cchris874 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

electric: "Well, anything really."You have a lot more to go on for Shanksville than you do Cleveland. But you decide to call that Cleveland article "very good," but ignore the mounds of evidence at Shanksville, like all the witnesses (liars, right?); relatives (lying/fake/or voice tricked with morphing technology, right?); wreckage photos; positive ID's of most pax. Could it all be faked/planted/relatives faked or tricked? OK, anything's possible. But how likely?

cchris874 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

jmh: "Another thing there is no "solid evidence" Well, the evidence is as solid as for most other plane crashes: credible media reports of: DNA IDs for mostpax, confirmed by cnty coroner; the statements of over a dozen people who saw the plane, a few of whom saw it crashing; ATC tapes tracking it there; pax phone calls; wreckage photos. I can site crashes for which less such evidence exists, but is not the subject of conspiracy theories. This is called a double standard in my book.

jmh423 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

cchris-" In order to establish F93 landed in Cleveland, one needs something more akin to solid evidence, for which there is zilch. Another thing there is no "solid evidence" for is that it was indeed UA 93 that crashed in Shanksville. Or that any of the other 3 allegedly hijacked planes were the ones that were used in these murders. Google:"Common Sense Common Ground", By Colonel George Nelson...None of the 4 airliners have been positively identified forensically. Why Not?

electriccarmusic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"one needs something more akin to solid evidence" Like perhaps some plane wreckage, some seats, tail section, maybe burnt grass? Well, anything really.

cchris874 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"I, for one, don't have the answers. I only have questions"You not only ask questions, you call people liar at the drop of a hat, like my 4.6% poll number. You don't seriously discuss the issues you bring up. At least my attempts to do so in the last week have all failed.

cchris874 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"One Of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing".I don't know why that's such a good article. Its entire case is based on assuming two different pieces of information came in at the same time, just because they were in the same article. In order to establish F93 landed in Cleveland, one needs something more akin to solid evidence, for which there is zilch.

electriccarmusic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

brian - After seeing your post at least 10 times I googled the article "One Of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing".Very good article.Byrnie should read it - and the link from there to the Vanity Fair article.

brian78045 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Theres an interesting article on Flight 93 at DNotice (org) titled "One Of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing". It has some new research.

electriccarmusic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ByrnieI think it is meaningless to try and rationalise the debate away on the basis that it couldn't possibly true anyway.Anyone is free to debate the different explanations for the strange events of 911, but this involves finding out what the debate actually is rather than trying to dismiss the whole thing before you even look into it.There are a great many odd or unique events which are supposed to have happened all on the same day. Start with you tube vid : 911 coincidences (part seven)

jmh423 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

byrnie-The ones threatening war these days is not Russia, it is the western zionists led by Israel, UK & the US. The fact that you would even say this is evidence that you know nothing about international affairs that isn't fed directly to you by the US bullshit media. The US is trying to shove NATO right up the Russians asses, after Bush I assured them he wouldn't go East of Germany when the USSR withdrew their forces from all of eastern Europe. The zionazi led US is welching on the deal.