joeyconrad

Just wanted to say fantastic work (and pimp my wife's project that predated all this since she could not figure out how to get it to fall under the "Restore Truthiness" page)

http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=431242&verify=-1231112521

A big thank you from my wife and her 4th grade class!

edit: I'm sure she'll have more to say tonight when she gets home.

I am one of the "rational" folks who think flight 93 may have been shot down.

The flight ran 45 minutes or so behind the others because of delay.

There may have been a call made from a bathroom indicating an explosion. See this article written by a federal law clerk at the time: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1001/1001flight93.htm This story was initially reported and later disappeared.

It would have been the right thing to do, but wouldn't have gone over well. Much like flying Bush to Nebraska instead of back to DC. And when that happened, the white house initially floated a ridiculous story that plausible threats had been made against Air Force One.

Rumsfeld's strange slip of the tongue saying the terrorists "shot down" 93: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

Evidence that makes me doubt 93 was shot down:

They did finally play the black box recordings to the relatives and release the transcripts.

Pop Mechanics says that seismographs indicated the plane was in tact when it hit the ground.

In Summary, I think that it is possible if the plane was shot down and the calls were made that "THEY" ;) would have been willing to take advantage of the calls' existence to float a more palatable story.

The black box gives me pause, though it is strange it took so long to release its contents.

I don't know if the seismograph refutes a shoot down. I think a jet liner could be damaged by a fighter enough to crash without breaking up. In fact, if the call from the bathroom is real, there was definitely some time between the explosion and losing contact-- so I think it is still plausible.

In the end I think it is about 50/50. I think even a rationalist with a strong skeptical bent should give the theory at least a 5-10% chance of being true. If you give it less than that, you may be blinded by your own biases as much as the "truthers."

dang. I'll let her know she chose the wrong type. We'll happily pony up for the correct memory if it can't be changed and make sure that the card finds a home somewhere in the school system.

But yes, thank you to 40percent for his generosity specifically and to the Reddit community for embracing this!

does Tim Harrod still want to kick your ass?