Where was bulk of Flight 93 wreckage *before* cleanup started?

[hoi_polloi]

I thought the subject of Flight 93 was compelling.

Below are aerial photos taken midday on 9/11 before the mass 'cleanup' (of whatever took place there) started.


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200057.html


http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200058.html

Below are snapshots of aerial video taken in the evening on 9/11, also before the 'mass cleanup' started.




Officials claim 95% of the Boeing 757 was recovered after it crashed in the above field.

So ... Where was the alleged bulk of Flight 93's wreckage before the cleanup?

Discuss!

[NowHearThis]

1. Maybe Osama secretly sent a cleanup crew in before the ...

photos were taken - in an effort to embarrass BUSHCO.

[hoi_polloi]

2. that's funny!!

That's some fast working terrorists. Predicting the exact place that Flight 93 *might* fail or get shot down, and then cleaning up in time for anyone to notice.

Nobody in Shanksville saw guys in turbans sneaking away with 80% of the wreckage of a giant passenger jet?

How about 20%? 10?

[LARED]

3. Cool, another no-planer shows up in the dungeon

Is there a no-planer CT'er sign mounted somewhere over DU that attracts them?

[hoi_polloi]

34. Why do you refer to this forum as a dungeon?

And why are ya so quick to put a label on me?

Does that help you avoid answering questions?

If I label you as a ___________, can I avoid acknowledging your non-contribution to the discussion?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Because the beatings will continue until morale improves. n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hoi_polloi]

99. Are you aware of the Nazi origins of that statement? n/t

[LARED]

38. If you are not a no-planer you have my sincere apologies.

If you are... well ..... continue on in your quest.

[hoi_polloi]

100. I don't care what names you want to call me, if it helps you answer my question:

Where is the bulk of Flight 93's wreckage?

[Kalun D]

122. the argument

The proper argument is not that there was no plane. It's that it was blown up midair and crashed in pieces.

Hence the crash site that shows very little debris, nothing like has been ever seen with a large airliner crashing intact.

[SDuderstadt]

123. Oh, Jesus...

which is contradicted by the FDR, the eyewitnesses who saw it intact before it hit the ground and the fact that there was no debris leading up to the crash site. You really need to take a class in critical thinking, dude.

[Kalun D]

125. According to Who?

"which is contradicted by the FDR, the eyewitnesses who saw it intact before it hit the ground"

according to who? some people in the government?

no-one in the government has ever lied?

"and the fact that there was no debris leading up to the crash site"

So if none of the photos of the "crash site" have anything identifiable, then how can you determine it's wind resistance or it's angle of descent? How then do you determine that there should have been a debris field leading up to this "crash site"? What if it's just the site that the first pieces that came down happened to hit?

If the crash site is only this field then why is the government condemning land to form a $58 MILLION dollar 2200 acre memorial site and park?

Whouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to make it the field?

Or is the debris field really 2200 acres in size like a shoot down would suggest?

Government to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial

By DAN NEPHIN – May 7, 2009

PITTSBURGH (AP)

[SDuderstadt]

126. If you're claiming that the local resident witnesses who...

saw the plane intact before it hit the ground are "government", I can't help you. Those critical thinking classes should be sounding better and better to you.

[defendandprotect]

4. The "hole" was also there long before the alleged crash . . .satellite pics . . .

checked by some at DU have shown that --

just as it existed on 9/11--!!!

They probably put a garbage can on fire and threw it in the hole --

tho from what first witnesses say . . . 'THERE WAS NOTHING THERE' . . .!!!

[achtung_circus]

5. "some" again...

got a copy, a link? Anything other than some amorphous unsupported string of words.

[defendandprotect]

6. Don't fear the archives . . . use them -- probably 9/11 --

Personally, I don't have a clue as to how to use the archives. . .

but as I recall, it was a post in 9/11 territory -- sometime this year . . .

maybe 6-8 months ago?

[William Seger]

10. Here's what she's talking about

Beats me what "checked by some at DU" is supposed to mean, since it shouldn't take more than about 3 seconds to figure out that they are not the same "crater." The old strip-mining trench is just about aligned with the trees at the edge of the road that turns into the woods, whereas the UA93 crater is not in the same place at all, and is also much smaller.



