The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Jumbo]

Bullshit. It came straight down (see above)...Or, post evidence that states it didn't...Your explanation is poppycock....

I linked to the NTSB document that stated a 40 degree angle and the aircraft being inverted. You have not show that the energy of the impact was insufficient to move the engine the distance stated.

Are you claiming the aircraft's flight path was completely vertical?

(not that that would preclude debris being spread as the geometry of the ground itself and other more complex factors such as the structure of the airframe and the forces imparted during its deformation would contribute to the directions of the debris field)

[uke2se]

I feel it says exactly what it says..If you believe anything is incorrect, or disagree, then post it and rebut it.......The common ruse used by those enamoured with the official version. Unable to defend it, and seeking to personalise the argument as a diversion to hide it....

So, would you say that my interpretation of it was wrong? If so, would you kindly point out where in the article it actually refutes the information provided by Popular Mechanics?

Furthermore, you'll note that nowhere in my post that you quoted do I mention the 911 commission report. That's because we weren't discussing that.

Well, that's all that matters when it comes down to official response...not yours, or anybody elses...

I don't really understand what is confusing you about this. We were talking about Popular Mechanics, not the 911 commission report, yet you continue to attempt to steer the conversation to the latter. I call this moving goal-posts. Do you have another explanation as to why you are doing this?

[Galaxian]

When you fly a plane at around 500 miles miles per hour (700-800 feet per second!), crashing it into the ground, parts will fly all over the place, even landing several kilometers away (for smaller debris). This is entirely consistent with the data we have. This has to do with wind, but also very much to do with the velocity of the plane on impact and Newton's first law.

What is this ^ gibberish? Small objects don't go as far as large objects, unless they happen to be of very low density & large surface area, such as paper, which can then be blown by strong winds.

The engine fan was one of the largest surviving pieces of the plan. Most of the aircraft was obliterated on impact, shattering into tiny pieces that were driven as much as 30 feet into the ground. Creg Feith, a former senior investigator with the NTSB says this is a typical outcome when a plane hits the ground at high speed. Most crashes occur at takeoff or landing, when the speed of the plane is relatively slow. You can liken crash debris to an egg. At a slow speed, dropped from your hand, the impact with crack the egg and you will have large pieces of shell. Take the egg and drop it from 20 stories up and t will have smaller fragments of shell and spread out by the impact.

More rubbish! Look up some direct full speed into mountainside crash photos; those sites have LOTS of large debris, & a damn-sight more scarring of the ground. Driven as much as 30 feet into the ground? DARPA doesn't need to do any more research on bunker busters then. Just use a commercial airliner!
Furthermore, if you drop an egg from ANY height above 1m the damage is virtually the same; there are large bits of shell, & the splatter is confined to about a 1 to 2 metre diameter.........Try it sometime, eh?
Now, your engineering intuition really needs sharpening up. That's why you're so easily taken in by lies.

[Galaxian]

And this is evidence that WTC was brought down by controlled explosions, how?

Is this a deliberately retarded question? Umm...WTC 1, 2, 7 & Pentagon were kosher. Penn' was a con!

[Galaxian]

Morien fails basic physics........
Morien, do you know what Newton's first law and the first law of thermodynamics states? If so, explain these to be in your own words.......

Don't even DARE accuse Morien of failing basic physics when you proposed that small pieces are thrown further than large pieces, & an egg dropped from greater heights smashes into smaller pieces.
No, YOU go back & study physics. Be sure to include fluid resistance. Rest of your post is crap too.

[uke2se]

Morien fails basic physics........

Don't even DARE accuse Morien of failing basic physics when you proposed that small pieces are thrown further than large pieces, & an egg dropped from greater heights smashes into smaller pieces. Rest is crap too.

It seems you fail physics too, Galaxian.

Pop quiz: I have an airplane. My airplane has engines under the wings and a bunch of light stuff inside (paper, cardboard, cloth etc). When my airplane crashes, what will happen:

1. The wind will carry light material far, while the engines will remain at the crash site.

2. The wind will carry the engines far, while the light stuff will remain at the crash site.

3. The wind will carry the light materials far, while the engines will wind up a short bit away from the crash site, as their momentum will prevent them from remaining at the site.

