Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All what people? It required only 3 people to collaborate in a coverup (by alleging they received a phone call from the aircraft) out of several hundred. Not a problem. As I already said, you can get 1% of the population to do whatever you want, with a modest enticement. I already answered your third question, too. The government doesn't want us to believe that they placed more value on the west wall of the evacuated White House, than on a plane load of civilians. So all are now thoroughly faced up to.
Come on, challenge me with some hard questions.
Well, so far you have refused to answer EVERY question I've posed to you...like the most OBVIOUS one:
Why would the government cover-up an alleged shoot down of Flight 93 is they'd already confirmed that the order had been given?
So start with answering that one!
Secondly....."all what people"?
Are you daft or just acting like it?
"All those people" refer to the over 23 air phone calls and countless more cellphone calls. ALL THOSE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER END OF THOSE CALLS who lost their loved ones aboard that plane that day.
He loves to bring up all this garbage about jurisprudence and courtrooms.
Well, in ANY courtroom in this nation, with all the incredible amount of reliable and credible evidence, only a complete knuckledragging MORON would believe anything BUT the FACT that Flight #93 was hijacked by terrorists and brought down by those same individuals as a result of the passengers taking matters into their own hands.
The problem with this "theory" is that why wouldn't the government own up to it. There have been mutliple statements made by people from Bush and Cheney to Rice and Rumsfeld that the order had been given and confirmed that if the plane continued to fail to repsond they would have ordered it shot down.
Additionally, they have interviewed the pilot who was the closest to the plane and revealed that the plane was only armed with limited machine gun ammo and no missiles. He would have had to ram the jet to bring it down and has stated that he was prepared to do so.
Since the government and people in charge on that day freely admit they would have ordered the plane brought down and the pilot admits he would have done it if ordered, why cover up what actually happened? This theory is predicated on the government wanting to hide the fact that they shot down a civilian airliner, however, they openly admit they would have if they had to. What's the point of a cover up?
A missile did not bring down the plane, as stated before the wreckage was too localized. A missile would have left wreckage scattered all over the area for a considerable distance.
Well, so far you have refused to answer EVERY question I've posed to you...like the most OBVIOUS one:
.
I answered your last three questions twice already today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Your logic is all wrong, based on the assumption that a living witness must be available. How do lawyers manage to prosecute a murder without witnesses?
They bring in witnesses who can answer questions about various evidentiary items from their own personal observations. "Bill told me Joe left the bar at 10:00" is not admissible evidence that Joe left the bar at 10:00. "I saw Joe leave the bar at 10:00" is admissible. Thanks, but I think I'll go with a specialized legal dictionary, instead of your speculation based on watching courtroom dramas.
The few existing recordings are circumstantial evidence that the passengers were attempting to get into a position to sabotage the aircraft. But none of them prove, or even give hard evidence, that they actually did. Whether the hijackers steered the plane into the ground or whether it was hit by a missile cannot be determined from the transcript.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar
Case C-L-O-S-E-D
You don't get to close threads and announce yourself the winner.
I answered your last three questions twice already today.
They bring in witnesses who can answer questions about various evidentiary items from their own personal observations. "Bill told me Joe left the bar at 10:00" is not admissible evidence that Joe left the bar at 10:00. "I saw Joe leave the bar at 10:00" is admissible. Thanks, but I think I'll go with a specialized legal dictionary, instead of your speculation based on watching courtroom dramas.
"My (relative) called me from the plane and we talked about the passengers getting ready to try and retake the plane from hijackers" would be admissible as evidence that there was a call (corroborated by phone records), and only telling the subject of the call, without specific words.
I did read your post and your references, and I believe I may have been the first to do so, since you have not read them yourself. The radioactive canisters were described as being the size of a car or truck, so they weren't taken home as "nifty house hold items", now were they?
Reading is fun da mental...
From the first link.
protesters carrying banners condemning the "nuclear disaster" handed over a large canister still containing significant traces of uranium to US troops stationed at the plant.
But by the time the site was secured by US troops in May, much within the facility had been carried off by Iraqis.
While I apologize for any reading disorder which caused you to miss he above quote, and for using a citation from Greenpeace perhaps I should have added this one from the San Francisco Chronicle (oh that's right by virtue of the fact that the paper is from San Francisco it must be worse than Greenpeace)
Last month, looters descended on the concrete depths of the nearby Tuweitha Nuclear Research Center, carrying off dozens of barrels filled with toxic waste. Much of the contaminated material landed in village homes, at least for a time.