Just more D&P silliness.

[hoi_polloi]

30. Ah yes.

Good find. Looks to me like that is an area where drainage ditches are typically dug.

Possibly with a backhoe.

Possibly with a backhoe capable of lifting a medium jet engine.

But who knows? Maybe the engine was plopped in there with a different tool.

[jberryhill]

37. No, it was a strip mine

That is what a strip mine looks like.

[hoi_polloi]

101. So where is the wreckage? n/t

[defendandprotect]

43. That's not it . . .

[SDuderstadt]

46. I see that D&P is...

doing another one of her "drive-bys".

[achtung_circus]

51. perhaps you might assist

by using your knowledge and following the advice you so freely offered to me, viz: "Don't fear the archives . . . use them".

[defendandprotect]

59. It was a joke . . .

When I figure out how to use the archieves here at DU, I will be doing so!

[achtung_circus]

77. rrriiiiggggghhhhtttt......

[SDuderstadt]

79. If it was a "joke", how could anyone tell inasmuch as...

all of D&P's posts are pretty much jokes?

[achtung_circus]

83. I'm still working on that...

:shrug:

no answer, really. :D

[defendandprotect]

85. Right what?

did you read the message or are you just that much out of things?

And, any more meaningless blather like this and you'll be talkin' to yourself,

as far as I'm concerned...

[achtung_circus]

87. So, are you following along,

or did editing your Post #43 cause you to lose your train of thought (sic)?

You referred to satellite pics. I'm interested in seeing them. Any luck, yet?

[defendandprotect]

89. If you read my message . . .

I am not familiar with using the archives at DU -- I'm quite sure that the post

ended up at 9/11 -- but may have begun in General.

I've checked elsewhere, when I have time - found many other things of interest,

but not THE satellite pic I've referred to.

Ah -- a post without insults -- congratulations!!

:)

[NowHearThis]

7. Funny...and sounds about right. Sure as hell wasn't caused...

by an airplane.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. no flight 93

[defendandprotect]

9. Coroner: "as if the plane had stopped and let its passengers off before crashing."

JOHSTOWN AIR FORCE TRAINING FACILITY in CAMBRIA PA!

Wally Miller (the coroner) also said, "I stopped being coronor after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there," and he said that it was as if the plane had stopped and let its passengers off before crashing.

------------

"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.

but it also says the coroner, wally miller, found body parts bits & pieces, scattered over a very wide area of like a square mile and the airforce lab was able to id with dna...hmmm i wouldnt think a plane wreck would scatter debris over a mile.


http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93Somerset.shtml

-----------------

There's an entry in the Complete 9/11 Timeline about Wally Miller and the lack of human remains at the initial crash site in Shanksville. If you click on the link at the end, you'll be able to access some of the source articles.


QUOTE
10:45 a.m.: Coroner Unable to Find Human Remains at Flight 93 Crash Site
Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County, is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. However, he is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He later says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.” The only recognizable body part he sees is a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. He will later tell Australian newspaper The Age, “I’ve seen a lot of highway fatalities where there’s fragmentation. The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven’t, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.” Dave Fox, a former firefighter, also arrives early at the crash scene, but sees just three chunks of human tissue. He says, “You knew there were people there, but you couldn’t see them.” Yet, in the following weeks, hundreds of searchers are able to find about 1,500 scorched human tissue samples, weighing less than 600 pounds—approximately eight percent of the total body mass on Flight 93. Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin, several hundred yards from the crash site.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...=a1045noremains



http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10670

[spoony]

11. Miller says he's been misquoted

or misconstrued:

"I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the manner of death was going to be.

"It was a plane crash, but yet it was a homicide because terrorists had hijacked the plane and killed the passengers."

He says it is technically correct that there were no complete bodies at the crash site, but the recovery operation found many body parts and DNA to identify all the passengers and crew on board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm#8

[NowHearThis]

13. Miller's revision is a real hoot. Was he paid off or just threatened

that he'd better change his tune? Has to be one or the other because he wasn't given any kind of promotion -just PR motion.