Pick one.

[Galaxian]

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

Seriously? Do you think we're trying to tell you the wind blew the engine away from the airplane?

I wouldn't put anything past you. After all, you admitted you can't even multiply yards by 3 to get feet!

[uke2se]

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

Seriously? Do you think we're trying to tell you the wind blew the engine away from the airplane?

I wouldn't put anything past you. After all, you admitted you can't even multiply yards by 3 to get feet!

I can, but I had to look it up and I couldn't be bothered to. In my country, we use the metric system. Thanks for the pathetic attempt at an insult though.

[Razor]

I'm one of those people who, before encountering this thread, had no real awareness of the nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I knew they existed of course, but had never looked into them in any way. This thread stimulated my interest, so I took the advice of all "sides" and spend some time looking at the various claims and the evidence for or against them, and also considering the "official" explaination.

I thought it might be interesting (to some) to share my conclusions; the conclusions of someone with no pre-conceived ideas about the issue.

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: there is no issue. Each and every CT appears to have little or no evidential basis and relies on rumour, assertion and innuendo. Even those areas where, on the surface, there may seem to be some doubt (e.g. the dust contents) only appear that way because they are taken independent of their context. I honestly don't see where the debate is and I marvel at the fact this is still even being discussed 9 years later. Sure, there may be some gaps, but each and evey one, as far as I can see, is irrelevant to the wider (and crucial) conclusions.

I realise of course that America has its share of anti-government paranoia, but I'm amazed this seems to have spread around the globe so easily.

Quite frankly, rather than continue this pointless circular debate (the CT'ers positions are seemingly unfalsifiable to them, so attempts at persuasion seem fruitless), I would think a far more interesting discussion would be on the psychology of such people and why such myths are so popular and passionately held. A new thread perhaps?

[Morien]

And reasons were provided for the 'hand wave'...None of which you have rebutted, I note...

No reasons were provided for the hand wave. None whatsoever.

Yes, there were reasons provided...

Again, you need to study the evdidence provided..in this case, a map was posted. Consult it.

A map was provided in the link I posted as well. Only lightweight material traveled any significant distance. Prove otherwise using real sources, as opposed to truther speculation.

Who are you calling a 'truther'? I've provided a definiton (above) and I wholly dislike being described as such. Stop it.
A quarter ton engine found 2,000 feet away is not lightweight for a plane that came straight down.

Who is the royal 'we'?..And reasons were given why this was rebutted. None of the evidence I have provided has been even read, it seems let alone rebutted adequately....

No reason was given why the information I provided was dismissed. We just went through this. The link you claim provides said reasons clearly doesn't. I've even given you the opportunity to point out exactly where the reasons were in the link you provided. Thus far you have failed to do so.

I've provided several links...you need to be specific...and you have failed to be in any way specific, thus far...we just went throught this.

You have provided not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that it is not common, I note....

Yes I have. It's in the link you hand waved.

..And I have supplied reasons for hand-waving. You haven't bar implying that anybody who doesn't believe you is mad (truther). Playing to the audience, I think they call it...'grandstanding'.

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.


Debris fields from Flight 93 were scattered across eight miles.
An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion

http://tinyurl.com/mqqnb

The author of this text doesn't evidence any of his assertions. We are supposed to take the author's word on faith - typical for trutherism. In contrast to this is Popular Mechanics who did a proper investigation and found the complete opposite to this text to be true. We also have a calculation of impact force in the post above yours. You are demonstrably wrong, and we have now shown this by providing sources to actual investigations as well as doing the fucking math for you.

Popular mechainics and the criticisms behind its unreliable rationale have been provided...do keep up.

Eye witness accounts;

Vertical Plunge
Virtually all eyewitnesses to Flight 93's crash reported that the plane plunged straight down after making erratic movements. The two accounts in this section and several in the following section are examples.

"When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," said Tom Fritz, 63. Fritz was sitting on his porch on Lambertsville Road, about a quarter mile from the crash site, when he heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. 1

A few miles north of Lambertsville, yard man Terry Butler, 40, was toiling away at Stoystown Auto Wreckers.

