Official story of UA 93 is a big lie

[John Doe II]

In the first part of “…and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye” I’ve already dealt with the raining debris that occurred east of UA 93’s crash site.
I summarize quickly here. For further details please check out this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x28985


“ The paper debris eight miles away, the FBI says, was wafted away by a
10mph wind ; the jet-engine part flew 2,000 yards on account of the savage
force of the plane's impact with the ground. The FBI conclusion: "Nothing
was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact. "
http://www.world-action.co.uk/independent.html

But the journalist has his doubts:
“Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert
expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers
would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth. ”
http://www.world-action.co.uk/independent.html


And most likely he’s right.
The wind would have needed 10 minutes (given the speed of 9 or 10 mph) to blow the debris from the crash site to Indian Lake Marina. But there is not a single eyewitness that supports the official explanation. Some see the debris raining down on the lake before, some right after the crash and some “within minutes after the crash”. Nobody speaks of ten minutes.

Moreover the official explanation is put to rest with the fact that also debris much heavier than paper was found:
“Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville said they found clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. ”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp

“By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats , small chunks of melted plastic and checks.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

And watching the video from webfairy one realizes that also the direction of the wind wasn’t east, southeast as officially claimed (and as necessary to somehow explain the raining debris).
Watch this video. The forest behind the crater is west. The camera is east of the crater. Does the smoke blow towards the camera or slightly left of the camera??
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm


So, we have a problem here.
Where does the raining debris come from?
Especially as the official UA 93 came from the west and NEVER crossed Indian Lake so the debris CAN’T have been from the official UA 93.

But the problem is bigger.

Several accounts point out that human remains were found on Indian Lake.

Brant has been taking FBI and ATF agents onto the lake to recover airplane parts and human remains.
(AP, 9/13/01)

On Wednesday morning, marina Service Manager John Fleegle found what he figured was a bone, washed up on one of the marina's concrete boat launches.
"It was maybe five inches long. It put me in mind of maybe a rib bone," Fleegle said. "I called the state police. They contacted the FBI, and they picked it up."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp


Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp


And now we’ve a real problem.
As shown the debris can’t be from the official UA 93 coming from the west. Then the human remains found on Indian Lake can’t be neither from the official UA 93.
This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. There has been a cover up concerning the DNA. If the real UA 93 is in the crater at Shanksville and in the crater are the DNA of the passengers two then it follows logically that the human debris found on Indian Lake are from persons that WEREN’T aboard UA 93. As this was never announced we have to assume a cover up.
2. If the human remains found in Indian Lake are from passengers aboard UA 93 as are the DNA found in the crater then the only logical conclusion can be that it wasn’t the official UA 93 coming from the west that crashed. As many eyewitnesses have seen the last minutes of this plane from the west and as the Commission declared that indeed UA 93 came from the west then we have the problem that the plane that officially is assumed to have been UA 93 is not in the crater. And we do have the problem that the plane coming from the west is unaccounted for. Disappeared in a well-coordinated plan with a plane coming from the east that lost the debris which was found at Indian Lake. And I’m sorry certainly this would be a plan that has not been executed by our 19 hijackers.

So we have the choice between a DNA cover up or a complete cover up.

As indicated in the second part of “…and kiss the official UA 93 good-bye” I think it is impossible that the official UA 93 coming from the west caused the crater.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x30634


So, in general the problem is not if UA 93 was shot down or not the whole story simple doesn't add up at all.

[spooked911]

1. Excellent summary. Any "Official Story" believers care to explain this?

[vincent_vega_lives]

2. Options.

1. Flight 93 was shot-down by a US Fighter aircraft. OK fine
a. There would be missile remains, however small, but certainly detectable by crash investigators. would need to surpress.
b. There would be the pilot, the order, and the ordnance reports as evidence. Quite an extensive paper trail to cover up.

2. Flight 93 was crashed intentionally by the Hijackers.
a. May or may not account for the alleged debris fields.

3. Flight 93 broke up midair and then crashed.
a. the aircraft was at high speed, at a relative low altitude, and put into some very violent maneuvers by the hijackers in order to neutralize the passenger revolt. Flight 93 may have partially broke up before impact, explaining the alleged debris field.

[John Doe II]

3. Thanks

Thanks Vincent for entering the discussion.
The problem is that the official UA 93 was soming in from the west. The debris is found in the east on Indian Lake. The official UA 93 never crossed Indian Lake. Therefore the debris can't be from this plane. So all shoot down or whatever scebarios have to account for the flight path. What happened to the official UA 93 coming in from the west (official flight path and seen by many eyewitnesses) and what plane is responsible in the east for the raining confetti.

[spooked911]

4. Again-- do any "Official Story" believers care to explain this?

[John Doe II]

5. Maybe

there was even a third plane ....
Another Boeing coming in from the east:


"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said. Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

I didn't use this quote so far because it is impossible to find the original source of it (although there is one source with another quote of Jim Stop).

I'm just curious with or without this quote:

Does anybody bother to explain how the human remains found on Indian Lake can possibily be from UA 93 that is supposed to have crashed west of Indian Lake? (/b]

[John Doe II]

6. And yet another physcial miracle

A payroll check was found in New Baltimore more than eight miles away from the crash site. Can anybody please explain this miracle. Not only that this check is supposed to have been blown by the wind according to the official theory for more than 50 minutes but he also escaped a wet landing in the Indian Lake but blew without even touching the water across the lake to land in perfect condition in New Baltimore. It was to Antonio B. Costa in San Jose, California.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html


I'm simply impressed. If nobody cares about all the refusals for the wind theory maybe at least somebody can explain this?

