The Official Flight 93 Crash Story-- the OCTists Dilemma

[spooked911]

The FBI claims that they recovered almost all of Flight 93.

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.


Photos of the scene taken before the clean-up started show relatively little debris lying around.

But it wasn't until a year after 9/11 that the media started reporting that most of UA93 penetrated underground. This explanation would logically explain why not much 757 debris was observed above ground.

However, OCTists have put themselves in quite a dilemma.

First off, OCTists seem split in regards to how much of UA93 was buried underground. Some believe most was buried, while others don't. This is an obvious problem for OCTists because they can't have it both ways.

For the OCTists who don't believe most of the 757 was buried, they've never been able to show where most of the claimed 95% of wreckage was above ground before cleanup.

For the OCTists who do believe that most of the plane had buried as the media and others report, they've never been able to prove that most of a large 757 was dug out of the ground.


They've also never been able to rationally explain why it took almost a year before the media started reporting that most of UA93 had buried, an unprecedented feat for a large airplane that should have made front page news soon after investigators realized that most of UA93 had supposedly buried, especially when it would have been logically assumed that if most of the plane had buried, then most of the passenger remains would most likely be buried along with it too, especially since no bodies or blood was observed above ground.


So OCTists, you can see your dilemma.

First, you need to come to some consensus as to how much of UA93 was allegedly buried.

If your consensus is most of the plane had buried -- an extraordinary feat for a 757 to do -- then you have to show extraordinary evidence to prove most of the 757 had buried -- so far you haven't.

If your consensus is most of the plane did not bury, then you have to show where all that above ground wreckage was that comes close to adding up to an astounding claimed 95% recovered of a 757.

You also have to rationally explain why your consensus is radically different than the media reporting most had buried.

(modified slightly from here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread551893/pg1)

OCTist= official conspiracy theorist

[LARED]

1. More stupid either or arguments.

That's quite the dilemma you've presented. I'm sure the arguments in the OCT'er camps will rage on for years. I'll let you know when it's figured out. :sarcasm:

[90-percent]

2. Question

Haven't there been any other commercial aircraft in recent history that have augered straight in to the ground at 550 mph? If so, how do those crash sites compare with Shanksville? This Flight 93 crash site seems to have consumed the entire plane into the center of the earth?

Is it possible to visit this Flight 93 site nowadays?

-90% Jimmy

[jberryhill]

3. Here's why....

The Shanksville site happens to be an old strip mine.

In other words, all of the ground there has been dug up and replaced - imagine "tilling soil" down to a considerable depth. It's not compacted virgin soil.

Now, take a quarter out of your pocket and head to a beach or sandbox. Throw the quarter forcefully down at the sand. Watch what happens.

[spooked911]

10. it wasn't sand at the crash site

nonetheless, try firing a bullet at the sand and see if it goes in 20-30 feet as was claimed for much of flight 93.

[jberryhill]

24. That's right, spooked, it wasn't sand...

But without getting into your cognitive issues around concrete thinking, your complete lack of any background in physics whatsoever, your inability to reason by analogy or to understand the limits of models or scaling, the point is that it was relatively spongy soil, and not compacted soil.

[travis80]

28. did i read you right, you too believe flight 93 ended up mostly under the surface?

i've never heard such silliness in my life.

[jberryhill]

77. I have no opinion on how much ended up where..

Nor do I believe it matters.

[travis80]

83. i guess to you the only thing that matters is people believe the official story

is that right? screw the facts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. something I've tried to explain before

Obviously I can't speak for jberryhill, but I for one don't believe that a unitary "official story" exists. I think that is a fundamental conceptual error on the part of some anti-"OCTists."

If you are seriously interested in finding out what relevant witnesses and authorities have said about debris from Flight 93, that's fine. Parsing individual sentences in CNN stories can't possibly convey much information. It almost looks like a method for learning as little as possible about the facts.

[travis80]

86. what are the official facts of the event then?

on one hand you are telling us a United Boeing 757 crashed there, then on the other hand you are saying there is not a complete official account of the event.

i guess it's harder to make a field goal when you're moving the goal posts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. huh?

Those two statements aren't remotely in conflict. (I didn't say the first, and didn't exactly say the second, but I will try to work with you on this.)

Ohio State won the Big Ten men's basketball tournament this year, and as far as I know, there isn't a "complete official account" of that event, either. The women's tournament, too, although I didn't get to watch that on TV. Silly me, I guess those games are all faked, anyway.

[travis80]

96. debunkers brag how many people where involved with the Shanksville investigation

how could there not be a precise official story about how much and where all the wreckage was found and recovered?

pick a spot with the goal post and stick with it.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

106. how are your ideas connected?

If anything, the more people who are involved with the investigation, the more stories there should be. Whether any of them should be the "precise official story" is another matter entirely.

pick a spot with the goal post and stick with it.

I haven't moved, and I'm not carrying a goal post. If you are interested in trying to understand what I am saying, I assume that eventually you will.

[travis80]

110. that is just laughable

this was an official investigation with official structure with an official hierarchy. you make it sound like a bunch of people just showed up and did a people's investigation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. no, you're just making stuff up

I said no such thing. You're welcome to make stuff up if you want, but it won't be helpful.

What the FBI spokesman (special agent?) said on that day could reasonably be construed as official. It wouldn't be "the" official story, because other officials could say different things. Another problem is that, as far as I know, we don't know what the spokesman said, only what CNN paraphrased him as saying.

It seems to me that if you were actually interested in this subject, you would have better information about it, perhaps by following up with the FBI and/or United Airlines. If you're not that interested, I certainly don't see why anyone else should be.

[travis80]

119. what am i making up? other news agencies reported the FBI's 95% comment.

* At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.- http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html

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


some of you debunkers are even using that number to try to debunk no plane crash theories.

RKOwens4: "9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found"
"More debris was found at the United 93 crash site than from any other on 9/11.
In total, 95% of the plane was recovered."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivdEGph9A

[SDuderstadt]

121. Read your first quote again, dude....

it doesn't say what you think it does.

The bigger issue is no one except you, Spooked and a few other diehard "no-planers" care what the exact percentage found is. I care even less about what proportion was found aboveground as opposed to underground.

Another typical "no-planer" red herring.

[OnTheOtherHand]

123. my position, for one thing

you make it sound like a bunch of people just showed up and did a people's investigation.

Umm, no.

Moreover, SDuderstadt makes an excellent point. Your first quotation (i.e., paraphrase of Crowley) conveys a different meaning than the second one. Do you not even care? Why do you not even care? :shrug:

[travis80]

124. they all say 95%. even your fellow debunkers RKOwens says 95% in his video

what are you guys yapping about?

[OnTheOtherHand]

126. beg pardon?

Are you for real?

I'll, very much provisionally, take your word about RKOwens, whoever that is.

Both your quotations "say 95%," yes, but the question is: 95% of what?