...

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." 2

http://tinyurl.com/27fnekv


..Don't tell me....the eyewitnesses were mad 'truthers', planted in the general public in anticipation of the impending disaster...

Again, the parts found away from the crash site were not lightwight material, as was shown in the evidence provided. Really, if you are not going to bother to adequately read and rebut the evidence provided, then don't bother.

The parts found significantly far away from the crash site was lightweight material, as shown by the proper evidence provided, as opposed to truther speculation.

Evidence sorely lacking on your part, bar the usual lame inference of madness.

Not unheard of, as stated by you...without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up, again as noted....My evidence suggests it was far more than the 300 yards you claim. This would have been easily noticed...if you had read it....

The link I have provided which you hand waved provides evidence that it is not unheard of, as well as the fact that the engine was found approximately 300 yards from the impact site.[/quote]

Rebutted already...see above. My evidence is just as valid as yours, unless and until you prove otherwise....And without the childish accusation of being a 'truther', which seems to be the crutch you rely on....

So you say...My evidence insdicates that debris landed up to 8 miles away...I note again you have done nothing to rebut this, save the usual hand wave.

You have provided no evidence. You seem to be under the misguided assumption that simply because a truther has put it on his webpage, it's true. The evidence I have provided draws from the investigations made by the people who were actually at the site, investigating it.

Again, my evidence is just as good as yours...labeling people as 'truthers' and implying it is madness is a projection of your argument and rationale.

See, that's the whole point...You have provided nothing that substantiates the claim that Rumsfeld was wrong, bar the hand wave.

The evidence I have provided shows that he was wrong. Do you have any comment as to the odd behaviour you show when you trust Rumsfeld as infallible when you believe he is blowing the lid on the conspiracy he's involved in, and you don't trust him otherwise?

You have provided no evidence proving he is wrong....none whatsoever.

Well...what did? You have provided nothing in explanation, I note....

The evidence I have provided that you hand waved without any reason given explains this, as does Jumbo's post above yours.

No, it doesn't. You have provided FUCK ALL of verifiable substance, except your usual inference of insanity directed at those who would have opinion countering your own...I've yet to examine Jumbo's..hopefully (s)he will provide something worthwhile

[Galaxian]

Again consistent with simple physics. Small items can get thrown further and really small things get blown on the wind....
....2000 ft is not far for the engine to travel (300 yards) Again the energy involved with the impact was considerable. Its nothing to do with wind in this case its simply the momentum of the impact being transferred to the engine.

Go, & join Moridin at the back of the class! NOW! Stay there & cram up on your physics & maths before disgracing this thread again.
a) Small objects have a greater proportional resistance when traveling through a fluid. That is because surface area is directly proportional to the SQUARE of linear dimensions, whereas volume or mass is directly proportional to the CUBE of the linear dimensions. THAT is why small fish can't swim as fast as larger fish, and small birds can't fly as fast as large birds.

b) 2000 feet is 2000/3 = 667 yards (to 3 sig fig). It's a bloody long way for an engine to bounce from vertical descent. And vertical is what the evidence indicates......Care to look at the very restricted ground damage? Or is the official mantra sweet enough? Why don't you lot go back to comics such as "Popular Mechanics", "9/11 Commission" & NIST. There are deceivers, & those ready EAGER to be deceived.

[Galaxian]

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

Seriously? Do you think we're trying to tell you the wind blew the engine away from the airplane?

I wouldn't put anything past you. After all, you admitted you can't even multiply yards by 3 to get feet! [/quote
I can, but I had to look it up and I couldn't be bothered to. In my country, we use the metric system. Thanks for the pathetic attempt at an insult though.

No, not an insult. A FACTUAL statement which you've compounded by admitting YOU "COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO". And it is on that basis that you attack us??? What does it say about your thirst for truth?

[aspire1670]

HAHA! A 15 mph wind blowing a quarter tonne engine for a quarter of a mile.....Hardly...

Seriously? Do you think we're trying to tell you the wind blew the engine away from the airplane?