[defendandprotect]

22. Other witnesses validate the coroner's original statements . . .

[hack89]

12. Miller spent weeks picking up body parts

so I really don't think he is on your side.

[defendandprotect]

23. Neither are the other witnesses on the side of Miller's "revised" statements . . .

including Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police . . .


"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.

[hack89]

53. Only if you take his comments out of context

read this and tell me he is on your side.

He said every piece of wreckage, whether it was a piece of paper or a body part, was crucial to the investigation because of how much evidence was burned up and lost in the World Trade Center attack earlier.

"It was the busiest day in Pennsylvania State Police history," Monaco said to a room of about 50 various emergency personnel. "We had flight manuals in Arabic, duct taped hands, fingers, toes ... bits of paper everywhere."

http://www.dailymail.com/News/Kanawha/200805080041

And I think these first responders are also not on your side:

"After calling for backup from several area fire companies, King and the other firefighters, who had never responded to an airplane crash, surveyed the scene. None of them was prepared for what they saw. King recalls the paper strewn in the trees and clothing and shoes scattered on the ground. There were no bodies, he says. Just body parts. 'That's when the sheer destruction of the crash really hit home,' he says."


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/sept11stonycreekjan02.p ...

King is also the Assistant Fire Chief of the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department. He was one of the first emergency workers at the scene of the crash.

The morning of the crash, King was watching the events of Sept. 11th unfold on television in disbelief. King called his sister, and as they were talking, she paused and told him that she could hear a low flying jet flying near her house. King knew all planes were ordered out of the sky, but kept in mind that some of the planes were reported missing. Seconds later, the plane hit, the impact shaking the town. King ran to the firehall, jumped into the fire truck with 4 other firefighters and raced off to the crash site.

"I felt it was too coincidental not to be related to what was going on. I didn't think that Shanksville was a target of terrorists attacks, I just didn't know what was going on,' said King. He was not sure what scene to expect at the crash site. When King and his crew arrived, they saw what smoking pieces remained of the plane. “There were small pieces everywhere and small signs of human remains. It was total destruction.”



Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."
"

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ... I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ... the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."


When former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says."

[spoony]

47. It's pretty hopeless, they won't even take the man's own word

Well, not his current word. They use parts of his previous statements, but apparently he's not credible. But he was. Not now though. The lack of logic is astonishing.

[defendandprotect]

21. Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin...? ?????

"Months after 9/11, more remains are found in a secluded cabin, several hundred yards from the crash site."

Wow -- I didn't notice that when I posted it !!!

hmmm....


Did find this, which adds to my suspicions --

When they arrived at the National Press Club, the event started with a blessing from the Rev. Larry Hoover, a Lutheran pastor in Somerset County who also runs a family lumberyard. The choice of Hoover had great local significance. He and his wife, Linda, own eight wooded acres with a secluded cabin that was their weekend retreat and their planned retirement home, along with a sturdy old stone cottage occupied by their 34-year-old son, Barry. But the shock wave from Flight 93, a few hundred yards away, spewed debris through the woods with such force that it blew out all the windows and doors and shook the foundation on Barry's place. It turned the whole Hoover property into a cemetery where human remains were still being found months later.

Larry Hoover is a calm, introspective man who loved his cabin as a place of solace, his friends say. He has been a leading voice in stressing that properly honoring the dead and comforting their survivors takes priority over any local concerns. "His dignity and quiet reserve" and generosity have helped set the tone for Somerset, says Tokar-Ickes, because "if we have any local victims, it's the Hoovers."

Reverend Al, as friends still call him, bought the 100-year-old former Mizpah Evangelical Lutheran Church in January with an $18,000 bank loan. He is stripping off vinyl siding to restore the original church building, and gutting the warehouse interior at an estimated cost up to $40,000 to convert it into a "nondenominational" chapel that will also sell gift items.

His honesty is vouched for by Rick King, a local businessman who is assistant chief of the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department and who drove the first fire truck to arrive on the crash scene.

That's a little more than half way down at this link ...

http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93Somerset.shtml

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Theobald]

14. When in doubt....make shit up.

The first two photos were not taken midday on 9/11. Go to this site and look at the Shanksville pictures from 9/11 and you can see that the above referenced pictures could not have been taken on 9/11 http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/World_Trade_001.html, but facts don't matter to people such as yourself, so why should I be suprised.