[travis80]

141. why don't you tell me since i'm not understanding what you're getting at. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

149. "that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines"

That doesn't mean that 95% of the plane has been found. It means that of the plane they found at the site, 95% has been turned over to United Airlines.

So, at least one of the reporters got this wrong. Based on these stories, we can't even tell what the special agent said -- right or wrong.

By the way, I plowed through the YouTube that, I thought, was supposed to show that the plane was stored at Iron Mountain. What the news report actually said is that "the charred evidence from United Flight 93" is there. What does that mean? I don't know. I don't even know if the reporter who read the line knows.

[travis80]

154. are you suggesting 95% of Flight 93 wasn't recovered?

for Iron Mountain, why would any Flight 93 evidence be needed to be stored at a highly secure facility like that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

156. "am I suggesting"?

Umm, OK, sure, if it makes you feel better. I have little basis for an opinion on how much of Flight 93 was recovered. Some but not all reporters paraphrase the special agent as saying that 95% was recovered.

See, if you actually care about questions like this, I don't understand why you don't actually do some research on them beyond (as far as I can tell) a few Google searches. I know why I don't: because I don't expect the answers to matter very much. But over eight years later, you apparently haven't taken the time to establish what the special agent actually said -- never mind what anyone connected in any way with the federal government is saying now. You seem to care, but not enough actually to find out.

This sort of thing happens over, and over, and over again. Why should anyone else care more about your questions than you do?

[travis80]

157. i guess these debunker sites don't care about the accuracy of the 95% comment either

they all think the 95% quote was how much of the plane was recovered. maybe you should have them all retract, right?


United Airlines Flight 93 Timeline
September 24, 2001: "The FBI announced 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."
http://911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_93_Timeline


Mark Roberts
Most of the plane was recovered, examined for signs of explosives by the FBI, and turned over to United Airlines (except for the black boxes, which went to the NTSB).
Bill Crowley FBI: 95% of flight 93 recovered
Flight 93: 95% recovered
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page2


9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories
Section IV: United Flight 93
"95% of the plane was recovered near Shanksville."
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg4.html


911debunker
Flight 93 - An introduction
"You can see from this picture that there appears to be no debris whatsoever, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there's plenty of conspiracy-ness involved with that. Of course, it's not at all true that there is no debris, and in fact, 95% of the plane was recovered. More on that later."
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6019.html


RKOwens4
9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivdEGph9A

[OnTheOtherHand]

160. OK, you're a little bit lost in your head here

If one of these links references verbatim what the special agent said, that would be useful. Otherwise, they are all hearsay about hearsay. They may all be correct. But when the facts matter, sometimes one has to step up and do a little more than search Google. Your actions will make it apparent whether you believe that these facts matter. Indeed, I think they already have.

[travis80]

161. so these debunker sites may be correct, but i have to do the digging?

even though these debunker sites are where i first came upon this 95% claim?

[SDuderstadt]

164. Hint: Yes, dude...

Can you figure out why?

Follow-up hint: Because, other than you and Spooked believes the exact percentage found of the plane or what precise proportion found above vs. below ground makes much difference.

Keep digging, Travis...you're almost there.

[travis80]

165. i called the Flight 93 National Memorial, they said 95% of plane was recovered

i talked to a Wendy.

http://www.nps.gov/flni/contacts.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

166. great, and did they tell you where it is?

Was it turned over to United Airlines (as at least one news story states), did they keep it (as I think you inferred from the YouTube news account), or did they turn some of it over and keep other parts?

Not that the Flight 93 Memorial people necessarily know the answers (official or otherwise), but it's worth a shot.

Good on you for picking up the phone.

[travis80]

168. i didn't ask. only asked about the 95%

why don't you call and ask about that if it's important to you?

are we on an agreement that the official claim is 95% of the plane was recovered?

[SDuderstadt]

167. I just called "Wendy" and...

she doesn't recall talking to you, dude.

Beyond that, no one cares, Travis. Has it ever occurred to you that you're taking the role of heroic rebel and anti-government gadfly just a tad too seriously?

P.S. Why would you call the National Park Service anyhow, dude? Did they conduct the recovery operation? The scary thing about this is you believe your amateurish effort is real detective work. Are you for real, dude?r

[travis80]

169. if anyone doubts the Flight 93 Park reps says 95% of the plane was recovered

feel free to call them yourself and ask them if that is what they say.

http://www.nps.gov/flni/contacts.htm

[SDuderstadt]

170. Omigod, Travis....

can you really not tell when someone is mocking you? The point was who cares what the National Park Service has to say?

Jesus.

[travis80]

172. i'd be surprised if you DIDN'T make an immature response, dude. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. hey, it's something

Of course I agree that relying on the National Park Service for this is a bit like relying on the Postal Service for the identity of Santa Claus -- but it's not implausible that the staff at the memorial would accurately convey whatever information they were given.

And I still say travis deserves some credit for venturing outside the Google zone.

[travis80]

173. thanks otoh, but if you're still not sure about the 95% quote

why don't you call the Pittsburgh FBI office who were in charge of the Shanksville scene?

http://pittsburgh.fbi.gov/contact.htm
business hours are from 8:15 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday


you asked (and kinda mocked) me to make a call to get answers, so now it's time for you to put your money where your mouth is and make a call yourself. i did.

[SDuderstadt]

175. Dude...

you keep missing the point. Who cares what precise percentage was recovered and precisely where it was?

Do you honestly think when people join the FBI, they're asked, "Now, do you want to join the part of the FBI that solves crimes or do you want to join the division that aids and abets false flag ops and helps cover-up mass murder?". Do you really believe that FBI procedures lack the checks and balances necessary to prevent someone from being able to bamboozle all those involved?

Why don't you fucking ask the FBI these questions, dude?

[OnTheOtherHand]

177. no, it really isn't

It's mildly interesting to care more about the facts than the people who purport to constitute a "truth movement," but -- as a couple of us have explained repeatedly -- we're not especially interested in that percentage. No one has convinced us that it is a material issue.

I was hoping that the principle of checking and supporting your claims would sink in. It's not about some cage match you think you're having with the so-called debunkers; it's about building sound arguments. Whether you want to do that is up to you. But if you quote sources that disagree about the point you're trying to make, and seem not even to notice, eyes will roll. No need to thank me for the time I've spent walking you through that.

[travis80]

178. not a material issue? if someone said a plane crashed in a field, but no crater was left

and people like me where complaining about that, would you say that the lack of a crater was not a material issue?


are you going walk all those debunkers i posted through it too who all say most of the plane was recovered on their debunker sites?

[OnTheOtherHand]

180. huh?

Possibly it depends on what you mean by a "crater," but, no. Why do you ask?

are you going walk all those debunkers i posted through it too who all say most of the plane was recovered on their debunker sites?

I see no reason to, and I already explained why not. If you can't be bothered to read and to respond to my posts, that is your prerogative, of course.

[travis80]

181. can a plane crash in a field without leaving a mark in the ground?

i hope you say no. in that case, a lack of a mark in the ground would be a material issue. do you agree with that?

you are just going to let your fellow debunkers continue to potentially spread misinformation? isn't that one of the things you guys complain about truthers?