I wouldn't put anything past you. After all, you admitted you can't even multiply yards by 3 to get feet! [/quote
I can, but I had to look it up and I couldn't be bothered to. In my country, we use the metric system. Thanks for the pathetic attempt at an insult though.

No, not an insult. A FACTUAL statement which you've compounded by admitting YOU "COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO". And it is on that basis that you attack us??? What does it say about your thirst for truth?

Oh noes, still no evidence for a controlled explosion but at least you could be bothered to give us some more hand waving.

[uke2se]

Yes, there were reasons provided...

I have given you two opportunities to point out where those reasons were listed. You have failed to do so. Will three times be a charm?

Who are you calling a 'truther'? I've provided a definiton (above) and I wholly dislike being described as such. Stop it.

I thought that was what you guys called yourselves. Ok, conspiracy theorist then.

A quarter ton engine found 2,000 feet away is not lightweight for a plane that came straight down.

Evidence has been provided that show that the plane did not come straight down. The engine was not found 2000 feet away, but rather 300 yards (approximately 900 feet?). Also, you fail once again to back up why the engine could not have wound up where it was.

I've provided several links...you need to be specific...and you have failed to be in any way specific, thus far...we just went throught this.

Yes, we just went through this. I provided my interpretation of the article you provided, explaining why I saw no reasons for dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article. You responded by starting talking about the 911 commission report - a complete non sequitur. I have provided you two previous opportunities to actually point out where in your links reasons are provided for the dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article. Please do so now, or drop the subject.

..And I have supplied reasons for hand-waving. You haven't bar implying that anybody who doesn't believe you is mad (truther). Playing to the audience, I think they call it...'grandstanding'.

Again, please provide these "reasons". Try not to go off on a tangent about the 911 commission report while you do so. Note, I want quotes, not links. We have already established that our interpretation of your links differ, so I want quotes instead.

Popular mechainics and the criticisms behind its unreliable rationale have been provided...do keep up.

No, it hasn't, despite me asking for it three times including this post.

Eye witness accounts;

Vertical Plunge
Virtually all eyewitnesses to Flight 93's crash reported that the plane plunged straight down after making erratic movements. The two accounts in this section and several in the following section are examples.

"When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," said Tom Fritz, 63. Fritz was sitting on his porch on Lambertsville Road, about a quarter mile from the crash site, when he heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. 1

A few miles north of Lambertsville, yard man Terry Butler, 40, was toiling away at Stoystown Auto Wreckers.

...

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." 2

http://tinyurl.com/27fnekv


..Don't tell me....the eyewitnesses were mad 'truthers', planted in the general public in anticipation of the impending disaster...

I'm not going to tell you any such thing. I'm simply going to tell you that:

1. They could have been mistaken.
2. They could have been embellishing.
3. They could have been in shock.

Eyewitness accounts only go so far. When it comes to technical details, such as the angle of descent for the plane, we normally rely more heavily on technical investigations, such as that Jumbo provided.

Evidence sorely lacking on your part, bar the usual lame inference of madness.

Evidence has been provided, but you refuse to look at it. This is normally called denial.

Rebutted already...see above. My evidence is just as valid as yours, unless and until you prove otherwise....And without the childish accusation of being a 'truther', which seems to be the crutch you rely on....

My evidence is actual evidence: a technical evaluation of the crash site by people who were there. Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, merely speculations by a truther who wasn't there.

Again, my evidence is just as good as yours...labeling people as 'truthers' and implying it is madness is a projection of your argument and rationale.

My evidence is actual evidence: a technical evaluation of the crash site by people who were there. Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, merely speculations by a truther who wasn't there.

You have provided no evidence proving he is wrong....none whatsoever.

I have, but you refuse to look at it.

No, it doesn't. You have provided FUCK ALL of verifiable substance, except your usual inference of insanity directed at those who would have opinion countering your own...I've yet to examine Jumbo's..hopefully (s)he will provide something worthwhile

I have provided evidence, but you refuse to look at it. My evidence is actually verifiable, as it is based on official reports done by trained professionals that were on the crash site. Your "evidence" is based on what some guy could make up while sitting in his mother's basement. There's a clear quality difference there.

[uke2se]

No, not an insult. A FACTUAL statement which you've compounded by admitting YOU "COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO". And it is on that basis that you attack us??? What does it say about your thirst for truth?

I don't believe I have ever attacked you for being unfamiliar with the metric system. I would ask you to provide evidence of such or kindly retract your statement.

[Morien]

I'm one of those people who, before encountering this thread, had no real awareness of the nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I knew they existed of course, but had never looked into them in any way. This thread stimulated my interest, so I took the advice of all "sides" and spend some time looking at the various claims and the evidence for or against them, and also considering the "official" explaination.

I thought it might be interesting (to some) to share my conclusions; the conclusions of someone with no pre-conceived ideas about the issue.

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: there is no issue. Each and every CT appears to have little or no evidential basis and relies on rumour, assertion and innuendo. Even those areas where, on the surface, there may seem to be some doubt (e.g. the dust contents) only appear that way because they are taken independent of their context. I honestly don't see where the debate is and I marvel at the fact this is still even being discussed 9 years later. Sure, there may be some gaps, but each and evey one, as far as I can see, is irrelevant to the wider (and crucial) conclusions.

I realise of course that America has its share of anti-government paranoia, but I'm amazed this seems to have spread around the globe so easily.

This 'anti-government paranoia' as you so delicately label it, is shared by filly 1/2 of mankind, by estimates;

If public opinion, worldwide, is anything to go by then pretty much every other person is "A crazy person who believes the US government committed 9/11".

On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.

http://tinyurl.com/24p8sve

Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.

http://tinyurl.com/yts3d7

Quite frankly, rather than continue this pointless circular debate (the CT'ers positions are seemingly unfalsifiable to them, so attempts at persuasion seem fruitless), I would think a far more interesting discussion would be on the psychology of such people and why such myths are so popular and passionately held. A new thread perhaps?

Not a circular debate, far from it. What has been revealed is an utter lack of substance to the official explanation, as confirmed by the doubts expressed by every other person out there...not the 'mad minority' as some on these boards would inanely imply by rote when short of substance to counter....

[uke2se]

This 'anti-government paranoia' as you so delicately label it, is shared by filly 1/2 of mankind, by estimates;

Thats either a lie or gross embellishment of the truth given the actual contents of your links. It would be more correct to say that close to half the population believe the official story, while the rest either aren't sure or have different theories about who was responsible. The polls also do not take into account the fact that Muslim countries have a lot to gain from spreading conspiracy theories about 9/11, as it removes guilt from their brothers in faith. This is obvious by the national breakdown.

Note also that the world wide poll is made in 2008, and the other in 2006. It would be more interesting to see how it is today, after the thermite crap has been shown to be false, and NIST has released their report. Trutherism is dying, as is evident by their stale old arguments.

It should also be said that half of humanity is below average intelligence. Do with that fact what you will.

[Jumbo]

Again consistent with simple physics. Small items can get thrown further and really small things get blown on the wind....
....2000 ft is not far for the engine to travel (300 yards) Again the energy involved with the impact was considerable. Its nothing to do with wind in this case its simply the momentum of the impact being transferred to the engine.

Go, & join Moridin at the back of the class! NOW! Stay there & cram up on your physics & maths before disgracing this thread again.
a) Small objects have a greater proportional resistance when traveling through a fluid. That is because surface area is directly proportional to the SQUARE of linear dimensions, whereas volume or mass is directly proportional to the CUBE of the linear dimensions. THAT is why small fish can't swim as fast as larger fish, and small birds can't fly as fast as large birds.

b) 2000 feet is 2000/3 = 667 yards (to 3 sig fig). It's a bloody long way for an engine to bounce from vertical descent. And vertical is what the evidence indicates......Care to look at the very restricted ground damage? Or is the official mantra sweet enough? Why don't you lot go back to comics such as "Popular Mechanics", "9/11 Commission" & NIST. There are deceivers, & those ready EAGER to be deceived.

I do know that the drag is proportional to the area. (Not strictly surface area but the area presented to the fluid in the simplest analysis) And yes the mass is proportional to the volume of the body. You cannot simply say though small = more resistance though. The amount of resistance depends upon the velocity of the fluid and the velocity of the body in motion. The exact geometry of the object and what it presents to the airflow also influences the drag. The drag coeffient is radically different depending upon the exact geometry of the body in motion and the angle of the body to the fluid radically alters the reference area.

The issue is though that the mechanism for distributing the small items and the large in this case are substantially different. The smallest items (low mass) do in many cases travel further because of winds. Thus small bits of debris may be found distant from the crash. The engine though was likely not deposited where it was due to winds. In the case of the engine the wind is virtually irrelevant. Thats one element of why its where it is while other items are not.

You are correct about the yards its 666 Yards. However even given that the velocity of the aircraft and the mass of the engine means it has a very large amount of energy at impact. More than enough to carry it the required distance. As i stated an elastic collision would throw the thing over 3 kilometres back up. Of course its not totally elastic but it gives an idea of the energies involved. 666 feet is not unreasonable for an engine to be thrown in an impact.

As for vertical descent: The NTSB found a 40 degree attitude it seems. The eyewitness statements say things like straight down and the like. A rapid descent whatever the angle is often described as straight down. Also a descent at an angle especially a rapid one can appear straight down depending upon the viewing angle.

[uke2se]

I'm one of those people who, before encountering this thread, had no real awareness of the nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I knew they existed of course, but had never looked into them in any way. This thread stimulated my interest, so I took the advice of all "sides" and spend some time looking at the various claims and the evidence for or against them, and also considering the "official" explaination.

I thought it might be interesting (to some) to share my conclusions; the conclusions of someone with no pre-conceived ideas about the issue.

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: there is no issue. Each and every CT appears to have little or no evidential basis and relies on rumour, assertion and innuendo. Even those areas where, on the surface, there may seem to be some doubt (e.g. the dust contents) only appear that way because they are taken independent of their context. I honestly don't see where the debate is and I marvel at the fact this is still even being discussed 9 years later. Sure, there may be some gaps, but each and evey one, as far as I can see, is irrelevant to the wider (and crucial) conclusions.

I realise of course that America has its share of anti-government paranoia, but I'm amazed this seems to have spread around the globe so easily.

Conspiracy theories are fascinating to many people. It's a way for us to get some excitement into our every day lives. The fact that a few (very few) conspiracy theories have turned out to be true only fuels the fires.

The problem with many of the conspiracy theories today, like trutherism, AGW denial and holocaust denial is that they affect real people. We're not talking about conspiracy theories regarding fluoridation of water. We're talking about stuff that hurts people directly.

Trutherism and holocaust denial hurts people because there is real loss of life involved. Victims of these tragedies want to move on, but some people - for their own selfish reasons - want nothing more than to keep these wounds open for as long as possible. They do so with little to support them in form of evidence, relying rather on cultish methods. These CTers need to be fought at every turn, because they hurt real people.

When it comes to AGW denialists, they hurt even more, but the pain is in the future rather than the past.

Quite frankly, rather than continue this pointless circular debate (the CT'ers positions are seemingly unfalsifiable to them, so attempts at persuasion seem fruitless), I would think a far more interesting discussion would be on the psychology of such people and why such myths are so popular and passionately held. A new thread perhaps?

Feel free to do so. I think there's a forum section about psychology. Be careful not to mention the names of any forum members though, as you would be in breach of the FUA if you did.

[Morien]

Yes, there were reasons provided...

I have given you two opportunities to point out where those reasons were listed. You have failed to do so. Will three times be a charm?

How about you read the thread...come back when you understand it.

Who are you calling a 'truther'? I've provided a definiton (above) and I wholly dislike being described as such. Stop it.

I thought that was what you guys called yourselves. Ok, conspiracy theorist then.

Wrong again. Labels are not your forte, I see. I just see the evidence provided for what it is...a pile of steaming shit, and I want to know what really happened....No conspiracy theory offered, just a thirst for the truth...vive la difference....

A quarter ton engine found 2,000 feet away is not lightweight for a plane that came straight down.

Evidence has been provided that show that the plane did not come straight down. The engine was not found 2000 feet away, but rather 300 yards (approximately 900 feet?). Also, you fail once again to back up why the engine could not have wound up where it was.

No evidence has been provided...try again, I've provided eye witness accounts that state otherwise...you've provided, the usual...fuck all....

I've provided several links...you need to be specific...and you have failed to be in any way specific, thus far...we just went throught this.

Yes, we just went through this. I provided my interpretation of the article you provided, explaining why I saw no reasons for dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article. You responded by starting talking about the 911 commission report - a complete non sequitur. I have provided you two previous opportunities to actually point out where in your links reasons are provided for the dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article. Please do so now, or drop the subject.

Bullshit. I provided reasons for the inadmissibilty of the Popular Mechanics article, you've yet to rebut them...round and round and round and round.....

..And I have supplied reasons for hand-waving. You haven't bar implying that anybody who doesn't believe you is mad (truther). Playing to the audience, I think they call it...'grandstanding'.

Again, please provide these "reasons". Try not to go off on a tangent about the 911 commission report while you do so. Note, I want quotes, not links. We have already established that our interpretation of your links differ, so I want quotes instead.

Read the fucking thread....

Popular mechainics and the criticisms behind its unreliable rationale have been provided...do keep up.

No, it hasn't, despite me asking for it three times including this post.

Yes it has..sorry to shatter your delusions....

Eye witness accounts;

Vertical Plunge
Virtually all eyewitnesses to Flight 93's crash reported that the plane plunged straight down after making erratic movements. The two accounts in this section and several in the following section are examples.

"When it decided to drop, it dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," said Tom Fritz, 63. Fritz was sitting on his porch on Lambertsville Road, about a quarter mile from the crash site, when he heard a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looked up in the sky. 1

A few miles north of Lambertsville, yard man Terry Butler, 40, was toiling away at Stoystown Auto Wreckers.

...

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." 2

http://tinyurl.com/27fnekv

..Don't tell me....the eyewitnesses were mad 'truthers', planted in the general public in anticipation of the impending disaster...

[I'm not going to tell you any such thing. I'm simply going to tell you that:

1. They could have been mistaken.
2. They could have been embellishing.
3. They could have been in shock.

Eyewitness accounts only go so far. When it comes to technical details, such as the angle of descent for the plane, we normally rely more heavily on technical investigations, such as that Jumbo provided.

Yers...just as I prognisticated..they were, of course 'mad truthers' planted as witnesses preemptively.... ...And you prove they were wrong...Everything else is the usual diversionary bullshit.

Evidence sorely lacking on your part, bar the usual lame inference of madness.

Evidence has been provided, but you refuse to look at it. This is normally called denial.

No. It's called the truth...get used to it....

Rebutted already...see above. My evidence is just as valid as yours, unless and until you prove otherwise....And without the childish accusation of being a 'truther', which seems to be the crutch you rely on....

My evidence is actual evidence: a technical evaluation of the crash site by people who were there. Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, merely speculations by a truther who wasn't there.

This just shows you haven't read my evidence...for fuck sake...

Again, my evidence is just as good as yours...labeling people as 'truthers' and implying it is madness is a projection of your argument and rationale.

My evidence is actual evidence: a technical evaluation of the crash site by people who were there. Your "evidence" isn't evidence at all, merely speculations by a truther who wasn't there.

Bullshit...see above.

You have provided no evidence proving he is wrong....none whatsoever.

I have, but you refuse to look at it.[/quote]

That's my line...more projectionary arguments?

No, it doesn't. You have provided FUCK ALL of verifiable substance, except your usual inference of insanity directed at those who would have opinion countering your own...I've yet to examine Jumbo's..hopefully (s)he will provide something worthwhile

I have provided evidence, but you refuse to look at it. My evidence is actually verifiable, as it is based on official reports done by trained professionals that were on the crash site. Your "evidence" is based on what some guy could make up while sitting in his mother's basement. There's a clear quality difference there.

Except you see it isn't made up by a guy sitting in his mother's basement..And there are trained professionals on both sides of the argument..so you can drop that diversionary shit...