[hoi_polloi]

31. So you acknowledge the official discrepancy

When do you suppose these photos were taken, sir or madam?

[Theobald]

40. You are the one claiming that these pictures were taken on 9/11

you and no one else. Please show us where these pictures are sourced as being taken on 9/11.

[hoi_polloi]

95. um ... try the United States Eastern District Court of Virginia?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200060.html

They describe this is "the scene ... where Flight 93 crashed"

Now, why would they use the same wording for "the scene ... where Flight 93 crashed" for evidence of both the alleged crash itself and the alleged evidence of the "crash remains?"

I ask again, how can they?

[Theobald]

105. You stated that the pictures were taken on 9/11

To prove your point you link to a picture where the Eastern District of Court of Virginia shows a picture of the flight 93 crash, but no where in the picture does it state when the picture was taken. You have provided no evidence that the pictures were taken on 9/11; not one scintilla, not one iota, nothing.

hoi "Now, why would they use the same wording for "the scene ... where Flight 93 crashed" for evidence of both the alleged crash itself and the alleged evidence of the "crash remains?"

I ask again, how can they?"

What does that have to do with your claim that the photos were taken on 9/11? It has nothing to do with it.

[hoi_polloi]

107. I just demonstrated that the pictures were taken on or after

But not before.

'Now, why would they use the same wording for "the scene ... where Flight 93 crashed" for evidence of both the alleged crash itself and the alleged evidence of the "crash remains?'

Unless you are saying there were 9/11 crash remains .... before 9/11? That would definitely prove my point.

[Theobald]

15. And then to top it off you have the audacity to claim

that the snapshots of the video you proffered were taken on the evening of September 11th when an even a casual glance at the snapshots would lead one to believe that they couldn't possibly be taken on September 11th. Where are all the people, all the vehicles, all the tents, all the shit that was all around the site on September 11th? If it's not there then the video could not have been taken on September 11th. So again you are just making shit up.

[NowHearThis]

16. Besides all that, there's no PLANE there.

Makes you wonder why the perps didn't just insert a cartoon crash into the scene like they did with the WTC videos.

[Theobald]

18. Where is the logic? The reasoning? The Intelligence?

Hoi proffers pictures that he or she claims are from September 11th and asks where are the planes. I provide evidence which shows the pictures Hoi has posted are not from September 11th. Somehow this brings you to spout nonsense about cartoon crashes and WTC videos?

[hoi_polloi]

33. I turn the questions on you.

You have provided no evidence that the pictures are not from September 11th. Instead, you have provided more evidence that the official story cannot be true.

Television fakery is not nonsense; it is a well-practiced information system of our present civil war - a war against the very things you cannot find in perfectly reasonable, logical and intelligent questions.

Questions you cannot answer.

[Theobald]

41. You see dead people.....

and aliens, and chemtrails, and elvis, and just about anything else your synapsis fire up at any given moment.

I made statements which contend why they can't be from 9/11; do you care to address them?
How is making a statement that the pictures are not from 9/11 provide evidence that the official story is not true?
I did not say telivision fakery was nonsense. However your jabbering is complete nonsense.

[MrMickeysMom]

93. As opposed to...

your not answering anyones' question.

What a hoot!

[hoi_polloi]

32. Wow, I must be busy to make all that up.

Do I work for the History Channel, as well?

[snooper2]

17. I think it decelerated very fast coming down...

We have proof it was shot down right. When you shoot a plane down it decelerates faster than free-fall and parts literally burnt away due to the air friction. Kind of like a comet coming in...

[NowHearThis]

19. Maybe that phenonenom also explains the Pentagon mystery

Coming soon to a post near you - a new and improved theory about "the plane" that crashed at the Pentagon w/out leaving a trace.

[snooper2]

20. Oh, the Pentagon is an easy one...

Just a bunch of paint on the side and some dry ice




After all these years you haven't figured it out yet :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hoi_polloi]

28. so Flight 93 was in orbit above planet earth?

... and it burned up on re-entry?

