understandable"?

If they did bring down that airplane, that in no WAY means they brought down the other three buildings.im pretty sure I made my position clear as to why it’s understandable if the gvmt did being down that plane.

You are suspicious. I get that. But please don’t expect me, of all people, to engage you any more than I have. Don’t look for,zebras when horses are running all over the place. Yours is a futile argument. I appreciate that it keeps your brain busy. But I’m not interested in the subject. My mind is closed just as yours is.
 
I am someone who willingly looks at all evidence put forward in an honest manner by people who are seeking the truth. All you do, all you guys ever do is malign these folks when they are doing exactly what citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, - question their governments!!!

Do you hold that it is wrong to questions your governments and what they do? Do you acknowledge that they repeatedly lied about a large number of very important issues?

You tell me what happened to 93.
.
Lionel Nation says he encourages anyone to ask whatever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they want for as long as they want.

Don't you think that that is a good thing? Isn't it, in your mind, an American thing? Do you agree with Mr Nation?

Another answer questions with questions. Not very mature of you.

What important issues are you asking about?

Is it wrong for someone to question Gage and his work? How about questioning Capt. Bob and his work? Is it wrong to question CIT?

Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct? Who lied?
 
One can learn, Maggie and one can draw adult, sensible conclusions from the evidence presented. Are you going to refuse jury duty because you are "educated" enough?

1. No steel framed high rise towers have ever collapses due to fires in all their history. Three did so on 911. The odds of that happening are 500 trillion to one. Office fires burning full tilt cannot compromise steel enough to cause a collapse, even with jet fuel added.

The combination of office furnishings and jet fuel burning as it did in WTCs 1 & 2, can burn for your and your kids' lifetimes and never melt steel [2,750F] or molybdenum [4,700F] or vaporize lead [3,180F] OR create the by products of a nanothermite reaction. For the last one, ONLY the US government/US military have access to this NON-COMMERCIALLY available supper explosive invented by US military labs in the 1990s.

How did this nanothermite get into the WTC twin towers and especially into WTC7?

You should be able to draw some adult, sensible conclusions from this evidence presented, or at the least, want to ask more questions, wonder about these impossible anomalies.




But that is exactly what should have happened with all three towers, they should have toppled,
fell in a haphazard halting manner according to the laws of physics. They all fell in a very symmetrical fashion, thru the path of greatest resistance, Maggie. The path of greatest resistance means all the numerous stories below that were stone cold steel which got progressively larger as you went down. They did so without any jolt, which also defies the laws of physics.

The French uses a method called verinage, which uses the weight of the top to help bring down the entire building. Half or more than half of a building's top floors is collapsed by hydraulics which causes the lower half to collapse. BUT, the crucial thing to remember in this is that there is ALWAYS A JOLT, which means there is ALWAYS a slowing down of the rate of descent in accordance with the laws of physics.

That did not happen to the twin towers. They accelerated throughout the collapse - a total impossibility according to the very laws of physics that the entire world acknowledges and believes in.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Again, that is an impossibility according to the same laws of physics.




You most assuredly may ask, assert, state anything you damn well please, Maggie.

Isn't that what we are supposed to be about? Why do you sit silent when others try to cow people into silence, when they shout them down, when they ridicule their offerings/evidence/beliefs/assertions/inquiries/... ?

I question your engineer's ideas. Just consider one thing. If what she said had any validity, 1. why did she feel the need to draw you aside and "inform" you in secret.

2. If what she said had any validity then there would never be any need for controlled demolition companies.

3. If what she said had any validity, by what method would the steel "twist and then fall straight down on itself"! Steel that is designed to carry the dead and live loads cannot also be designed to "twist".

[PART B TO FOLLOW]

Ok. That’s it. “Why did she choose to inform you in secret?” You’re beyond hope on this subject, Camlot. If your NOT a structural engineer, you can’t become one by surfing the net. And if you ARE, then talk to other structural engineers. I’m sorry to say that I’m done here. Your mind is made up just as mine. Beating a dead horse expecting it o get up and pull the plow is hopeless.
 
Here one for you cam. A site along your views states 93 did in fact crash. However, it goes on to state it was most likely also hit by a missile strike

9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93
"The evidence shows that Flight 93 did indeed crash near Shanksville, and suggests that the passengers did struggle to gain control of the plane"

FBI video.
https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/investigation-of-flight-93.mp4/view

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93

"Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.""
 
maggie:
If they did bring down that airplane, that in no WAY means they brought down the other three buildings.im pretty sure I made my position clear as to why it’s understandable if the gvmt did being down that plane.

