Black boxes were found from 77 & 93 and the contents therein documented. Likewise DNA from the passengers.
for "FLT93" the cockpit voice recorder was found ( with questionable data ) & no actual flight data recorder, in the case of "FLT77" the alleged fight data recorder was found but the data is contradictory to other accounts of what allegedly happened, the whole thing is a mess, data is not consistent between what the mainstream media has reported and the alleged flight path indicated by the recording. & as for the DNA, since the perpetrators have been in control of the evidence, its a moot point as to what was found/analyzed, reported .....
Is there any such thing as any truly impartial source? ALL of the people who publish their stuff, have some sort of axe to grind and I'll admit that I have a bias toward the No planes were hijacked on that day - explanation of events. however, any bias that I have, is founded on science, laws of physics & logic. What does the side selling the hijacked airliners story have as foundation for what they think happened?
you say "facts" but what do you really have, any documentation? oh yea .... the authorities have the documentation, and its all SECRET. & you trust these crooks? Remember "if the President does it ..... its not illegal" ( I am not a crook) .... ya, right!
The documentation is NOT 'secret' Phone calls were placed by airline employees from all four jets,people knew who they were,and recognized their voices Your paranoia is running wild now.
So you believe that phone calls, trump the fact that there isn't any hard evidence in the form of aircraft bits, & you accept it as proof that there was a FLT11, FLT175, FLT77, FLT93 . Because people received phone calls allegedly from the aircraft, you totally buy it, that is the story about hijacked airliners used as weapons. really? in the case of "FLT77" & "FLT93" you can't sell me the idea that what was shown in the mainstream media constitutes sufficient evidence to believe an airliner crashed at either location. The pattern of damage + lack of wreckage being clearly inconsistent with the crash of an airliner.
Does one of those calls include one (supposedly) from flight 93, where the son asked, 'this is your son mom' (the need to identify himself to his own mother?), or 'you believe me don't ya' (or some such)? Next time I call my mom, I'll be sure and preface the conversation with those two points (since that is apparently the normal way a son communicate with his mother). - - - Updated - - - Quick question here. Were all of these calls from the on board phones, or were these supposed to be cell phones?
Are you saying his mother lied about it being him? It was she that said that was the way he always started his calls to her. Why are you demonizing the families of the victims?
I know what she said. It's just rather hard to believe. Perhaps she's afraid of the repercussions if she does anything except 'go along' with the story? I think I'll call my mom tonight (just to tell her that it's me calling, and to make sure she believes it's me).
"Hi Mom, it's Tom." What do you find so very unusual about that? Nice job, calling the victim's mother a liar, btw. Just another example of truthers spitting on the dead.
This "spitting on the dead" card gets played far too often and its really not at all what is going on here.
When truthers start accusing the victim's families of being complicit in a cover up, what do you call that?
This is truly twisting things, I refuse to speculate on the victims or alleged victims, its impossible to tell the players without a program, and so far the programs are unavailable. This is why I very much insist on sticking to the physical reality of the events the fact that Shanksville & the Pentagon could not possibly be crash sites for large commercial airliners. and WTC 1, 2 & 7 were controlled demolition. + the fact that "FLT11" "FLT175" were not commercial airliners either. and people will disagree, but the physical reality is what it is. I can't deliver details, & No I'm not even going to speculate as to exactly what kind of explosive may have been used, but the physical evidence points to the fact that the events were NOT the product of hijacked airliners being used as weapons.
Well, that would have been unusual (since his name was Mark but hey, just sayin'..) I didn't call the person a liar. I merely stated that it's pretty unusual and (more likely) a bogus call NOT made to her by her actual son). It is the ultimate gesture of disrespect to insinuate something that isn't true though, I'd agree and I meant no disrespect to the woman. I believe she was fooled, or is too scared to contradict the story, or maybe she is 'mistaken'? - - - Updated - - - How about they are victims families are themselves victims of a sinister and deceitful lie? - - - Updated - - - I think that's supposed to shame one into not questioning the falsehoods?
Major, Major problem here, the allegation that hijacked airliners were used as weapons has NOT been adequately addressed.