One of the things that I love about conspiracies is counting up the number of potential conspirators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
We've got eyewitness accounts of the plane flying erratically, flipping-over, and then flying into the ground.
***There are eyewitness accounts that say other things, you choose to ignore them.
That's at the very least 2 investigators to ignore the stores.
Quote:
We've got 3 planes in the area known to have been (a) one military transport 15 miles away (b) one private corporate jet heading into Johnstown (c) one private farmer's plane 45 minutes afterwards which was escorted to land and then questioned and released.
***Those are the three that the investigators (all government agencies) told us about.
Let's say the average military transport has a crew of 5, the corporate jet has 2 and the crop duster another 1 that's 8.
Quote:
We've got phone calls affirming that the passengers were storming the cockpit.
***We've got people who took the calls, and told investigators what they said.
I just give this an arbitrary 5.
Quote:
We've got the voice recorder and flight data recorder also supporting it.
Quote:
***Never out of the hands of US government agencies, who COULD have doctored them.
What do you think another 4-6?
Quote:
We've got no crash investigator finding any evidence of a missile and affirming the crash scene as being consistent with an inverted plane crashing into the ground at high speed.
Quote:
***We've got no crash investigator who was not a US government agent. If it had been shot down and would be covered up, why would an investigator be sent to the scene unless thoroughly vetted to endorse the official story.
[i]
Another 20
What's that some 40 people privy to a coverup? And folks want us to believe that 40 people directly involved in the cover-up, not their superiors or there superiors superiors leaked this information in a government that keep its own emails private. OK.
OK, now that the superfluous junk has run it's course, about Flight #93's demise.....
I believe it's been well established that the narrative most known to the public is the correct one.
We've got eyewitness accounts of the plane flying erratically, flipping-over, and then flying into the ground.
We've got 3 planes in the area known to have been (a) one military transport 15 miles away (b) one private corporate jet heading into Johnstown (c) one private farmer's plane 45 minutes afterwards which was escorted to land and then questioned and released.
We've got phone calls affirming that the passengers were storming the cockpit.
We've got the voice recorder and flight data recorder also supporting it.
We've got no crash investigator finding any evidence of a missile and affirming the crash scene as being consistent with an inverted plane crashing into the ground at high speed.
"My (relative) called me from the plane and we talked about the passengers getting ready to try and retake the plane from hijackers" would be admissible as evidence that there was a call (corroborated by phone records), and only telling the subject of the call, without specific words.
Nope. Hearsay. Not the words of the person who experienced the event whose import is being entered into evidence. The interpretation of the recipient of the call would be hearsay evidence about what was said or alluded to. The phone records would show only that there was a phone call. I can phone you right now and tell you someone is breaking into my house, and there is a phone record to prove that I called. But it's not admissible evidence that a breakin took place, unless I am available for cross-examination, to confirm what I said, and my reliability can be established.
protesters carrying banners condemning the "nuclear disaster" handed over a large canister still containing significant traces of uranium to US troops stationed at the plant.
But by the time the site was secured by US troops in May, much within the facility had been carried off by Iraqis.
While I apologize for any reading disorder which caused you to miss he above quote, and for using a citation from Greenpeace perhaps I should have added this one from the San Francisco Chronicle (oh that's right by virtue of the fact that the paper is from San Francisco it must be worse than Greenpeace)
Last month, looters descended on the concrete depths of the nearby Tuweitha Nuclear Research Center, carrying off dozens of barrels filled with toxic waste. Much of the contaminated material landed in village homes, at least for a time.
Driveling Yours
O.V. Catto
Good God! "Significant traces"??!! Dial 911! Nah. My old glow in the dark luminescent Timex had "significant traces" of uranium. Wasn't "lethal". See? I'm still here.
I think you're right by suggesting that San Fransisco might be just as whacked out as Greenpeace....but really, it would be a toss up. No credibility in either case.
And, of course we both know that toxic waste is not the same as yellowcake. Sort of the difference between dog food and dog doo doo
Ah, well. We're not going to get anywhere with this.
Maybe my drivel comment was a little over the top. I take it back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I take it back.