That's a new one. I *WISH* that was the official story. Then it might be more believable.

[defendandprotect]

24. Coroner: "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and..." ---

Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11.
He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says,

"like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."

Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says,
Immediately after the crash, the seeming absence of human remains led the mind of coroner Wally Miller to a surreal fantasy:
that Flight 93 had somehow stopped in mid-flight and discharged all of its passengers before crashing.
"There was just nothing visible," he says. "It was the strangest feeling."It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part.

[NowHearThis]

26. Good work, d&d - even if it does make the work of Untruthers...

that much harder.

[achtung_circus]

27. Merriam-Webster

Immediately after the crash, the seeming absence of human remains led the mind of coroner Wally Miller to a surreal fantasy:
that Flight 93 had somehow stopped in mid-flight and discharged all of its passengers before crashing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surreal">SURREAL

[hoi_polloi]

29. Interesting testimony

... and from someone who might be considered somewhat credible. But let's pretend that conspiracy created by rogue agents within a complex government would be more careful than that ... Let's pretend they would want to control everything that was said or heard.

Where is the actual evidence for the wreckage???

[defendandprotect]

35. There is no such thing as a perfect crime . . . that's why the cover-ups are so essential --!!!

[NowHearThis]

39. Well, you see, it's like this. There is no actual evidence...

but that doesn't mean it COULDN'T have happened. Besides, you haven't provided any proof that there is no actual wreckage.
Maybe the parts that didn't burn up on re-entry went so far into the ground that the Diggers gave up hope of ever finding
any evidence that an airliner crashed there. Remember, it wasn't a 747, so there wouldn't have been as much wreckage as
there would have been if "the plane" had been a great big 747.

Maybe some evidence will turn up in a nearby barn or abandoned shack. Stay tuned.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. no actual evidence

I take it you have looked at the pics from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial?

[NowHearThis]

68. What do they show, v_v?

nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. holy shit are you a child?

or just fucking lazy?

[NowHearThis]

73. Spit it out, v_v -- what do they show?

nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. Heartbeat away

from reporting you as a troll. As I am starting to think you are just posting bullshit to string posters along.

[hoi_polloi]

96. What do the trial pictures show?

As I have said, this is supposed to be the scene of the crash.

So where did the wreckage go?

[vincent_vega_lives]

115. Wreckage, bodies

And the wreckage was returned to United Airlines when the FBI completed their investigation. Ask Them.

[hoi_polloi]

118. So, the pictures of bodies and wreckage were taken when? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

127. During the crash recovery / investigation (n/t)

[MrMickeysMom]

94. Oh, I'm sure you're going to be told...

... it's all "gibberish"

[Old and In the Way]

42. So where's the wreckage now?

When Flight 800 went down, they reassembled it....wouldn't there have been interest to know if a bomb or missle brought 93 down? They spent all that time and effort recovering the plane...where did the parts go? I've read somewhere that the parts are in a vault in Iron Mountain...if not, what did the government do with the wreckage?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. They recovered the flight data recorder. A missile or bomb strike would have easily been seen

in that data. The FDR shows that the only thing wrong with Flight 93 was the direction it was going and the speed with which it was getting there.

The hijackers ditched the plane.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Not only that, but if 93 was destroyed by a bomb we would have...

have seen a debris trail leading UP to the crash site. That's just one of ways we know it wasn't bombed or shot down. We can be glad truthers don't help police try to solve crimes. I'm sure they'd exasperate the cops will all their goofy questions.

Truther: "How do you know the victim wasn't poisoned?". Cop: "I'm pretty sure the bullet hole in the forehead is a dead giveaway.".

[Old and In the Way]

48. OK...so neither of you guys can answer my question.

Thanks, I already knew what the official version of the 93 crash event is, but I'm curious what the government did with the wreckage. Same with 77...where's that wreckage? State secret?

[SDuderstadt]

50. i believe it was returned to united...

does that help?

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. Returned to United

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html

SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds.

[NowHearThis]

54. Either Penn. St. Police lied, CNN lied, or BUSHCO lied

v_v quotes CNN:

"Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds."

"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.


I'm sure a good lie will clear up this minor discrepancy and that we'll see it right here as soon as the Untruther brigrade
returns from their morning briefing. Yoo-hoo: Poison girls, we're waiting.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. No one lied

The engine was some distance from the crash site, and was found later. The fuselage section is well documented and pics are available on the interwebs if you look. The SP Captain wasn't lying, he just haden't seen them.

[NowHearThis]

57. They were the gang that couldn't keep their stories straight

The Penn. St. Police didn't report finding a 6' long piece of wreckage. The coroner didn't see it, either. Neither did anyone
else report seeing it. You said the fuselage section is "well-documented" and I presume that means it is well-documented
planted evidence.

The engine story sounds like a replay of the WTC2 engine story: Planted evidence.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Of course

Lack of evidence means no plane.

Any evidence of a plane means the evidence was planted which means no plane.

With that line of reasoning why bother asking questions at all? It's foolproof.

[NowHearThis]

64. Do you have any proof that 95% of "the plane" was recovered?

If so, kindly provide it. If you would be so kind, I think many of us would also be curious to see photographic evidence of the recovery process. I'd be curious to know how deep down in that little blown-out area a virtually entire airliner was so dug in
that no one knew it was there.


"Oh dear, what can the matter be, seven old ladies were locked in the lavatory. They were there from Tuesday til Saturday,
and nobody knew they were there."

In the words of a great conspiracy researcher who has now moved on to more esoteric interests: "FL93 - wherdy go?"

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. What kind of proof would you accept...seriously?

Since the FBI is the source of the claim I am sure they have photographic evidence of their investigation. Though I doubt they would share any of it with you.

Since United Airlines accepted all the (95%) wreckage back I am confident they are holding it somewhere in one of their hangers, most likley until someone decides what to do with it. I hope they eventually put some of it on display as a memorial, and not just scrap it.

I bet if you wrote them a nice lil letter they just might respond.

[NowHearThis]

66. In other words, you can't prove your claims.

Thanks for playing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. You are sadly mistaken

I have no claims to prove sir. YOU are the one's making claims that I have posted a reference that refutes YOUR claims.

Sorry if you are confused.

I take it you have no intrest in taking the subject further by writing to United Airlines?

[hoi_polloi]

97. Actually, United Airlines refuses to release a passenger list

Because there were no passengers on the fictional airplane.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Well, so much for your stupid claim...

you could save yourself a ton of embarrassment by doing some fucking research before spouting absolute nonsense...

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,1442,10454-1,00.html

[hoi_polloi]

108. I am embarrassed for you

Since that is a *partial* passenger list that everyone knows about, the fact that you assumed I didn't see that coming makes you not just a poor researcher, but a pitiable one.

How about this story, mister researcher?

http://sowtp.org/The_Facts_Of_September_11_2001_United_Airlines_Refuses_To_Release_Updated_Passengers_And_Crew_List.htm

There are many like it, where UA continues to block investigation.

Now let's get back on topic: where is this alleged wreckage?

[SDuderstadt]

112. Oh, for the love of god...

are you serious? Did you notice the date on the "partial list" UA provided? Do you think that means they didn't provide a more detailed list as more information became available? Your contention was that they provided no passenger list whatsoever, which is a demonstrably false claim, as shown by the initial partial list released. To "prove" your claim, you submit some goofy request from some CT website which purports to prove that "UA is obstructing the investigation" with a goofy title, "United Airlines Refuses to Release Updated Passenger & Crew Lists". Wtf?

For example, here's the complete list for AA 11. I'm sure if you'd bother to actually look, you can find the manifests for the other three flights from that day. Simple question: Are you a "no-planer"?


http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_11_manifest.html

ETA: Link to image of complete manifest for UA 93:

here's the link to the image of the complete manifest for UA 93:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Fligh...

Go down to the bottom of the page to the "documents" section and click on the "full manifest" images.

[Kalun D]

119. Passenger Lists

But isn't this as you describe a "victims list"?

And it's presented on 9-12?

How and why did the airline leave out the 4 hijackers?

How did the FBI conduct a conclusive investigation and indict try and convict these terrorists in one day?

Where are the ORIGINAL flight manifests from the airlines?

[SDuderstadt]

120. Dude....

we've shown you the passenger manifests over and over. You just want to pretend we haven't. This is the last time.

Go to this page and scroll down until you see the link to the JPEG's of the manifests:

http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

[SDuderstadt]

113. What bullshit....

here's the link to the image of the complete manifest for UA 93:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_93#Phone_calls

Go down to the bottom of the page to the "documents" section and click on the "full manifest" images.

As usual, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. Now, will you disavow or withdraw your goofy claim?

[Kalun D]

121. Myths lists

The lists you post are on a biased site called 911 myths

what about the airlines lists? You know, the ones that are on an actual airlines web site, or a credible mainstream news agency dated 9-12?

how did the airlines know on 9-12 who the 19 were, so they could exclude them?

If they got the names from the FBI, how did the FBI know on 9-12 who the 19 were?

[SDuderstadt]

124. 9/11 myths is biased why?

Because it disagrees with your goofy claims? And why would you expect to see the passenger manifest on the AA/UA websites? Do you think they regularly post their passenger manifests there? Do you think a little detail like customer security might enter in? Are you honestly claiming those are not the passenger manifests?

As far as your suggestion that the hijackers were indentified too quickly, I think the eyewitness accounts of the passengers, combined with the process of elimination worked pretty well. Diehard "truthers" like you will never be convinced of anything. I'm not going to keep trying to reason with you, dude.

[hoi_polloi]

102. I would accept proof that doesn't contradict science

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. You mean YOUR concept of "science" (n/t)

[hoi_polloi]

Yes, that is pretty much what I mean. Science.

[hoi_polloi]

117. Yes, that is pretty much what I mean. Science.

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. I seriously question your understanding of the concept (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

72. "Truther Logic"...

every search team member saw every piece of debris.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Unfuckingbelievable...

Are you pretending Monaco's was made at the end of the search operations. Or, are you dishonestly using a prior statement to supposedly debunk a later reality?

I can play that game too. I could note that there was no damage to the Pentagon on 9/10. so that "proves" there couldn't be any on 9/11. This is just more of your bullshit game-playing.

[NowHearThis]

74. Yes, the contradictions are unbelievable

Glad to know you acknowledge it. Why'd it take you so long?

[SDuderstadt]

76. Your bullshit attempts to pretend I'm agreeing with you don't work, dude...

you keep getting challenged for proof and, as usual, keep folding.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Again, how hard you must work to miss the point.

Your question had to do with whether a bomb or missile brought down Flight 93. I answered that question. You pretend otherwise. The same old games from an old player.

[Old and In the Way]

78. No, I asked where the wreckage went. See the subject line.

I made a remark in my post as to why I would have expected the plane to be reconstituted. Why did the plane crash? Bomb, missle, or human intent? Without reassembling, the conclusion is speculation that simply reaffirms the official conspiracy theory. No need to insult, Bolo.

[SDuderstadt]

80. As I said before, one does not need to "reconstitute" the plane...

when there is no reason to suspect a bomb or missile. A bomb or a missile would have left unmistakable evidence.

[Old and In the Way]

82. You make the rules now?

"A bomb or a missile would have left unmistakable evidence." Yeah, but only if you really want to find the evidence. But I guess if you don't have a plane, it's damn hard to investigate in the 1st place.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. And you asked about the wreckage and reassembling it to eliminate a bomb or a missile

And the wreckage (i.e. the FDR) shows that there was no bomb or missile. So your point about reassembling the wreckage is moot, which makes your desire to know where the wreckage is moot.

Again, how hard you work to miss the point.

[NowHearThis]

86. How could they reconstitute a non-existent crashed plane?

Maybe that explains why. Despite the fact that it was claimed that 95% of "the plane" was recovered. BTW - do you know of
ANY evidence or even claims of people who said they saw large trucks entering and leaving the "crash" scene?

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. No problem because the FDR was faked anyway

doncha know?

No FDR? No plane.

FDR found? Planted.

FDR Data agrees with "official story"? FDR data faked.

Its a perfectly incontestable theory!