[SDuderstadt]

183. Are you honestly claiming UA 93 left no...

"mark in the ground"?????????????

Jesus, Travis.

[OnTheOtherHand]

184. you're weirdly changing the subject

Certainly I would expect a plane crash in a field to leave a mark. Why you ask, I can't imagine.

you are just going to let your fellow debunkers continue to potentially spread misinformation?

What on earth are you suggesting? That I am ethically responsible to fact-check and, if necessary, rebut every person on earth whom you perceive as one of my "fellows"?

No, I don't think that is "one of the things you guys complain about truthers," if by "you guys" you mean me. If you regard people who disagree with you as interchangeable parts, again, that is your prerogative. (Not that I know of anyone else who has stated such an obligation.)

[travis80]

185. trying to determine what you consider a material issue, or not.

you agree there must be a mark left in the ground if a plane crashed into the field, or else the crash wouldn't add up. that's what a lot of us truthers are doing regarding the Shanksville story.


you like point out all the inaccuracies you think you see at truther sites. just wondering if the same applies to debunker sites. apparently not.

i find that kind of odd since you guys are annoyed at truthers posting conspiracy theory at places like here, but this particular theory seems to have spawned from debunker sites who post the 95% of Flight 93 was recovered. if you were correct these debunker sites, maybe they would spawn less conspiracy theories. seems like it would be a win win for you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

188. I don't understand what you're saying

It's fine to assert that you're pointing to things that make the crash not "add up," but what matters is actually doing it.

you like point out all the inaccuracies you think you see at truther sites.

I do? Since you're having trouble supporting your claims about 9/11, how about you support that one? Just a thought.

[travis80]

186. OTOH, please post what this Flight 93 Memorial Ambassador says about how much plane was found

and where most of it was. this is what they are telling all the visitors at the memorial about how much of Flight 93 was recovered and where most of it was recovered from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzIeCrC3KrA#t=1m07s

[OnTheOtherHand]

189. say whaa? n/t

[travis80]

190. what was i not clear about? click the youtube link and post was she says about the debris. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

191. why on earth don't you?! n/t

[travis80]

193. you hounded me to step up and do more digging, i did, now you can do something easy for me.

don't worry, she only says a few things. you won't have much to type.

[OnTheOtherHand]

194. once more, you force me to walk you through something obvious:

You claimed something, and cited contradictory evidence. I challenged you to try to figure out which evidence was correct. It still isn't clear whether you have, but at least you made an effort.

I've made no such claim, so there is nothing for me to support.

As I think I explained before, if you don't care whether your claims are accurate or credible, that is your prerogative. Efforts at accuracy and credibility are not favors that you do for me on a quid pro quo basis. Are they?

[travis80]

196. i just asked you nicely to watch a short segment of a video at post what they say

you typed way more in your last response than this would have taken you.

did you at least watch the video segment? it's only about 10 seconds.

[SDuderstadt]

197. Dude...

why would you think the Flight 93 Memorial Ambassador would be dispositive about this? Do you think they did their own research?

What you're really establishing here is that no one besides you, Spooked and a handful of others deperately clinging to delusion think this is, in the least, controversial.

[OnTheOtherHand]

198. but what you're asking is, in principle, utterly unreasonable

You have no good reason for asking it.

So, I'm willing to take a bit of time to see whether that's an aberration. Some people have already formed an opinion, and it may be correct, but I am trying to give you every opportunity.

[travis80]

199. utterly unreasonable? to watch a 10 second clip and post what they said?!?

sounds VERY reasonable to me, especially since i did what YOU asked for.

regardless, did you even watch the clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzIeCrC3KrA#t=1m07s

[OnTheOtherHand]

200. see, you're not paying attention

sounds VERY reasonable to me, especially since i did what YOU asked for.

Wrong. You didn't do me a favor; I did you one by explaining where you had gone off the rails. I'm content to leave you there, if you aren't interested in moving forward.

[travis80]

201. regardless, did you even watch the clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzIeCrC3KrA#t=1m07s

[OnTheOtherHand]

210. "regardless," indeed

You're back to Proof By Google. Really, why would you expect anyone to care what a park worker says? I'm not saying that she is getting the Official Story wrong, just that it is hard to construe her as an authoritative source. Of course, someone else already made that point, which is why "regardless" fits so well.

[travis80]

213. are you saying she's pulling facts out of her butt?

what she said is the same thing the lady i talked to on the PHONE told me.

are you afraid to discuss these facts? they are the facts of official story after all, the story you supposedly support.

[SDuderstadt]

215. Dude...

You, Spooked and no more than a handful of other easily confused people are the only ones who deny UA 93 crashed there. You're inventing this straw issue and trying to make it appear somehow significant by harping on it in true CT style.

Rational people simply don't care whether the % of the plane recovered there is 95% or 59%, nor do they care what % was found above or below ground.

Again, this is why both you and Spooked are regarded with such derision here. I'd love to see you both in front of the families trying to sell them your goofy "no-planes" bullshit. Somehow I don't think they'd be nearly as tolerant.

[zappaman]

216. Nice job, Travis

Keep digging(pun intended), you're almost there...

[OnTheOtherHand]

217. umm, no; you're making stuff up again

I don't know where she got that information, but I certainly don't think that she made it up. And I obviously didn't say that she did. If you won't even go through the motions of responding to things I actually say instead of inventing other stuff, I don't see much point.

I like this, however:

are you afraid to discuss these facts? they are the facts of official story after all, the story you supposedly support.

I've been going way, way out of my way to discuss facts with you. As for my "supposedly support(ing)" the "official story," well, that's how you think about the world, not how I do. Maybe you just can't imagine any other way. :shrug:

[travis80]

219. then where'd she get those facts and why you seem to what to run away from them?

and i'm not making stuff up, just askin you a question.

[OnTheOtherHand]

221. well, that's easy to answer

I think she most likely got them from her supervisors -- and I'm not running away from anything. That's just another thing you're making up. I don't know why, but you seem to be very firmly in the grip of your assumptions.

[travis80]

226. where do you think her supervisors got that info? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

227. I could speculate

But I thought this was supposed to be a truth movement. :shrug:

[travis80]

228. please do, because the official story is your theory, not the truth movements. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

229. see how confused you are?

Why would "the official story" be my theory? Why would my theory be "the official story"?

No, you don't get it. Shaka, when the walls fell.

[travis80]

230. are you saying you don't believe the official Flight 93 crash story either?! n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

231. try rereading post #84

There's no reason for me to expect that typing the words again will make them make more sense to you.

[travis80]

234. you agree there can only be one story to an event, right? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

236. SRSLY?

No, I don't agree with that. At least, I don't think I do; I'm not sure what you mean.

It's not that I deny the existence of objective facts. Either Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville or it didn't; no two ways about that.