Maggie, please, it is not possible for you to be that gullible. Well, considering the ludicrous things you accepted from that "engineer", maybe you are very gullible.

If there was some special reason for the always lying US government to bring down Flight 93, then why did they lie their asses off, why did they use it as totally false propaganda, why would they murder those people without any justification or explanation, why would they lie to the families?

I know that you folks are used to this lying, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, ... but that doesn't make it moral or legally justified.


You are suspicious. I get that. But please don’t expect me, of all people, to engage you any more than I have. Don’t look for,zebras when horses are running all over the place. Yours is a futile argument. I appreciate that it keeps your brain busy. But I’m not interested in the subject. My mind is closed just as yours is.

What's so shocking is that you aren't suspicious. Actually, I'm pretty sure that you are not willing to go there. Brainwashing is powerful stuff. It has worked its magic for over two centuries of US "history" on a lot of gullible people.
 
I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic; whether the passengers were "Let's roll!" heroes on Flight 93 or the plane was shot down before it reached D.C., I don't much care. As Maggie said, we'll probably never know.

Again, you seem to be totally uninterested in the criminal activity of people you are supposed to be able to trust.

But as I see that you refuse to answer a simple and straightforward question. Again, what is your Flight 93 theory?

For dog's sakes, NB, by your own admission, repeatedly, you state, "I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic", but still you soldier on in your ignorance attempting to cause only distraction.

I don't want to get into a discussion with a person who is obviously only intent on diversion. That is the province of science denying anti-truthers.
 
But you should look under my screen name and then wonder anew why I might be reading a thread in which I have no interest. ;)

That is only the much more puzzling. Those kinds are folks shouldn't be causing inane diversions and distractions when such a person has little to no knowledge of the subject.
 
Ok. That’s it. “Why did she choose to inform you in secret?” You’re beyond hope on this subject, Camlot.


Maggie, please, the histrionics won't get you anywhere. This is about science, remember?

Why are you IGNORING all the totally insane things your "engineer" told you to focus on this one relatively unimportant issue?


And if you ARE, then talk to other structural engineers. I’m sorry to say that I’m done here. Your mind is made up just as mine. Beating a dead horse expecting it o get up and pull the plow is hopeless.

You entered this discussion, Maggie, you weren't dragged here. But you have shown that you are completely refusing to think, you are refusing to address all the total impossibilities in the USOCT. All you do is what all the other supporters of this fable do, focus on the most inane ideas and beat them to death. Those are simply distractions mean to obscure the truth.

You are not capable, by your own admission, of deciding whether the horse is dead or not. Agreed?
 
You entered this discussion, Maggie, you weren't dragged here. But you have shown that you are completely refusing to think, you are refusing to address all the total impossibilities in the USOCT. All you do is what all the other supporters of this fable do, focus on the most inane ideas and beat them to death. Those are simply distractions mean to obscure the truth.

You are not capable, by your own admission, of deciding whether the horse is dead or not. Agreed?

I agree with your last sentence. Carry on.
 
For dog's sakes, NB, by your own admission, repeatedly, you state, "I'm not actually terribly interested in this topic", but still you soldier on in your ignorance attempting to cause only distraction.

What, again, is your belief about Flight 93?
 
PART B OF POST #73 REPLY TO MAGGIE:

Your engineer pointed to a certain building and said basically that that building had design components planned into the building that made it "designed to simply pancake”.

4. What forces would initiate your engineer's "That one THERE ... designed to simply pancake” to pancake?

How does a structural engineer decide the needed forces to initiate pancaking? Why would anyone go into such a building? Engineers design buildings to stay up, not fall down/not pancake.

Sorry, Maggie, the stuff your "engineer" friend said makes zero sense. Buildings are designed often with a safety factor of 3 to 5 times live load/dead load to stand up and the notion that they have designs inherent in them to circumvent those safety factors is ludicrous in the extreme.

Can you provide her name and the company she says she has so she can be questioned on this?

Maggie: As for my comments that others say it wouldn’t just pancake down...that it looked like a controlled demolition? She said something like, “That building collapsed exactly how it was designed. And that is the ONLY way controlled demolition is designed to function.”

That is totally fatuous. Just ask yourself, Maggie, why would the huge organization that is NIST have taken so many years to study what this one lady "engineer" knew all along?

I won't say you are gullible, Maggie, I'll let you decide how gullible you were/are. But this lady either is not an engineer or she is a grand liar.



Maggie: Long story short, she believes the commission’s report on the collapse. That right there, her very educated opinion with no dog in the fight, is enough for me...and especially when I add it to my own common sense belief that a conspiracy so sophisticated and vast would take way too many people for it to ever remain secret.

