But, ultimately, so sad.

I don't think Jarrah was reluctant and I don't think the passengers got that far into the cockpit at the end.

But these are small things. You're right that it's really well done.

I never got the point of that, showing the 'Old europe' guy as someone wanting to appease to the terrorists, especially as there was no evidence it ever happened.

I didn't even remember that from my first viewing. He was fine for expressing the evident misunderstanding of this as a normal hijacking, but trying to give the revolt away was a trope this movie could have done without.

survived totally unscathed.


"Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site"
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00111.html

In any case, airplane crashes are chaotic events, and it's fairly common for light debris such as paper etc. to be thrown clear with the initial explosion and then drift on the winds.

... oh why the hell do I bother presenting a logic explanation to a noplaner.

nowhere does the poster say the bandana didn't come from the plane.
why are you misrepresenting his words?

Yet it still was from the plane? Not understanding his planer logic.

And sorry to get your knickers in a twist.

"In any case, airplane crashes are chaotic events, and it's fairly common for light debris such as paper etc. to be thrown clear with the initial explosion and then drift on the winds."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Now, are you saying the bandana was planted?
And sorry, but my knickers are firmly un-twisted.

I agree.

Some people don't. Yea, it probably was planted.

Thank you for the laugh.

You don't need ridiculous evidence planting expeditions at crash sites. The cell phone calls from the passengers of the hijacked flights would be enough.

The conspiracy planted a kerchief in order to frame 20, 19 of them dead, presumably innocent people.

But now we're being told that the presence of a kerchief is cause for doubting the story presumably based on the presence of a kerchief. In other words, the proof is a refutation of itself. That seems sort of tail-chasing.

it's the most obvious staged evidence of all the planted and staged pieces.

It's common sense to highlight the smoking gun that is giving off the most smoke.

NONE.
It's common sense to believe something you have no evidence for?

Planting involves placing an object at the scene, then pretending to "find" it and then bagging it.

The red bandana is photographed in a sealed bag against a white background indoors somewhere. Looks like they just brought it in to stage it for the photo shoot.

Would PERFECTLY explain its pristine condition. No knicks, cuts, tears, rips, fraying, burns, soiling, or blood stains. All the things you would expect if it came from a plane that had nose-dive crashed going almost 600 mph into the ground, exploding and disintegration into "mostly small pieces."

(1) Why bother to plant or stage a red bandana at all?

(2) If the evidence is only credible if it has "nicks, cuts, tears, rips, fraying, burns, soiling, or blood stains," then why not supply some? It isn't as if all the other exhibits are in "pristine condition."

And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Please link to the report that 4 skulls in red bandanas were recovered at Flight 93's crash site.
Take your time...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2002/09/08/2397001_p2/on-hallowed-ground.html
"But this is where they are. And this is where they will stay.

No bodies were recovered here, at least not as we normally think of bodies. In the cataclysmic violence of the crash, the people on Flight 93 literally disintegrated. Searchers found fragments of bones, small pieces of flesh, a hand. But no bodies.

In the grisly accounting of a jetliner crash, it comes down to pounds: The people on Flight 93 weighed a total of about 7,500 pounds. Miller supervised an intensive effort to gather their remains, some flung hundreds of yards. In the end, just 600 pounds of remains were collected; of these, 250 pounds could be identified by DNA testing and returned to the families of the passengers and crew."

and supposedly one red bandana of assuming 4 red bandanas on the plane, wrapped around four heads, survived the violent fiery explosive crash perfectly intact. How many of the supposed 44 hardened skulls on board were found at the scene?

Can you tell me, from a scientific and/or engineering perspective, what happens when a plane is driven into the ground from a high altitude?

Do you know for sure that the cockpit or cabin does not get ripped apart prior to impact, from the shearing forces of the air going down, throwing the bandana outward, prior to impact with the ground? After all, we have no proof is was on someone's head-it could be on the cabin floor, right?

If such a thing happened, would it not be quite logical the the bandana would float downward and land on the ground?