[jberryhill]

88. Wrong again...

I don't care what you believe, or what "people" believe.

What I do believe is that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, and that this bizarre obsession with what proportion of the splintered mass of a shattered aircraft was or was not above ground, according to various secondary reports, is odd.

But if it makes you feel important to believe you are here in the DUngeon, perhaps the most influential place on earth, fighting the good fight against paid government agents desperately trying to keep a lid on this most important truth, then you go right on believing what you want.

[travis80]

97. let me make it easy for you to understand

reported 757 plane crash.

hardly much observed wreckage right after.

FBI later claims they recovered almost all of the plane.

see why truthers don't think the official story on this jibes?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Drops_not_Dope]

134. well, good thing it was shot down in that spot

don't you agree?

[OnTheOtherHand]

135. not to speak for jberryhill, but...

First of all, who knows why you think it was "shot down"?

Second, who knows why you would post on a public forum -- even ironically -- that it was a "good thing."*

Third, judging from the other events of 9/11, no matter where the plane crashed, some people would argue that something was terribly wrong with the hole left behind and/or some other aspect of the crash site.

* I realize that you were referring to the location, but the comment still seems in poor taste.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. Good thing we evolved on a planet with so much water, too, right?

Thanks for bringing creationist logic into the arena. We've NEVER seen that before... :eyes:

[zappaman]

137. 'Shot down"

who said anything about the plane being "shot down"?

[defendandprotect]

203. If it was "spongy soil" as you claim, the rescue workers would have found the buried plane ...

quite easily!!

[defendandprotect]

202. You're right .... this scar in the earth had long been there . . .

IF the ground had been so loose and penetrable then the rescue workers would have

had no problem lifting the "tilled soil" to find the plane below . . .

And, true, as Spooked 9/11 points out, this was soil -- not sand!

[spooked911]

12. there's nothing else directly comparable

and as far as I know, there is no precedent for a huge plane to bury almost completely in the ground-- or to shatter into all tiny pieces above ground.

[jberryhill]

25. The other point is...

In most plane crashes, the pilot was trying to save the plane.

[travis80]

29. why would that matter? n/t

[jberryhill]

79. Because that tends to limit...

...the number of crashes in which the pilot augurs in nose down at high speed.

[travis80]

142. what's the difference between that & planes that naturally nose dive during a crash? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

145. What the fuck are you babbling about...

now, dude?

Planes that naturally nose-dive during a crash?

[defendandprotect]

204. That's quite a bit of confusion . . . try it again . . What are you suggesting?

[jberryhill]

4. Yes, because the entire Shanksville episode...

...relies on a "95%" number that someone pulled out of their butt during a press conference.

[spooked911]

8. the FBI just pulled that number out of their butt?

Really? Or maybe they just rounded it off, from 93.5%?

[LARED]

11. Maybe I missed it, but when did the 95% number come from the

FBI

[spooked911]

14. I quoted an article in the top part of the post

but here you go:
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.

Kind of amazing they did this in just three days.

[LARED]

16. Three days?

Article was posted Monday 09/24/01. The article states they stopped gathering evidence Sat the 22nd.

Simple counting says the recovery effort was stopped after ~10 days.

[spooked911]

17. sorry, my bad.

I was tired and misread it. The point remains-- it WAS the FBI claiming 95%, right???

[travis80]

26. i think you meant they finished the excavation in 3 days

i believe it started on 9/13 and finished on 9/16.

it's quite remarkable they dug out 80-90% of a 757 in 3 days from the ground, yet there is hardly any evidence proving it even though the media was at the site 24/7 and the FBI had their own photographer at the scene snapping photos.

this would literally be the biggest claim about the supposed Flight 93 crash, yet it has probably the least amount of evidence supporting it. mindblowing.

[LARED]

36. yep it appears so. nt

[travis80]

37. you think the wreckage was mostly under the surface too? n/t

[LARED]

48. Who cares?

What difference does it make what percentage was above ground or aboveground?

[travis80]

51. as the OP is getting at, mostly above or below ground, it must add up to 95%.

sorry if us annoying truthers want evidence of all the official claims, especially big claims like practically all of the Boeing 757 being recovered from the site.

sorry if that inconveniences you.

[LARED]

53. Why is the claim of 95% so important?

So what if they recovered 95%?

Is there a no plane theory lurking around here somewhere?

[travis80]

54. the OP is asking for you to prove they recovered almost an entire 757.

95% is the official claim. truthers didn't make that up.

[LARED]

55. Why would I waste my time doing that? nt

[travis80]

56. some people care about the truth.

obviously you don't.

[LARED]

57. Let try this again

What difference does it make if they actually recovered say..70%...or 65% verses 95%?

Let's say it really turned out to be 82%, what difference does it make?

[travis80]

58. i know, how about you insert 82% in the OP and then answer it. n/t

[LARED]

60. The OP is dumb

It presents a ridiculous false dilemma.

Again why is the percentage of plane recovered even remotely important?

[travis80]

61. don't claims deserve proof? n/t

[LARED]

62. Sure they do,

I just wonder why it is worth the effort. Is there something ot be gained of proving this claim?

Let's say I did an intensive investigation and discovered that in reality only 82% of the plane was recovered. To what ends was all that effort spent? Other than establishing someone either lied or screwed up, and of course I would have proved that all important piece of information that 18% of the plane is still in or on the ground.

[travis80]

63. i'm guessing whether a 757 crashed there or not.

the FBI is claiming almost all of one was recovered there. some of us want some proof of that.

i think you're caught up in the exact amount when not even anything close to it has been proven.

[LARED]

64. Oh, I see you're a no planer

Lets say only 10% of the plane was recovered.

A 757 is about 250,000 lbs. So please explain how 25,000 lbs of faked parts where brought in and deposited in and around the area. (some up to 40 or so feet in the ground.)

[travis80]

65. 10% is believable, but unfortunately for you, that's not the official claim, not even close.

and i think a 757 is closer to 150,000 lbs.

Seger says the most of the plane was under the surface. What's your say?

[LARED]

74. How about answering my question?

How was the faked debris brought to the site?

How many times do I have to tell you? I don't care what percentage was above or below ground. It's makes no difference. The OP simply presents a stupid false dilemma.

[travis80]

82. my guess is the debris was brought to the site by vehicle.

how would you think it was brought to the site if the site was staged?

it does make a difference. i think you know you've been stumped by spooked's post and are trying your hardest to avoid answering it.

the fact is the FBI, the investigators of the site, told the American people that they recovered 95% of United 93 at that site. where was all of it? the field is mostly empty. was most of the wreckage below the surface?

[SDuderstadt]

91. This is why you're the object of so much...

derision here, dude.

[travis80]

98. i don't care what trolls think of me

dude

[William Seger]

94. Conspiracists are the one who have a dilemma with Flight 93

Whether they believe Flight 93 was shot down or believe the crash was faked, it simply won't fit into any rational, plausible "false flag" attack theory. So they completely ignore that and just assume that, well, "they" did it so they must have had some reason. They become so obsessed with finding something -- anything -- that "proves" the "official story" of 93 is wrong that they completely lose sight of the big picture: The underlying premise is pretty idiotic.