That isn't evidence of anything, Maggie, that is silly speculation based on nothing to substantiate it. It usually comes when USGOCT supporters hit a wall.

Obviously, she has a dog in the fight, which is her continued ability to make a living. That is why there is so much deafening silence among the very people who should be speaking out.

But let's just say that the science is too much for you [ I don't believe it is but regardless]. Why wouldn't the US government be able to produce one serial numbered part from any of the 4 planes when they were able to pull TWA800 from the depths of the Atlantic and reassemble it in a hangar.

Remember the molten steel and other metals that have metal points over 1000-2000 degrees F above what a jet fuel/office furnishing fire could ever produce.



Maggie: And since I am not an expert, I have nothing to contribute to continuing discussion about any of it.

Are you not being disingenuous, Maggie? You have posted a good, well thought OUT post actually discussing the issues. Again, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE OF WESTERN NATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!
 
Last edited:
I agree with your last sentence. Carry on.

Do you also agree that you are not capable of thinking and using logical deduction, Maggie? I know that isn't true, so why do you seem so eager right at this point in time to have everyone think that?
 
Here one for you cam. A site along your views states 93 did in fact crash. However, it goes on to state it was most likely also hit by a missile strike
"

How is this "one for me", mike? It should be one for anyone interested in finding out the truth.
 
How is this "one for me", mike? It should be one for anyone interested in finding out the truth.

You can no longer say I do not provide information to back up what I post.

Now , are you going to answer questions asked of you.

Now would you post what you accept happened to Flight 93.
 
You can no longer say I do not provide information to back up what I post.

I can say that with perfect conviction because you don't. You throw out sources the size of the old bull**** US encyclopedias and expect people to unbundle them for you. YOU never say anything, [none of you USGOCT supporters do] so how can one know without going thru these huge dumps and attempting to divine what you are trying to say from the aforementioned massive dump.

Now, are you going to answer questions asked of you.

Your gigantic, open ended questions that you will all pounce on because of a misplaced comma? You "never answer any questions" folks have a lot of gall to ask this of people who seek the truth. There are myriad questions/impossibilities as regards the USOCT that you folks have never addressed and for you to pretend that is your purpose here is highly disingenuous.

When you LIKE a beefheart, zyzygy, quag, ... post where there is zippo discussion/evidence you illustrate exactly where you are at as regards dealing with the truth/science. The same place you have all been since I first posted here - distractions, diversions, never any salient discussion and a complete aversion to the truth, attacking both posters here and the "famous front man" of organizations who challenge the zero evidence USOCT.

Never any mention by you USOCT supporters, by name, of the people who support the zero evidence USGOCT. That is awfully telling, mike.


Now would you post what you accept happened to Flight 93.


I don't know for sure. I do know that,

1. No parts have been identified to establish that the USGOCT has any veracity. Even if 93 went directly into the ground as alleged, there would be many parts remaining to identify the airliner.

2. A surviving passport was put forward as USOCT "evidence", if you can believe that, which of course, none of you do yet you are ALL so strangely silent on this.

3. The debris field was huge, at least 3 to 6 miles, including an engine 2000 feet from the alleged impact zone.

9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93

4. Also, a red bandana was found, totally unblemished, like an FBI agent had just purchased it from a WalMart. This was to prove that these were Muslim radicals from a particular sect, only the alleged Muslim "radicals" never wore red bandanas. The lying US government had the wrong sect.

"Perhaps the jet-crash-proof bandana is made from the same material as the jet-crash-proof passport that emerged from the fiery crash of Flight 11 into the North Tower. We shouldn't be too surprised that the suicide hijackers had access to undreamt-of materials technologies, given their ability to achieve air supremacy over America's trillion-dollar military." 9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93
 
Another answer questions with questions. Not very mature of you.

Lord dog almighty, you have a lot of unmitigated gall, mike. You self describe again. This, above, is you guys - hear any one of the myriad impossibilities of the USOCT and you guys are all over yourselves asking any old inane question just to divert from the topics that scare you all ****less!

What important issues are you asking about?

Unbelievable!!! Here you are doing the very thing you mention two sentences earlier.

Is it wrong for someone to question Gage and his work? How about questioning Capt. Bob and his work? Is it wrong to question CIT?

Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct? Who lied?

You lied before and you are lying now. And like always, you caught yourself out.

It's not wrong to question anyone so why are you again being so damn dishonest, suggesting that is what I called you out for. You know VERY WELL that questioning people and their beliefs/theories/contentions is not what I called you out on.