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. FBI ends site work, says no bomb used

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp

Tuesday, September 25, 2001

By Tom Gibb, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

STONYCREEK, Pa. -- The FBI said yesterday that it has finished its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 after recovering about 95 percent of the downed airliner and concluding that explosives were not responsible for bringing it down.

[NowHearThis]

58. FBI has no shame?

"The FBI said yesterday that it has finished its work at the crash scene of United Flight 93 after recovering about 95 percent of the downed airliner and concluding that explosives were not responsible for bringing it down."


95% recovered? B.S.
You telling me that 95% of it was recovered from underground? Or, did those evil Muslims play a trick and use
some kind of Muslim cloaking technology which made it impossible for even trained observers to see any wreckage until a few pieces
were miraculously "found" somewhere away from the alleged crash scene.

What a ridiculous pile of disinformation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Good god

WHY in God's name would the FBI make that up? Why not 100% found? Why give a percentage at all? Why make the crash scene so confusing to the average internets invest-o-gator and avoid any suspicion at all?

This is fucking idiotic.

[hoi_polloi]

103. The FBI constantly contradicts their story

But when our story remains consistent and undebunkable, it's seen as "coincidences."

Interesting double-standard, isn't it?

Where is that wreckage?

[Old and In the Way]

81. Was this the same agency that stopped their field offices from thwarting

the attacks? Is this the same agency who couldn't stop 9/11, but had the case solved within 24 hours?

2 weeks....what a joke How many months did it take to find the cause for TWA Flight 800? It took the FBI 4 months to conclude their investigation. Probably spent less than a week on 93.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

While investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) traveled to the scene, arriving the following day, much initial speculation centered on the crash being a terrorist attack.<2><3> Consequently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated a parallel investigation into the crash. On November 18, 1997, it announced that no evidence had been found of a criminal act and the NTSB assumed sole control on the investigation.<4>

The NTSB investigation ended with the adoption of its final report on August 23, 2000. In it they concluded that the probable cause of the accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank, most likely as a result of faulty wiring.

<>

But, hey, if you want to start an illegal war, no reason to slow walk an investigation.

[Ohio Joe]

88. Ruling out one cause is not calling it case solved - nt

[aldo]

90. So a plane just sank into that soil?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, bwa, ha, ha, bwa, ha, ha. Oh, that's rich.

[Subdivisions]

91. It's happened before:

and...



Oh...ummm...my bad. That's actually a mudhole.


PS: Ever tried to pull your foot out of a mudhole? If you dropped a bowling ball into a 24"-deep mudhole, what would happen? What would happen if you dropped it onto a field of dry soil?

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. What would happen

if you launched a bowling ball into a field of dry soil at 500 mph? Which is btw nearly twice the velocity of a ballistic trajectory.

[hoi_polloi]

98. The official conspiracy theory says the hijackers were overthrown by the conspirators

Which caused Flight 93 to crash.

However, what that very flawed theory cannot account for is how much it is fed by fabricated, unconvincing evidence ... such as the pictures I've posted.

Where is the evidence - in the immediate "aftermath" of the "crash" - for the wreckage, and WHERE DID IT GO?

[Theobald]

106. The pictures you posted are not from 9/11

so they are not from the immediate aftermath of the crash. The Eastern District Court of Virginia doesn't claim they were taken in the immediate aftermath of the crash and the History Channel doesn't claim that they were taken in the immediate aftermath of the crash. Only a fucking idiot would think they pictures were taken in the immediate aftermath of the crash and only a fucking idiot would use them as evidence to show nothing was there in the immediate aftermath of the crash.

[hoi_polloi]

109. They are from another Shanksville plane crash?

So you assert that this is from 9/11 ... but not the aftermath of 9/11.

How is that possible, sir?

[hoi_polloi]

110. SO I GUESS WE CAN CALL THIS ONE SOLVED? THERE WAS NO PLANE!

Since after a week, nobody has answered the question once?

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Well, why not?

What did the people who were actually there cleaning up know about it?

[Theobald]

129. No one answered your question because it doesn't make sense

in conjunction with the pictures you proffered.

Here is your question "Where was bulk of Flight 93 wreckage *before* cleanup started?"

And here is your answer: In the ground and scattered around the crash site.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.