No skulls were found and that really has nothing to do with the bandana.

before it crashed. The only thing wrong was human-directed, the direction it was flying and the speed it was flying there.

But the evidence also shows that one hijacker was overcome in the back of the plane, a second outside the cockpit, and the last two hijackers were in the cockpit. The bandana could have come from the two outside the cockpit, lost in the struggle, or even left in carry-on luggage if either of the cockpit hijackers never put theirs on.

Small items survive airplane crashes all the time.

and saying "Small items survive airplane crashes all the time." is a very simplistic answer. It's not so much that this red bandana that supposedly was on the plane that supposedly crashed and it survived, the bandana made it out PERFECTLY INTACT from an alleged plane crash that supposedly decimated the entire large plane and all of its reported 44 passengers.

That's were the implausibility starts skyrocketing.

Only those who live in a simplistic world see nothing wrong with it.

Why would it have to be torn or burnt?
Not everything in the world happens the way YOU think it's supposed to happen. That is living in a simplistic world.
You do realize this, right?
Are you saying the crash was faked? Where are the passengers?

At least they tried to make the "recovered" passports and IDs from the alleged crash look realistic:


PA00101 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ID card recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00102 Saudi Arabian Youth Hostel Association ID for Ahmed A. A. Al-Nami recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00103.2 Passport sized photo recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00105.08 Page 37 and part of U.S. Visa page from Ziad Jarrah's Passport recovered at the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00108 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia passport for Saeed A A A Al Ghamdi recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00109 Business card of Assem Jarrah recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


PA00110 Part of Ahmed A A Al Nami's Florida Driver's License recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site


Now the impeccable Red Bandana!


PA00111 Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site

because some aren't as damaged as others.

Did you know that a bunch of items survived the crash of space shuttle COLUMBIA in 2003?
It exploded and broke up at an altitude of 200,000 feet.
But somehow, a dish of worms used in an experiment survived intact.
Guess they must have planted it.
Your logic is what I would expect from a child.

Maybe I should say your comprehension is what one would expect from a child?!

I'm not saying it's impossible cloth and papers survive a devastating plane crash, I'm saying it's extremely suspicious when a piece of cloth survives PERFECTLY INTACT when just about everything else didn't.

Small, light items like this bandanna survive plane crashes intact all the time. If you feel it implausible, then you haven't looked at what survives plane crashes. It's very light, especially when you compare it to its surface area, even folded like this. If chance has it blown out the explosion free of the fire, then it's going to survive if it lands in a place where no fire lands.

It certainly is not implausible enough to give a lie to any of the other evidence of who hijacked and who crashed Flight 93.

Namely: How do you know that the bandana that was recovered was worn at the moment of impact?

We know very little of the circumstances in which the bandana was found, so it's rather silly to begin making any blanket statements about it, let alone starting to guess how it entered the crash situation (as in, was it worn, was it lying in a carry-on bag, was it in a bag or suitcase in the hold?).

crashed at almost 600 mph into a fiery explosive mess that supposedly disintegrated the entire plane, left no bodies or skulls and reduced the 44 passengers to only 8% of their total mass?!

I never asserted that it is impossible that the bandana was planted. But if putting words in my mouth is your best answer, then you don't have much of a case.

This sad clinging to the so-called heroics of the Flt.93 passengers. Films are not real life.

With all the evidence for the attack on the cockpit by the passengers, whether you think it was shot down by the military or not, you think you can call their last act "so-called heroics"?

I prefer it to have a little more artistic merit.

Any other passenger jets ever fly straight into this type of ground at 500mph?

NONE of those craters look ANYTHING like the cartoon crater at Shanksville!

Unless you think Wile E Coyote crashed in Shanksville. lol

You do agree the "real" crater is pretty cartoon-looking, yeah?

I don't.

What other Flight 93 movie are you talking about?

The other movie I think was called "Flight 93." Here's the ending showcasing the cartoon-like crater:

How did you expect the crater to look, and why?