You were VERY dishonestly slandering people when they had no chance to defend their ideas. You even pretended they were wrong all based on "honest" mike's evaluation. You possess neither the honesty or the scientific courtesy to put forward their ideas and yours in an evenhanded, scientific manner for people to judge.

And then to boot, you double down on your patent dishonesty trying desperately to take the focus off your dishonesty with - "Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct?", instead of just being a man and admitting your error and your dishonesty.
 
I don't know for sure. I do know that,

1. No parts have been identified to establish that the USGOCT has any veracity. Even if 93 went directly into the ground as alleged, there would be many parts remaining to identify the airliner.

2. A surviving passport was put forward as USOCT "evidence", if you can believe that, which of course, none of you do yet you are ALL so strangely silent on this.

3. The debris field was huge, at least 3 to 6 miles, including an engine 2000 feet from the alleged impact zone.

9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93

4. Also, a red bandana was found, totally unblemished, like an FBI agent had just purchased it from a WalMart. This was to prove that these were Muslim radicals from a particular sect, only the alleged Muslim "radicals" never wore red bandanas. The lying US government had the wrong sect.

"Perhaps the jet-crash-proof bandana is made from the same material as the jet-crash-proof passport that emerged from the fiery crash of Flight 11 into the North Tower. We shouldn't be too surprised that the suicide hijackers had access to undreamt-of materials technologies, given their ability to achieve air supremacy over America's trillion-dollar military." 9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93

and your claim is your sources are better than mine.

Thanks for your opinion. That is what you posted.

As I have said before any explanation needs to stand on its own merits. Yours fail the smell test.
 
You lied before and you are lying now. And like always, you caught yourself out.

It's not wrong to question anyone so why are you again being so damn dishonest, suggesting that is what I called you out for. You know VERY WELL that questioning people and their beliefs/theories/contentions is not what I called you out on.

You were VERY dishonestly slandering people when they had no chance to defend their ideas. You even pretended they were wrong all based on "honest" mike's evaluation. You possess neither the honesty or the scientific courtesy to put forward their ideas and yours in an evenhanded, scientific manner for people to judge.

And then to boot, you double down on your patent dishonesty trying desperately to take the focus off your dishonesty with - "Funny AE911T does not agree with CIT regarding the aircraft. So who is correct?", instead of just being a man and admitting your error and your dishonesty.

If anyone is dishonest, it you and your posts.

Research and you will know that Gage (AE911T) and the members of CIT had their falling out. They do not agree.
Same with Gage (AE911T) and Prager regarding nukes.

Your post also indicates you do not know what dishonesty means.

Your continue failure to answer questions tells the readers you have no intention on an adult discussion.

It seems you have learned nothing from your timeout.
 
If anyone is dishonest, it[sic] you and your posts.

Research and you will know that Gage (AE911T) and the members of CIT had their falling out. They do not agree.
Same with Gage (AE911T) and Prager regarding nukes.

Such is science, mike. I wonder how that has escaped a science guy like you.

Your post also indicates you do not know what dishonesty means.

I know exactly what dishonesty means and just how dishonest you have been. Here again you try to squirm out of your dishonesty by focusing on the inanities you always raise.

You stated things about other people for which you had/have no proof, for which you have given no proof. You provided zero proof, just mike's recollection of his being right and others wrong. Still you continue with this instead of being a man and manning up.

You guys do this all the time. With nothing more than your "full" posts being single sentences declaring others provide no evidence/proof.


Your continue[sic] failure to answer questions tells the readers you have no intention on[sic] an adult discussion.

It seems you have learned nothing from your timeout.

I have learned nothing, mike, oh the gall! Here you are still denying your lies about Bob and others, and note well, still with zero proof from mike.
 
I have learned nothing, mike, oh the gall! Here you are still denying your lies about Bob and others, and note well, still with zero proof from mike.

True. You have learned nothing.
 
True. You have learned nothing.

Your squirming is so evident, mike. Your lame squirming again illustrates just how dishonest you are.
 
Judging from a lack of evidence, it seems the consensus is that UA93 was NOT shot down...???
 
Though uncomfortable for some, it is useful to compare the pictures of the crash scenes of the Ethiopian flight in the 737 Max with the scenes of Shanksville where a 767 supposedly crashed.

In the first and current case, aircraft debris and bodies and luggage were easily seen. They were scattered all about, as such accidents do.

Compare with Shanksville where the cameras recorded nothing in the way of such debris, and the county coroner Miller said exactly that in front of the TV cameras. He noted that they found nothing that suggested an airliner had crashed there.

Hmmm, once again the official story fails for lack of evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom