whack
Stink Fish Pot, I properly credited your quote of another site by nesting them. Maybe you didn’t write it originally, but you quoted it and appear to support it.
Just Asking Questions, hunh? Tomayto, Tomahto. We have a name for that.
Then why are you doing it?
See, this is what bothers me. Explain why you think it’s wrong, don’t just say “this ignorance”. What did I say that proves or disproves anything? If the plane basically broke into a million pieces, what exactly does that tell you? Are you saying that the crash was pieced back together in Shanksville somewhere and the NTSB was able to prove the plane wasnt shot down? Why on earth would the NTSB even be looking for evidence of a shoot-down when the official story is a fight in the cabin… Supported by phone calls to loved ones, “let’s roll”, and I assume the cockpit recordings? Don’t throw out charges if you can’t substantiate them. I’ve never heard, read, or been told that there was any investigation at any time about alternative causes for flight 93’s crash. So if I say the plane disintegrated or if it didn’t, who cares? You aren’t going to see evidence of a hole in the fuselage. The best they could probably do is find residue of any missile, or parts of a missile. Assuming they were looking for one… Which I don’t believe ever happened. Do you have evidence that states otherwise?
Have you seen the picture of the crash site? It is a hole. Sure their are pieces of the plane that survived the crash. It didn’t vaporize, for crying out loud. But I did not then nor have I ever seen a hangar filled with plane parts like I’ve seen in just about every other plane crash I can think of. With the exception of the four planes on 9/11’ every large commercial airliner that has crashed has been gathered and put back together like a puzzle (a large grid system) to try and find the reason for the crash.
If you can show me a picture of flight 93 or the plane that hit the pentagon being “put together” in a hangar somewhere, post a link. I have personally never seen it. And please don’t tell me they’d be classified. We all know what happened, right? Flight 800 was set aside in a hangar. I saw the pics. The plane that crashed near Pittsburgh in the 90’s was put together as well. And that crash site looked very similar to the Shanksville site if I recall correctly.
Very few aeronautical accidents occur where a large plane is flown at 500MPH or greater nearly vertically into solid ground. I can’t imagine any scenario which would decimate or pulverize the structure and contents more, certainly not a collision, an internal explosion, or flying into a building.
And you don’t need to reassemble the airframe to look for chemical signatures.
None of which will make a CTer stop JAQing off.
Stink Fish Pot I can not help but to notice that you just ignored that the crash site of Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 also looked a lot like the one we got at flight 93.
You also seem to have just skipped the 800 thread, suffice to say, that is indeed behavior that I see from conspiracy theorists.
As for flight 93, mostly the engines were found. What you request was not feasible and unnecessary when other evidence like the flight recorder showed that the terrorists plunged the plane when the passengers stormed the plane.
The theory that flight 93 was shot down has many of the typical failings of conspiracy theories. It requires the conspirators to have done things in a way that is more difficult for them for no good reason, and it requires an unfeasibly large number of people to keep quiet afterwards.
Had flight 93 been shot down, there would have been several pieces of evidence pointing towards the fact. First, we would expect that at the moment of missile impact and explosion that parts would have been liberated from the airplane. There would be debris on the ground under the spot where the plane was hit, and then possibly a debris trail from that spot to the main impact spot where the plane hit the ground. This was not found. There was no debris found under the flight path - all of the debris that wasn’t at the main impact site was either further along after the impact point (suggesting parts which bounced back up and kept going after impact) or downwind.
Secondly, a missile impact would have left unavoidable indications on the flight data recorder. You would have seen some combination of loss of hydraulic or electrical power, loss of pressurization, loss of engine power, fire indications, sudden unexpected changes in control surface responses, that kind of thing. It’s hard to imagine a missile hit that downs the plane, yet shows no indication to anything recorded to the flight data recorder. The flight data recorder instead shows that all of the plane’s systems were functioning normally until it hit the ground.
So the conspiracy theory that flight 93 was shot down needs to account for a flight data recorder with falsified data being created and substituted for the real one. That alone is fatal for the conspiracy theory, when our hypothetical conspirators could have simply substituted a flight data recorder that was damaged to the point of being unreadable, or vanished the recorder and suppressed any evidence that it was ever found. The hypothetical conspirators would also have needed to hide any debris found along the ground under the flight path, and somehow silence any witnesses that might have seen any of that.
This is in addition to silencing the pilot who shot it down, the flight technicians who loaded his jet with a missile, and anyone who saw it go out with it and return without it. Also, they need to fudge the weapon inventories to conceal that a missile is gone, but that’s pretty minor compared to the rest of it.
