Um, yeah. That's the point I've been trying to make and pieces able to be "launched" that far have to be weighty, unlike paper or nylon that's light enough to float in the wind. Didn't you see all the "facts" he got wrong that I pointed out? Why are you being dishonest in trying to insinuate that I did that? Why can't skeptics be truthful? For starters, the FDR supposedly said the crash was at 40 degree, not near 90 degrees as that guy contends. For the others, apparently we don't deal with links around here, only "sources." Just ask Hannibal. Then why did you bring it up? Since they go to challenge your "preponderance of evidence," they are very relevant. The only distraction is you trying to make up excuses to avoid answering them. It's a hypothetical. Challenges your logic. No reason to run from it. What would be "credible sources" in your eyes for that?
If you don't question the evidence supporting the theory that 93 was shot down with the same degree of zeal that you question the evidence supporting the official theory you do a great deal to marginalize your own credibility. People often allude to the possibility that 93 was shot down but no one has been able to produce any direct evidence that this actually occurred. An eyewitness who claims to have seen an A-10 is very unconvincing for many reasons. The A-10 has a 'never exceed speed' that is 8 knots slower than a 757-200s cruising speed. Whats more, the cruising speed of an A-10 is ~200 knots slower than the cruising speed of a 757. Ultimately, there are many many reasons why the A-10- a ground attack aircraft- would be ill-suited if not wholly incapable of shooting down flight 93. If people are going to suggest that 93 was shot down perhaps they could produce some evidence that would support how/why this was done. With the way many of you question the official story I would expect that there is a plethera of evidence that supports the shoot down of 93.
I'd be happy for some proof that it was buried, in any percentage, as was claimed by the FBI. Whatever "zeal" I exhibit, the proof of what "officially" happened, shouldn't be this difficult. The "official" BS story is crap. That's really the only thing that IS provable.
Another huff and puff discredited, 'pie in the sky' random hypothesis! What will they think of next - a secret hideout for this plane? But it's a secret hideout isn't it, so I guess we will never know where it is. What a mystery! This mystery could go on as long as the endless J.F. Kennedy assasination theories or, dare I say it, the endless sightings of Elvis.Wow!
Personally, I think that the official accounting of flight 93 is plausible. When I look at pictures of the 'alleged' crash site it appears to me to be consistent with what the gov't alleges happened. I haven't seen evidence to make me think anything other than a 757 impacting the ground occurred at that site. I'm not sure I really understand why it is so difficult to believe that a plane going hundred of miles an hour augured into the ground... Anyone care to enlighten me?
You asked: "Do you have any credible sources to support the crash was staged? " I don't want to bother posting any sources to support my theory that you're not going to find credible, so tell me what kinds of sources will you accept as credible before I post them?
No witness ever claimed that. A reporter twisted Susan McElwain's words of the white wingless aircraft with a rear spoiler with fins on each side of the rear spoiler she saw fly over her van seconds before the alleged crash. In a subsequent interview, she was shown a photo of an A-10 and she said that's not what she saw. She also was shown a photo of a Lear Jet and also said no to seeing that. Say, what was that white wingless aircraft with a rear spoiler with fins on each side of the rear spoiler doing that she saw fly over her van seconds before the alleged crash?
Like I said, do you have ANYTHING that isn't directly attibuted to that vermin's blog as a source of information concerning your "theory" on what happened in Shanksville?
Ya, got that from your last two posts. Didn't need a third post about it. Now if you are done playing games, which sources will you accept as credible?
Who's playing games? I gave you a really wide berth on what could be considered credible on this particular topic: anything not Killtown. Is someone supposed to list every possible credible source on the internet for you? I have no idea where you going to pull stuff from.
Hmm.... I'll admit any site that has to add "for Truth" at the end doesn't instill a lot of confidence in it's objectivity.
You sure about that?... Looks like you changed your toon. Yes. Please give me an example of a source you find credible.
Well if that's all you wanted, I'll give you NAB's favorite site. Btw, got any evidence yet that most of 93 buried? Shouldn't be too hard if most a 757 really did bury.