[LARED]

95. So you're theorizing that

many tens of thousands of pounds of faked airplane debris was staged in the field, some percentage above ground, some percentage below ground (up to 40 feet below ground)and no one noticed this in the days or weeks preceding 9/11?

Have I summed it up?

[travis80]

103. many tens of thousands of pounds of airplane debris

where? haven't seen it.

[SDuderstadt]

104. You've got to be kidding...

dude.

[LARED]

107. Ok, so what is your theory? nt

[travis80]

120. it doesn't matter what my theory is

it only matters if the official claim pan out. in regards to the plane wreckage, it doesn't. not even close.

[SDuderstadt]

122. How do you know what percentage was recovered...

dude?

[LARED]

127. I know the routine

Just asking questions. Right? Afraid to lay out what you really believe. Right?

Sort of like a some weird Socratic process hopped up on woo, driven by a bunch of 9/11 porn addicts drunk on darkweaving. Thinking you've got those OCT'er back on thier heels not knowing how to response.

[travis80]

143. not afraid, but it is irrelevant what i THINK may have happened.

i could be wrong about what may have happened, but there still could be a conspiracy there.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[travis80]

155. since you insulted me, i'm not going to. n/t

[LARED]

158. How did I insult you? nt

[SDuderstadt]

159. You answered him with facts....

"truthers" hate that.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[apocalypsehow]

174. Okay, I'm fresh to the discussion and cannot even remotely be accused of having hurled any "insults"

in your direction.

So will you please answer the question for me?

Will you please explain your theory about this matter while enlightening us on what percentage of airplane debris you think was found at the crash scene? Also, how much of said debris do you believe was recovered either (a) above ground or (b) below ground and/or (c) both?

How about it?

[travis80]

179. my theory is the FBI staged the crash and lied about amount of debris recovered

no debris was below ground. they made that all up. according to the FBI and supported by http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=283917&mesg_id=284050">William Seger, most of Flight 93 was below ground. the FBI said they had to dig down 45 feet to recover it all. have you seen much evidence that can even come close to supporting that Flight 93 was mostly below the surface?

of they amount of "plane debris" above ground, i'd put it at closer to 10% of a 757. this would actually be consistent with the official story, because i've seen amount of wreckage found in the ground has been put at between 80-90% of the 757 below ground.

if 10% was above ground and 85% was below ground, that does add up to 95% of the plane recovered.

see, it has to add up. basic math.

[apocalypsehow]

182. Thank you for responding - your "theory" is as implausible & factually barren as the day is long,

but thanks for putting it out there for all to see.

"see, it has to add up. basic math."

The comic relief is appreciated, also.

[travis80]

187. then make the official story add up if you are so smart. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

192. Reading slower and/or better always helps the smart-impaired - you ought to try it, I reckon. n/t.

[defendandprotect]

205. That's what the coroner said after his first report of "No debris" . ...

I guess it was a day or so later when some mysterious debris began to appear --

he said "looked like someone had dumped a truckload of junk metal" -- something close to that.

[travis80]

22. RKOwens4: "9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found"

"More debris was found at the United 93 crash site than from any other on 9/11.

In total, 95% of the plane was recovered."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivdEGph9A

[jberryhill]

23. Yes, people say things casually all of the time

Since we are dealing with a news report that may have been based on a news conference or press release, we really don't know where the number came from.

But 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Was this some press officer or junior level person simply and casually conveying the idea that "Yeah, we got most of it"? You just don't know, spooked.

There is a lot of slop in verbal communication, and I'm always fascinated by the kind of "forensic analysis" over newspaper reports that treats the words therein as if they were carved by the finger of god in stone tablets. A lot of news reporting suffers not only from the slop in one-on-one communication, but also from whisper-down-the-lane distortion. Did they get 95% of the plane? Did someone mean they were 95% done with the recovery effort? Who knows, because you don't have the underlying information on which a news report was based. Normally, people don't read at that level of fascination or expect every word in a newspaper report to be under oath and picked over at the level applied in these kinds of "analyses". This is copy written in a hurry by people with deadlines, and not a scientific journal article.

It's like that statement from the coroner that gets picked over and over here, in which he says something along the lines that he was surprised there were no bodies - ergo, aha, no plane crash.

Now, the FBI, last time I checked, is a fairly sizeable organization with lots of people in it. How about if you nail down who said the 95%, in what context, or link to an FBI document or something with some sort of denser factual gristle to it. Nothing, NOTHING, is ever 95% of anything, and I'm 99.9999% sure of that.

[LARED]

9. Reply to wrong post - deleted

[ryan_cats]

5. Was this crash in on it too?

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml



This was, I believe a 737 that had a rudder issue and plunged nose first into the ground outside Colorado Springs? Was it a test for flight 93? Please don't tell me you answered yes. The plane had a concrete core,too.

[spooked911]

6. that crater is far more massive than the flight 93 crater, and

you also neglected to show the photo at the link with the large piece of plane wreckage-- something we never saw for flight 93.

[Ardent15]

7. 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't like it when they're confronted with facts...

...that conflict with their pre-determined conclusion of events.

[spooked911]

13. which facts are those?

Sounds to me like you are over-generalizing.

OCTists certainly ignore plenty of facts.

[zappaman]

15. Such as?

What facts do they ignore?

[spooked911]

18. the fact that Ivins couldn't have made the anthrax

springs to mind.

There are many many more.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. What exactly does Bruce Ivins have to do with the Flight 93 crash? n/t

[William Seger]

21. That's not a "fact"

You simply chose to believe the people who say he couldn't and ignore the people who say he could.

[spooked911]

76. It's a fact

No one without an obvious agenda (e.g. the FBI) says that he could have made it.

[William Seger]

80. Oh, you mean, the same people who first said it was "weaponized"?

... including Peter Jahrling of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who first made that claim but now says, "I believe I made an honest mistake?" How about the Japanese scientists who have shown that bacteria naturally take up silicon -- do they have an "obvious agenda?" How about the scientists quoted in this article? Have you read the Wikipedia article about the whole history of the controversy?

But we can be sure that anyone who doesn't confirm what you want to believe must have an "obvious agenda?"

That's exactly what I said: You simply chose to believe the people who say Ivins couldn't have processed that anthrax and ignore the people who say he could, yet you call it a "fact."

[spooked911]

115. did you read down to this part?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Silicon_content_too_high
Silicon content too high

The anthrax used in the attacks had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The presence of the silicon is the reason why, when the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol.<72>

Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.<73> Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability."<74> However, this conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized," a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.<75>

The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that:

"This is a shockingly high proportion . It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination." <76>

The FBI attempted to defend its conclusion and contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidently absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon. The Livermore scientists tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content, adding increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media. They were unable even to approach the 1.4% level of the actual attack anthrax, with most results an order of magnitude lower and some as low as .001%.<77>

"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.<78> Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the attack anthrax could have been added via a large fermentor, which Battelle and some other failities use" but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID . . . We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Dr. Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."<79>

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

It's the silicon content that is the real problem for the FBI's story.

[William Seger]

116. Yes, that's in the "Doubts" section

As I said, and don't know why I should need to keep repeating it, some people say Ivins couldn't have processed that anthrax -- primarily based on the initial report that it was "weaponized," and confusion over whether is was silica which has been used for weaponization or silicon which never has been used for that -- and some say he could have. All the Lawrence Livermore scientists proved was that the anthrax wasn't simply processed by lacing the media with silicon, which just means they don't know how it was processed regardless of who did it. That doesn't prove Ivins didn't do it. If you don't even know how it was produced, on what conceivable basis can you conclude that Ivins didn't have the skill and equipment to do it? You say it's a "fact" that he couldn't have. I don't know -- and even if I were a microbiologist myself it appears I'd only have my own "opinion" -- but I do know the common definition of the word "fact" so I know you're abusing the term.

The National Academy of Science is still reviewing the FBI's conclusions about the anthrax. There's really nothing more to be said about the science until then, but I doubt that will really settle the issue.

[spooked911]

129. Oh MY GOD

you are in such denial, it's ridiculous. If it's not denial, it's something even worse.

Ivins did not have the expertise to produce that form of anthrax, period.

There is no evidence linking him directly to the anthrax used in the attacks, period.

[SDuderstadt]

130. In YOUR opinion, dude....

given how wrong you are on nearly everything else, I don't know of any particular reason to listen to you on this matter, dude.

[LARED]

131. And the winner is ........................

you are in such denial, it's ridiculous. If it's not denial, it's something even worse.


For ironic post of the week

[spooked911]

133. If Ivins had found a special way to grow anthrax with high amounts of silicon--

don't you think there would be evidence to support that?

[spooked911]

223. yes, best to ignore things that don't fit your world view

(yes, ha ha, so ironic)

[zappaman]

224. now you're arguing with yourself?

keep digging, Spooked...you're almost there.

[William Seger]

239. You're very confused

The issue here was your claim that it's a "fact" that Ivins could not have grown the anthrax. There is no such "fact" in evidence. Read what I've actually written and don't put arguments in my mouth. Your question was: "If Ivins had found a special way to grow anthrax with high amounts of silicon, don't you think there would be evidence to support that?" I thought it would be obvious why I ignored that question, but I'll be happy to spell it out for you: That might be a reasonable question to ask someone who claimed that it's a "fact" he could have grown it, because it would raise questions about how such a "fact" was determined. But I haven't made any such claim, and as I've already said, I fail to see how anyone could make a claim one way or the other without knowing how it was grown. As far as I'm concerned, it's not even a "fact" that any "special" process was needed, so your question could be based on a false premise. But nowhere have said I think there is conclusive evidence that Ivins grew the anthrax, and actually I think it's quite possible that he would not have been convicted on the evidence the FBI has in their report.

The reason that you keep getting asked questions like that is because you assert "facts" that aren't supported by evidence. Think about it, and you might even see where the real irony is.

[William Seger]

19. Such as....

You ignore that "...a 39-foot wide, 15-foot deep crater..." is about the same size as the Shanksville crater, and that flight 93 debris ended up mostly under the surface because it crashed into the soft dirt of a reclaimed strip mine.

Many of your claims are indeed non-factual, but that's really not your biggest problem. Just because hardly anyone accepts your bizarre interpretation of the facts that you happen to get right does not mean that they "ignore" them. It means that they don't accept your faulty logic.

[travis80]

27. William Seger: "flight 93 debris ended up mostly under the surface"

you really believe that? please tell me your joking.

[spooked911]

78. if you look at the picture of that crater

it is huge compared to the vehicles around it-- in contrast to the Shanksville crater.

But I'm glad to know you think the plane debris ended up mostly underground. Just like the WTC tower soaked up all the UA175 debris, I suppose. It's that momentum thing. And I guess there was such thing as deflection on 9/11.

[William Seger]

81. And when you look at clear pictures of the Shanksville crater

... it's also huge.



As we determined before, the central part is about 40 feet across and about 12 feet deep, and the wing impressions extend well over 100 feet. Considering the entirely different nature of the soil, there is no sharp "contrast" between the craters. You just chose to interpret the known facts in whatever way it takes to confirm the perfectly idiotic theory that no 757 crashed in Shanksville. Over 1100 people helped clean up that mess, Spooky; go try to find even one who agrees with you -- find just one person who was actually there when it was dug up who doesn't believe that most of the debris from flight 93 was in that crater. But no, you'd rather believe a bunch of YouTruth idiots and make up your own "facts" and "physics" to rationalize it.

[travis80]

85. i'm looking at that aerial photo William and i only see a dent in the ground. where's the hole?

if most of the wreckage from the plane is in the ground as you claim, why don't i see a hole made by the plane penetrating through the ground with plane wreckage down in it? i only see a crater with a tiny bit of debris scattered on surface of it.

you really believe almost an entire 757 is under that little crater?!?

[William Seger]

90. Maybe a bigger picture will help

I could make some other suggestions that might help, but in your case, I'm really not optimistic.

[travis80]

99. are you saying there is a 757 under that man standing in that crater? n/t

[William Seger]

108. Are you saying...

... that no matter how many times someone tells you that's a reclaimed strip mine, you can't figure out why that matters? And furthermore, that you think your inability to understand something is evidence of something other than your limited reasoning skills?

[travis80]

109. can you answer my question i asked of you first?

that would be the polite thing to do.

[William Seger]

111. I don't see any reason to be polite to "no-planers"

... other than the barest minimal compliance with the forum rules, and sometimes I have trouble with even that. I don't care what kind of ridiculous bullshit you believe about anything, but when you go about trying to spread it around on a public forum, you're basically begging to be insulted.

But I'll answer your stupid question nonetheless:

Out in the real world (you'll have to take my word for this), it's considered to be a very well established fact -- not a theory -- that Flight 93 crashed into that reclaimed strip mine at Shanksville. There was, in fact, a lot of small debris scattered over a wide area that you can't possible see in a distant photo, but if that's less than half the plane, then yes, most of the plane went into that soft dirt. Duh. If you'd like to demonstrate to any sane person that that's not what happened, then doing nothing but typing your incredulity over and over onto a web forum is a complete waste of your time and anyone who happens to read it. I'm not the least bit interested in your imaginary physics, nor any "conclusions" you've reached based on what you haven't seen or don't know. I've challenged you 9/11 deniers to find even one person among the 1100 people who helped clean up the plane debris and human remains from that site -- ya know, someone who was actually there? -- who doesn't believe that's what happened. And if you're so curious about what United did with the debris that was returned to them, maybe you should ask someone who would know -- like United, for instance. But if all you've got is your own inability to understand how a 757 traveling over 500 mph can plow into a soft pile of dirt, and you think that's good enough to support a ridiculously implausible theory about a "false flag" attack on an empty field, then I can't consider you to be anything but a sick joke.