Now, the reason this is implausible is that there is no incentive for our hypothetical conspirators to go through all this trouble. Planes had been launched to shoot flight 93 down. The order had been given. This is publicly acknowledged. The motivation for our hypothetical conspirators to conceal a shootdown appears to be insufficient to explain the vast amount of evidence forgery and suppression of witnesses that would be required.
This is why conspiracy theories are flat out rejected - they fall apart when we consider the proposed motivation for the conspiracy and alternate methods by which our hypothetical conspirators could have achieved the same goals with far less effort.
What do you mean by “conducted openly?” I for one feel pretty certain that if the subjects had understood clearly that there was a cure but that they would not get it so that researchers would get to see what happened to them, the study would not have lasted quite so long for want of willing participants. What am I missing here?
I have no idea what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make. However, you seem very pleased with yourself, so good for you. I never said you had to reassemble the plane to look for chemical signatures. Is English your native language?
GIGObuster - I didn’t ignore it, I’ve been in and out all day running errands, so I haven’t caught up with this thread. If you posted something, you are right, I didn’t see it. And to tell you the truth, I don’t recall the crash of 1771 at all, so what I might learn from that I’m not sure, but I’ll make a note of looking for it. As for the flight recorders telling the investigative what they needed to know, I mentioned that upthread somewhere as one of the reasons the NTSB didn’t do a painstaking rebuild of the plane. They had their answer.
As for the 800 threads, I didn’t skip them. I didn’t read them. I never thought the plane was shot down. I was just trying to get the thread back to a more generic topic since it seemed to be focusing on 93. I think that was my fault, as I was trying to give an example of something that I could see the government covering up. I never said they DID cover anything up. I posted that link as an example of the type of information that was out there at the time. I have not looked into the current CT of flight 93. I haven’t looked at any of that stuff in a decade.
I was trying to get to the root as to why people get so emotional with CT’s, and why people seem to get either tied up in them, or reject them out of hand completely. Some folks have answered these questions. Others began to focus on flight 93. This was my fault because 1) I haven’t had time to read everyones posts, and 2) when I did reply, I was focused on flight 93. This seems to have thrown this thread a bit off track. But, I’m still getting some good information from some people, and I think it has been a good thread.
I think what people have missed regarding me and flight 93 is that I would have been ok with the flight being shot down. I’m a realist. Seems there weren’t many options at the time, so if the plane happened to be brought down by our govt., I would have supported that action.
As a citizen of the US, it has always bothered me that after two planes hit the WTC, one was able to hit the pentagon, and a fourth was on its way to another DC target. It should not have been that difficult or time consuming to scramble a couple of air force jets and have them intercept the plane that hit the pentagon. But assuming there just wasnt enough time to get the pentagon plane, surely they should have been able to reach flight 93. This is JMO, of course, but it bothered me that the capital (and any target, really), could have been taken out that day. It still bothers me, and I hope the government and DHS specifically have changed procedures to fix this glaring hole in our defenses.
Ok, that’s all from me for a while. I need to do some reading first!
It is because when children attempt to question adults with “why? why? why?” or “but…but…but…” nothing is ever accomplished. Some of the adults become frustrated with those children, some dismiss them out of hand, and some realize that the discussion won’t bear fruit until the children mature.
You pre-emptively decided that since you can’t imagine being able to determine what caused a plane crash, nobody could. It’s a convenient mechanism for keeping the “93 was shot down” idea alive without having to deal with the messy questions of how it was shot down. You’re not proposing it was shot down with futuristicky sci-fi technology that leaves no traces, are you? If bullets or missiles were involved then, yes, there would be signs of it.
I’ve lost track of what you’re arguing for. Are you claiming 93 was shot down or not? That there’s a possibility it was shot down, or not?
Your post is my cite.
…unfortunately we could supply you with video footage from the cockpit of the plane showing what happened seconds before Flight 96 hit the ground and you would still just be asking questions.
Here is just some of the evidence of what happened on the day:
Here is some more:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/index.htm
There is an overflowing mountain of evidence that show what happened to Flight 93 on 9/11: from radar evidence to cellphone transcripts to voice cockpit recorders to forensic evidence. Some of that is listed in the links above. More of it can be found by using google if you are really interested. Are you actually interested? If we post more evidence will you actually read it, or ignore it and ask more questions?
Stink Fish Pot: I don’t think that we have to run around finding pictures of hangers of planes being reconstructed in order to say that your private plane shoot down theory is a load of bollocks. The ball is in your court: where is your evidence?
As to why people get so emotional about conspiracy theories?
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims/9-11-9%20the%20Vicsim%20Report.pdf
WARNING: link leads to internet stupidity.
According to the person on the link: nobody really died on 9/11: it was a massive hoax. Scroll down and you can see his photo analysis: even claiming that a photo of James Haran is actually Richard Nixon.
It is utter madness in the face of the evidence: as is the private plane theory in the presence of so much evidence that says otherwise.
When you say stuff like this:
This gets people angry: because you are just making stuff up here. What leads you to believe that the NTSB didn’t do a painstaking rebuild of the plane because they already had their answer? Would it be so hard for you to actually contact the NTSB and ask them directly?
…just going back to the OP: the truth is that we don’t. Conspiracy Theories get “debunked” primarily because people look at the objective evidence and invariably they get rejected because the claims don’t stack up. The entire process of debunking conspiracy theories is based around investigating the claims of the theorists, weighing it up against the evidence, and then either accepting or rejecting the claim.
I worked with a woman who was absolutely convinced (not “Just Asking Questions”) that the government shot down Flight 93. I asked her:
“The government admitted they had a fighter on the way, and that they would’ve shot down Flight 93 if they had to. Now, if they admitted that, and then said ‘but we didn’t get there in time,’ then they’re also admitting their air defense around Washington wasn’t as tight as it should have been. If I were a terrorist, that would make me think that I could slip past those air defenses if I just took the trouble to barricade the cockpit door better next time. Why the hell would the government shoot the plane down secretly instead of telling the world terrorists got through to Washington once, but they couldn’t do it twice?”
She wouldn’t answer. So I’ll throw it to anyone in this group who wants to take a shot at it. Y’know, Just Asking Questions.
This is way too close to a personal attack.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s been out there for years. You just didn’t know about it. 
I have no idea when these details were first reported, but I bet it was in the 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004 and that Popular Mechanics article is from February 2005. Why is this information not better known? I don’t know. It may have taken time to marshal the facts after the attack; certainly “hey, what was that small white plane?” was not the biggest question people wanted to have answered in the aftermath of the attacks. By then maybe the conspiracy theory had already taken root. These theories evolve over time but they get started quickly. It didn’t take very long for Birtherism to take hold, for example, and as we’ve seen in the last four or five years, Conspiracy Theories follow some typical patterns. One is that they demand that defends of the “official story” produce a particular set of facts to debunk the CT. When those facts are presented and holes are shot in the CT, some of them will be handwaved away some of them, others will be worked into the narrative, and then there will be another demand for facts. Rinse and repeat.
For shooting down a plane that had been hijacked by terrorists and which was probably going to be crashed into Washington DC? No way.
Regardless of what happened on United 93, passengers on a future plane would have fought back. One reason the September 11th attacks worked is that the passengers didn’t think about a suicide attack. The hijackers said they had placed a bomb on the plane and were going to make demands of the government. The passengers believed them because that’s how the airline hijackings of the '70s worked. That trick wasn’t going to work again anyway.
It was conducted openly from the perspective that it was never hidden from the medical community and it was known by a number of medical researchers throughout the country.
The staff lied to the subjects/victims of the study, but they also published papers on the progression of the disease.
The problem was not overall secrecy: it was publicaly funded, not out of a hidden budget; it written up in medical journals, not classified or otherwise hidden from the medical community or public. The problem was that no one cared what happened to the victims, so the few objections were voiced as polite exchanges concerning protocols rather than public calls for shutting it down (until 1972).
The problem was an attitude that poor black men and their families were not sufficiently human to be treated ethically.
Well, apparently it’s just me, but I would still tend to call it a “conspiracy” in that the truth was kept from the people to whom it mattered most. How many professional people and agencies got together to keep the secret (from the infected men) makes it worse for me, not better.
The hell? It’s a general response about why people become frustrated with conspiracy theorists, tom. Stink Fish Pot said “why do people get so frustrated with conspiracy theorists?” and even explicitly disclaimed being a CT in the post I quoted. So who was it an attack on?
I am not suggesting that it was ethical or that it was not a horrible violation of their rights and their persons. And it seems that the members of the Public Health Service went out of their way to prevent the subjects from learning that they could get penicillin. From that perspective, I would agree that conspiracy describes the experiment.
However, whenever this event is brought up in discussions of Grand Conspiracies, those identifying it as such often make the claim that the information was restricted to a tiny cadre of people and that the American public was kept in the dark in the manner of a military secret. From that perspective, it was never a conspiracy and, in fact, it seems to be much, much worse, because for thirty years, dozens or, perhaps, hundreds of people were aware of what was going on, (and thousands had access to the information, had they looked), and no one thought enough of its victims to try to get them effective treatment.
No. I was born in Kenya.