[John Doe II]

7. FBI first didn't believe in the wind theory neither

John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.
Fleegle, marina owner Jim Brant and two of Brant’s employees were among the dozens who witnessed the crash from Indian Lake. Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack.
“All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.
Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. “It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake,” she said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html


And while somebody might be on to explaining how the wind can have blown the debris to Indian Lake although ALL eyewitnesses contradict this explanation I'd be happy to hear how part of seats and bones can be blown by a 9 mph wind:
By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks.
He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html


Feegle, who piloted one of the FBI's boats, said the debris included correspondence with a California return address, the charred photograph of a boy, small pieces of seat cushions, and a 5-inch-long curved bone.
(Newsday, (9/14/01)

[John Doe II]

8. Questions of Original Post still unanswered

This post tries to prove that the original explanation of UA 93 is a clear lie and that also a simple explanation as eg a shoot-down scenario can't explain what happened. Yet, nobody has come forward with even the slightest explanation that keeps the official explanation alive.

[John Doe II]

9. New Baltimore

Just found this:

The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.
"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.
"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020911roddy0911p5.asp

Wow.
Now look at this: New Baltimore is 8 miles away from the crash site. Given the speed of wind of 9 mph on that morning the debris would have needed (if the direction of the wind was perfect) 53 min!!
Now look at the account:
"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard
This really doesn't sound like 53 min later ...

Is this perhaps explainable due to the fact that this story is recalled one year later?
Unlikely. On the one hand there is NOT a single eyewitness account who supports the wind theory but also the woman recalls:
Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
If it really was 53 minutes after the crash she would already have had of this crash from the television.

Moreover I want to stress that many papers have been found in New Baltimore. That's pretty amazing given the fact that the papers not only had to stay 53 minutes in the air but also had to "survive" the danger of a big lake they had to cross .....

For everybody who starts yawning now and says well, I always knew they shot UA 93 down I want to underline once again:
UA 93 never flew over New Baltimore nor of the Indian Lake

If a plane was shot down and was responsable for this debris it wasn't UA 93 which was seen coming in from the west (see first part of ... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!)

[John Doe II]

10. Where are the usual naysayers?

This thread gives the proof based on eyewitnesses and many newspaper accounts that the official UA 93 story is clearly a lie. A lie that doesn't only simply cover up a shoot down of UA 93 but a scenario that is much more complex and only explainable if one assumes some US-officials knowing about 911 beforehand.
So, does everybody agree that the official story is a clearcut lie or does somebody and try to explain the raining debris and the human remains found on Indian Lake?

[John Doe II]

11. So I take it

that LARED, Bolo and Vincent agree with me that
the FBI lied
the NTSB lied
that the whole UA 93 story is a clear lie.

Well, if you don't then maybe you should come up with something that explain the raining debris on Indian Lake and New Baltimore (although UA 93 never crossed theses locations).....

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I love this standard that you have

John Doe II, take it from me: there are not enough hours in the day to disprove every silly conspiracy theory you guys come up with.

I choose my battles and so far I'm not getting a lot of discussion going, because no one deals with anything I say. (Please don't think I'm crying about this - I'm just stating a simple fact.)

And when I can't even convince somebody which way north is, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that we could actually ever agree on anything, especially when people on the other side of the discussion won't step in and stop their fellow conspiritorialist from embarassing himself. And why is that? Because it would mean saying that I was right about something? Could that be the reason?

Even though I was?

So forgive me if I give the 93 argument a rest. I don't regard any reluctance to confront my arguments as victory or evidence of being right - and neither should you.

[seatnineb]

13. Even with all the help.......

.....that such noble entities such as the FBI,CIA,NIST,FEMA,DOD,NYT and the 9/11 ommission report provide to consolidate the story that you believe in.....

....you are still struggling to convince people that what you believe in makes any sense..........

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Dude. I'm struggling to convince people which way north is.

I can't be responsible if people resist it. The poor and the CTs will always be among us.

There are some things that I have resigned myself to:

1. I don't have all the answers.

2. I will never have all the answers.

3. I will never, ever, at any time possess enough of the answers to convince the committed of their mistakes.

4. Because I dare to deny their dogma, people on the other side will entrench themselves in total error rather than admit I was right. (That's not an absolute, but it will certainly hold true more often than not.)

Also, I have a job, I have a life. There's just so many hours in the day - I can only be a signpost, not a mentor.

[k-robjoe]

15. I had a quick

look at the North - notNorth debate.

And I think I will stick out my head and grant to Boloboffin that he was right on that matter, and C. was wrong. Hope this can help to see that he is not up against a 20-headed CT-monster, so that when the JD2-head asks a question, he can just answer with referring to something the C-head said on another thread.

[John Doe II]

16. Bolo

First of all sorry that I had to provoque you guys a bit in order to make at least one OCTler enter the discussion.
I find it rather strange that no one of you has a word to say in order to refuse a thread that proves that the whole UA 93 story can't be true. And btw thanks for classifying this thread apparently as "silly consipracy theory". Excuse me, if you call it silly then maybe you should come up with something in oder to refute it.
The wind theory isn't possible. The FBI lied. The NTSB lied.
Or otherwise explain me why there isn't a single eyewitness who supports the wind theory? Why is debris found immeadiatley after the crash in New Baltimore when it should have fallen down inly 52 min later?
Explain me the following quote (thanks to Zaphod 36):

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."

"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said.

Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.


But I'm sure that no OCTler will come up with even trying to refute this thread.
....

(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)

[John Doe II]

17. Distance to Indian Lake

Even more completely refuted is the wind theory by the fact that although most journalists wrote the distance from crash site to Indian Lake Marina would be 1 1/2 miles in reality it is 3 miles. Therefore the wind would have needed not 10 but 20 minutes. So the contradiction to all the eyewitnesses is even more striking.