[LARED]

112. +1 nt

[travis80]

144. i just want to be clear on your position

are you saying that most of Flight 93 was under the surface of that crater?

[travis80]

163. William? n/t

[travis80]

214. i was hoping William would respond and explain the last parts of the OP.

"For the OCTists who do believe that most of the plane had buried as the media and others report, they've never been able to prove that most of a large 757 was dug out of the ground.


They've also never been able to rationally explain why it took almost a year before the media started reporting that most of UA93 had buried, an unprecedented feat for a large airplane that should have made front page news soon after investigators realized that most of UA93 had supposedly buried, especially when it would have been logically assumed that if most of the plane had buried, then most of the passenger remains would most likely be buried along with it too, especially since no bodies or blood was observed above ground."

[OnTheOtherHand]

218. funny, I was hoping that you would respond to his comment

If you tried to engage other people, you might actually learn things.

[travis80]

220. i thought his comments were insulting

do you like engaging with people who are insulting to you?


but i think you probably think he had some point amidst his insults. do they fit the official story (the facts given by that one lady in the video i posted)?

[OnTheOtherHand]

222. like it? no

Engaging with you has been one of the most annoying things I've done in the last week, which is saying something. (In case this hasn't dawned on you, yes, it is insulting to make stuff up about my positions in post, after post, after post.)

If you can't be bothered to read Seger's comments, and you insist on muddying the waters by talking about "the official story" instead of any specific statements, that's fine. Good luck with that.

[travis80]

225. likewise. n/t

[William Seger]

232. We have a couple of people on the board now...

... who only seem to be interested in getting a reaction -- any kind of reaction. I wouldn't go so far as to call them trolls -- people who are deliberately annoying just because they think it's funny -- but it's clear that responding to them is a complete waste of time. Whatever their motives, it's just the same bizarre and incomprehensible games, over and over and over.

[OnTheOtherHand]

233. well, in this case

I don't think this particular poster intends to play a game; I think he is at the mercy of bad assumptions. Either way, I have to agree that it is a waste of time at this point.

[travis80]

235. if you can't explain it, or are afraid to try to explain it, just say so

no one will think any less of you William.

[OnTheOtherHand]

237. jeepers

When you've rebutted all the evidence (much of which he mentioned) of the Flight 93 crash, post your rebuttal and we'll have something to discuss, maybe. Meanwhile, you're just pwned. Sorry.

[William Seger]

238. I HAVE explained it, and so have several others...

.. . repeatedly. At some point, it becomes obvious that there's some problem here beyond your poor reasoning skills, and I don't believe anyone here can help you with it.

[spooked911]

114. the bottom line is the craters are different sizes

as far as the people who "dug up" "UA93", please please please--- if you know who they are and how to contact them, LET ME KNOW!!!!

[William Seger]

117. I believe many Shanksville residents were involved, so you can start there

Maybe start with the fire department. But I hear they aren't too friendly toward "no-planers" so you might want to phrase your questions carefully.

[spooked911]

128. well, maybe you should approach them for me

by way of introduction?

[zappaman]

118. Looking forward to what you find out from the responders, Spooked

Keep digging...you're almost there.

[SDuderstadt]

132. I'm certain it'll be "firsthand information"...

if-you-know-what-I-mean.

[90-percent]

30. where are the remains of the plane?

I recall seeing a lot of stuff on TV about the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash off Long Island. I remember they reconstructed almost the whole plane in an empty hanger I think somewhere on the south east side of long island.

So where did the government agencies reconstruct the Shanksville plane? Has anybody here ever seen the reconstruction?
My guess is that it was not reconstructed because they knew what caused the crash and didn't want to spend the money to do a forensic reconstruction of what may have been millions of tiny bits of plane? So what did they do with the 95% of the remains they were able to salvage? Did they barge it to China in September 2001, selling it for aluminum scrap as quickly as possible?

The two crashes are not analogous because TWA 800 came apart in the air and probably floated down into the ocean at not more than terminal velocity of approx 120 mph.

A fully loaded 747 weighs around 900,000 pounds (450 tons!) The physics of 450 fucking tons going straight into the ground at 550 mph or so is astounding! Given a typical modern diesel locomotive weighs 300,000 pounds, it does try the imagination to think of three of them going straight into the ground at 550 mph.

A 747, as I've learned over the years of 9/11 discussions, is composed mostly of air. The air frame is mostly aluminum sheet and machined aluminum framing members. critical areas and components would be made out of many alloy variations of steel. And the engine has a lot of high strength at high temperature titanium and nickel aerospace alloys.

So if you could put a whole 747 into a junkyard car crusher, you would end up with a much denser block of the aforementioned materials.

My point, I guess, is that so much material would survive in a recognizable format. Only stuff that would turn to dust would be seat fabrics, plastics, food, people, fuel, and other low strength materials.

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE 95% OF THE REMAINS OF THIS PLANE AT? They claim to have recovered this much, so where do they keep it?

My common sense refuses to accept that in history there has never been an analogous plane crash, that could be used to compare the wreckage at Shanksville. That info would be helpful because the physics of such an event are beyond the comprehension of anybody that is not in the field of ballistic testings. I remember seeing stuff on history channel about Col. Robert Stapp, for instance. He's the guy that first broke the sound barrier on land on an air force rocket sled on rails back in the fifties. I recall seeing other experiments where they just ran missiles into brick walls.

ramblin, sorry, an interesting subject I wish I was better educated on!

-jim

[SDuderstadt]

31. Check with United...

it was their plane.

[travis80]

32. reportedly stored at the highly secure Iron Mountain

where the government stores lots of their secrets.

it's the first time, to my knowledge, that commercial plane wreckage is being stored at a highly secure facility such as Iron Mountain. Makes you wonder.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Reportedly stored"

Do you have any evidence of this, dude?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. "reportedly" -- Link? n/t

[travis80]

35. i'm surprised you never heard this before. link inside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aou6c2MOmg


strange our government would store commercial plane wreckage in a high secure facility where they also store their secrets. it's almost like they are trying to hide something. know what i mean?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude....

yeah, it's such a secret that you know where it is.


LOLOLOLOL

[90-percent]

39. FOI

Hey, lets get together and file a freedom of information request to go visit Iron Mountain and check out the pile of scrap? I'm sure they would be happy to oblige, as they have nothing to hide after all.

-90% Jimmy

[SDuderstadt]

40. Why don't you go on ahead, dude...

I don't see anything amiss about UA 93. Sorry.

[travis80]

42. nothing amiss? you should read spooked's OP. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

43. I did, dude...

The OP should be entitled, "Spooked's False Dilemma". I don't know what proportion was underground and what proportion was above ground. I don't care. It's a totally straw issue.