You've seen a plane crash crater like that before? One that also re-filled itself?!

Let's try some Apples to Apples comparisons with other plane crashes into a dirt field, shall we?

If you want to look at other plane crashes into dirt fields, go for it, and we can see how "Apples to Apples" they are. Meanwhile, Bolo answered your question, so we're about to learn something important about you.

I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at.

Why don't you go ahead and list them?
We can go from there.

Not going to waste time with one's that aren't relevant.

Your words..."I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at."
So, list them.
You're not doing the truth movement any favors by ducking and dodging every question.
YOU claim there are differing stories and can't list even ONE?

There can be only ONE "official story." What is it?

"I'm not going to waste time telling you the stories I heard because that would back up the assertion I've heard MANY stories".
Wow, you really know how to back up your assertions.
Man, you are too funny!


BTW, you are really convincing loads of people to your position of what happened to flight 93.
Oh, wait...we don't know your position cuz you are not going to waste our time telling it.

Please stop now cuz my sides are hurting!!!

ETA:more laughter!

First what you needed was my answer about an airplane crater that filled itself in. I gave that after you promised to answer my question about the crater.

And now you're stalling again. Weak sauce.

Really? Seriously?

I'm simply asking for the correct "official" way the plane supposedly crashed and what happened to it afterward.

You know, common sense.

Us specifying the story has no bearing on this. You are simply stalling.

you OS believers will later say that's not how it happened?

I'm simply asking you how it supposedly happened, since I've heard varying explanations, so I know the correct goal post to aim for.

A very prudent question for me to ask.

We shall keep that in mind when speaking to you in the future.

Not sure why it's so difficult for you guys to understand this.

at the start.

You reneged.

you guys going to tell me the correct crash scenario so I know which goal post to aim at? Or are you going to keep whining?

I'm happy to discuss these matters with anyone willing to discuss them, but that's the key: willing to discuss.

All I see you willing to do is drag things out and play silly games. Do as you like, antitsa.

the CORRECT crash version so I know which goal post to aim at?

Pretty simple and prudent request.

Soon as you give me the correct version, I can proceed to answering your question.

Ball's in your court.

In this thread (and the one you deleted), you seem to be asking other people to tell you what it is you don't believe.

It's a concise example of how the notion of an "official story" can impede inquiry into what happened, or even what could have happened. Creative speculation? FTN.

antitsa won't be able to provide further explanations (or whatever) in this thread.

ETA: in case it wasn't obvious, I really liked this: "asking other people to tell you what it is you don't believe."

Did you really expect to get something like "Oh, I now see where I was incorrect" in reply?

Your words..."I've heard differing stories and need to know which goal post to aim at."
So, list them.
You're not doing the truth movement any favors by ducking and dodging every question.
YOU claim there are differing stories and can't list even ONE?
You can take your time...there's no rush.
C'mon, you can do it. What differing stories?

Aren't known for their subtlety. Apparently, there's no theory too wacky for the "crazy Arabs
did it im series11! coz Bush henchmen and DINOs say they did it brigade". Fucking unreal.

what happened to flight 93?
Please, if you could be so kind, to enlighten us all?

A couple of ways to take that statement, antitsa.

1. It didn't crash: the government shot it down.

2. It didn't crash: the site was faked and Flight 93 was flown someplace else where the passengers were disposed of.

Which one are you talking about? If you don't see your option there, please let us in on the details.

Tell us what happened please.

Keep digging, TS, you're almost there! LOL!

Maybe you could spend less time creating threads smearing DUers and a little more time answering questions or backing up claims.
Nah, easier to smear, eh TS?

which is not that it looks too much like a cutout of a plane, but that it doesn't look enough like a cutout of a plane.

I can't say that either assertion seems very well thought out.

Here is one of spooked911's versions.

So you went from thinking I was inventing the argument, to accepting it wholesale, just like that?

You can imagine how that looks to me, yes?

Not well. Not well, at all.

It's about discussing the issues. Let's remember that, shall we?