[travis80]

46. right. facts shouldn't matter. just as long as you believe the OS. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

47. Dude...

what difference does it make what proportion was aboveground versus underground???

[travis80]

49. read and understand the OP

dude. it will clue you in.

[SDuderstadt]

50. The OP is bullshit, dude...

You have yet to explain what difference it makes what proportion was aboveground versus underground. It's another "no-planer" red herring.

[travis80]

52. #51

dude

[travis80]

41. just repeating what the reporter was reporting. laugh at her. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude....

how secret is it if you know about it?

[travis80]

45. i never said it was a secret

dude.

[defendandprotect]

207. The other weird thing is they claimed a few days later that a lot of debris was

found inside a cabin quite a way off from the crater!

hmmmm.....

[travis80]

59. spooked, i think you stumped them again. good job! n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

66. There wasn't a Flight 93

[SDuderstadt]

67. This is the dumbest claim of all....n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

68. Boy, who sent you?

no it is NOT dumb. It is fact.

[SDuderstadt]

69. It is not a fact...

it's a stupid "truther" myth based upon the BTS, which is NOT a schedule.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. not truther stuff. Fact.

[SDuderstadt]

71. RL...

again, the BTS is NOT a schedule. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. obviously you don't know.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Actually, I do, RL...

this myth started with a total ignorance about what the BTS is...beyond that, your claim is totally illogical...why would the "perps" stage a hijacking of a flight that wasn't even scheduled?

This is the dumbest "truther" myth

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. nothing to do with truthers

what do you mean you do know?

[SDuderstadt]

92. Because you're subverting the BTS....

which is an after-the-fact measurement of the on-time performance of airlines and trying to mischaracterize it as a schedule.

[travis80]

87. 95% of Flight 93 was recovered is a pretty dumb claim too.

i certainly haven't seen evidence that even comes close to proving that one.

[SDuderstadt]

93. No one cares about your personal incredulity...

dude. Of course, you have ZERO proof of your claim the wreckage was trucked in...no witnesses, no tire tracks...nothing.

[travis80]

102. i'm still waiting to see evidence of all that wreckage in the ground.

i would say you have zero evidence, but that's not true technical. i remember seeing photos of two-three pieces from the ground. maybe that's all they needed to sell their story that the plane was in the ground because who but us nutty truthers would actually think to ask for evidence for their claims?

[SDuderstadt]

105. Maybe the FBI should change their protocol to read...

"no investigation shall be deemed complete until travis80 has signed off on it", dude.

[apocalypsehow]

176. Haaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa

:spray:

I try to keep a straight face while reading Truther posts/replies, I really do. But Jeeze Louise.

[SidDithers]

125. Once again, I feel the need to repost a comment from a DU'er who actually went to Shanksville...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=124204&mesg_id=124403

Bushatbooker: you've hit a personal sore spot here.

I cannot vouch for the veracity of the photo (who can anymore, these days)? But what is patently absurd is the suggestion that no plane crashed near Shanksville. Perhaps you are not saying that, or suggesting that.

But understand, it is absurd. It's absurd because THE PLANE IS STILL THERE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. Less than 1% of it, but still a lot of it. It's spread out over hundreds of yards near the crash site, in very small pieces. I know, becuase I went there in August 2004 and got behind the fencing (with permission). I saw countless tiny yet entirely identifiable pieces of plane in the ground - all you had to do was dig a little. I am sure the same is true today, as it will be for dozens, if not hundreds, of years.

Yet people still persist in suggesting (and again, I hope you are not) no plane crashed there.

It's insultingly stupid. It gives the LAREDs of the world all the ammunition they need, too, which is beside the point but a source of easily-avoidable frustrating.

There is not a single person who was witness to the plane's descent, nor a single witness to the aftermath, who believes no plane crashed there. Please don't use this opportunity to pull out-of-context quotes from coroner Wallace Miller's mouth. Find the other of his quotes where he debunks the no-plane foolishness and chides those who would mangle his words.

I know this won't convince those who are dug in, but nothing will. I mean that. There is far more reason to believe that no spaceship landed on the moon than no plane crashed in Shanksville.

Sigh.

Sid

Edit: added text for those too lazy to click the link

[spooked911]

138. Thanks

however, the crash story still makes no sense, nor does the apparent fact that the plane disintegrated completely into thousands of tiny pieces that are spread all over. It certainly would have been nice if "Bryan Sacks" had taken a photo of this tiny yet easily recognizable plane debris.

http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/

[SidDithers]

139. You mean you haven't been to the site yourself?...

It's less than an 8-hour drive from Indianapolis to Shanksville. You'd think, given your obsession about the topic, that you'd have taken a couple of days, sometime during the last 8 years, to actully go and investigate the site yourself.

Sid

[spooked911]

151. if I could actually go into the site, rather than view it at a distance, I would visit it.

And it sure is nice that you remember where I live.

[SidDithers]

152. Your location is in your profile...

A couple tanks of gas, and a night in a hotel sure seems like a small investment to see what you can see in Shanksville.

Guess you're not really that serious about this whole "truth" thing, eh?

Sid

[zappaman]

153. Looking forward to what you find, Spooked

Keep digging...you're almost there!

[travis80]

140. Hundreds of people were involved with the clean up, but 3 yrs after 9/11

there was still lots of plane debris that was never picked up? The FBI sure didn't do a thorough job cleaning up the scene.

This would also mean that more than 95% of the plane survived if pieces of it were still at the scene.

[SDuderstadt]

146. Why would they need the tiny pieces...

dude?

Ever heard of sampling?

[travis80]

147. 95% is a sampling? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! dude. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

148. As usual, dude, the point

went right over your head.

I didn't say the FBI recovered whatever percentage they recovered because they were sampling. I was hoping you'd understand such rudimentary concepts such as sampling so you could tell me why not recovering tiny bits of the plane was such a big deal.

I'm pretty sure this will go over your head, too. Again, this is why you're regarded with such derision here, dude.

[Robb]

206. I've been to a lot of airplane crash sites

...most of aircraft that were incredibly secret at the time they crashed. Many were being flown by the CIA, who were then in charge of cleaning up.

There are always a lot of pieces left, even after decades.

[defendandprotect]

209. And are you professionally connected to these interests/CIA.... or a hobby?

[Robb]

211. Hobby.

I've probably got more titanium in my garage than Tiger Woods. ;)

[defendandprotect]

212. So you follow CIA crash sites or all crash sites?

Better the titanium in your garage than in your knee!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

208. Love it . . . !! Thank you ...

PLUS all of this somehow hidden from the coroner and rescue workers who arrived

at the scene immediately after !!!

"Nothing there" --

A day or so later -- "It looked like they had bought a truckload of scrap metal in

and dumped it at the site"!

[Bolo Boffin]

195. Spooked, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty? n/t

[snooper2]

240. you have WAY too much time on your hands...

you do realize this...... correct?

You start working on a garden yet?

Get the hoarding under control in the back of your home?

Spend some quality time with the pets?

Put those new brake pads on?

:rofl: