New Smoking Gun shatters major Flight 93 claim

[killtown]

Most people probably still don't know this, but officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated after it allegedly crashed as all the first witnesses who arrived at the scene had assumed from the lack of a large plane they were told that had supposedly crashed there.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg

The reason most of you probably never heard about this extraordinary "found buried" claim is because the news never reported it when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found underground!

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html


This would be like the news not reporting that the WTC 7 had collapsed!

The reason that the media didn't report when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried underground is because NOTHING WAS BURIED UNDERGROUND (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2009/03/boeing-757-challenge.html)!

[icemanrip]

Don't you just hate it when nobody posts a comment. :-) LOL.
Good Find.

[cruise4]

It's laughable.

[killtown]

Don't you just hate it when nobody posts a comment. :-) LOL.
Good Find.
LoL!

I know why the skeptics are refraining from commenting. Kind of hard to think of a logical reason why the media didn't report when the motherload was supposedly found.

[john white]

Yep, all still consistant with an air to air missile strike

Wouldnt you agree Killtown?

[strengthofknowledge]

should be common knowledge by now if ya ask me.....Good post but dont call it new...lol

[killtown]

What's a matter skeptics? Do you admit defeat?

[ozpixie]

If you ask me, it would be the first time in history that a plane substantially buried itself underground after crashing. Maybe Moses was there to part the dirt and then cover it up again?

[ownoiz]

There was no plane.

The town mayor has been saying it for years.

Therefore there was no plane buried.

9/11 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=mayor+shanksville+%22no+plane%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
.

[christophera]

It would be great if we had an accountable government so we could use the information to get more truth.

Just like WTC 7.

Just like the missle at the pentagon.

Just like 1/2 dozen other things that do not compel an immediate action in order to be in lawfull conformance.

[stannrodd]

It would be great if we had an accountable government so we could use the information to get more truth.

Just like WTC 7.

Just like the missle at the pentagon.

Just like 1/2 dozen other things that do not compel an immediate action in order to be in lawfull conformance.

Have you submitted all your stuff to authorities .. ?

Stann

[zhenshanren]

Maybe Moses was there to part the dirt and then cover it up again?

LOL too funny!! :p

[the nine]

I find it unusual that they would mechanically dig out a crime scene, piece by piece.
I would have thought they would have dug around it to preserve as much evidence as possible..maybe supporting the weight as they dug down and underneath the remains..

strange behaviour for a country who leads the world in crime investigation :confused:

[adbasque]

I will not accept anything "found" after 8 years lots of BS will be flying around now, why didn't they come up with it back then?

I don't care what they say, do, scream, it is a dirty inside job full stop.

[white horse]

I find it unusual that they would mechanically dig out a crime scene, piece by piece.
I would have thought they would have dug around it to preserve as much evidence as possible..maybe supporting the weight as they dug down and underneath the remains..

strange behaviour for a country who leads the world in crime investigation :confused:

If YOU'D just committed a crime whould YOU want to preeserve the evidence?? Nadda!

[the nine]

If YOU'D just committed a crime whould YOU want to preeserve the evidence?? Nadda!

exactly..actions speak louder than words ;)

[anthony65]

Most people probably still don't know this, but officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated after it allegedly crashed as all the first witnesses who arrived at the scene had assumed from the lack of a large plane they were told that had supposedly crashed there.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg

The reason most of you probably never heard about this extraordinary "found buried" claim is because the news never reported it when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found underground!

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html


This would be like the news not reporting that the WTC 7 had collapsed!

The reason that the media didn't report when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried underground is because NOTHING WAS BURIED UNDERGROUND (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2009/03/boeing-757-challenge.html)!

Spongy self-sealing earth! :confused:

They should patent that stuff! :D

[resistance]

The whole thing is a piss take I know. I don't bother getting involved on the 911 discusions anymore, most people with an alternative view know it was an inside job. The evidence outside of mainstream is compelling, but that makes no difference to those motherfuckers at the top. They will keep rolling on with the agenda, and if need be pull another one off somewhere in the future, such is their arogance.

[turbine]

It just gets worse and worse...

[bsmurph83]

What's a matter skeptics? Do you admit defeat?

i think the term you are looking for, killtown, is "pseudo-sceptic" or "debunker". the real sceptics (australian spelling) are right here in this thread and website in general (with some notable 'troll' exceptions)

[alzee]

the debunkers are conspicuous by their unwillingness (or inability?) to respond. funny :)

[ronisron]

Buried underground???:D It wasn't released because it was so ridiculous of an explanation that they would have been embarrassed to even suggest it. They already pushed the envelope far enough with unbelievable explanations... The "plane" that hit the Pentagon supposedly disintegrated on impact too.

[tabea_blumenschein]

the debunkers are conspicuous by their unwillingness (or inability?) to respond. funny :)


The reason that the media didn't report when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried underground is because NOTHING WAS BURIED UNDERGROUND!


Unwillingness or inability to respond? To what? The media reported that 95% of the plane wreckage had been found. When might that have happened? While they were digging it out of that impact crater, when else?!? What the hell were they supposed to do, have a reporter on scene to do a live cut-in every time a piece of wreckage was brought up?

There were over 1500 people who worked the Flight 93 crash scene; a large number of them civilian volunteers. In the eight years since 9/11 not one of them has come forward to say "we were digging in that crater for weeks, yet we found nothing."

Not one.

Case dismissed.

[adbasque]

Unwillingness or inability to respond? To what? The media reported that 95% of the plane wreckage had been found. When might that have happened? While they were digging it out of that impact crater, when else?!? What the hell were they supposed to do, have a reporter on scene to do a live cut-in every time a piece of wreckage was brought up?

There were over 1500 people who worked the Flight 93 crash scene; a large number of them civilian volunteers. In the eight years since 9/11 not one of them has come forward to say "we were digging in that crater for weeks, yet we found nothing."

Not one.

Case dismissed.

After eight years?
Good God how gullible people really are
After freeking 8 damn years suddenly they found 95% of the plane buried? LOLLL
Maybe too much Fluoride in people's system
God as soon as I think I met the dumbest suddenly surprise surprise another one worse pops up lol

[adbasque]

Buried underground???:D It wasn't released because it was so ridiculous of an explanation that they would have been embarrassed to even suggest it. They already pushed the envelope far enough with unbelievable explanations... The "plane" that hit the Pentagon supposedly disintegrated on impact too.

To be honest I think they are doing it on purpose to prove their point how dumb people really are to swallow any crap.

8 Years for god sakes they could've made another scenario from scratch lol
Geez how stupid people are is beyond me I promise you

[tabea_blumenschein]

After eight years?
Good God how gullible people really are
After freeking 8 damn years suddenly they found 95% of the plane buried? LOLLL
Maybe too much Fluoride in people's system
God as soon as I think I met the dumbest suddenly surprise surprise another one worse pops up lol


No, adbasque. That's not what I meant. Since you didn't understand me the first time, I'll try to say the same thing I did before, but in simpler language.

Eight years ago, it was announced by the media that 95% of the plane had been found.

Eight years ago, over 1,500 people, including many civilian volunteers, helped excavate the wreckage.

Neither of these is a recent occurance. Both happened shortly after 9/11.

Are you with me?

Good.

Now then. In the eight years since that time, not one of the over 1,500 people who worked the site has come forward to say that no plane parts were discovered.

Case closed.

[gribz]

They already pushed the envelope far enough with unbelievable explanations... The "plane" that hit the Pentagon supposedly disintegrated on impact too.

I actually think flight 93 being buried upon impact is more realistic than every ounce of AA77 and its contents disintegrating and dissolving upon impact.

:D

If you were to state these to excuses before they happened people would laugh, yet because Fox, CNN, BBC etc report it then people believe!!! TV is the biggest cause of hypnotict behaviour out there!

[tabea_blumenschein]

I actually think flight 93 being buried upon impact is more realistic than every ounce of AA77 and its contents disintegrating and dissolving upon impact.

:D

If you were to state these to excuses before they happened people would laugh, yet because Fox, CNN, BBC etc report it then people believe!!! TV is the biggest cause of hypnotict behaviour out there!


For the record, who said anything about "every ounce of AA77 and its contents disintegrating and dissolving upon impact."?

I've never heard a non-truther make this claim.

[killtown]

The media reported that 95% of the plane wreckage had been found. When might that have happened? While they were digging it out of that impact crater, when else?!?
You obviously didn't read my article very well.

The smoking gun is not that the media reported with the FBI told them they were done cleaning up the site and that they had recovered 95% of the plane.

The smoking gun is that supposedly most of the plane was found in the ground, but the media DID NOT report it when this was realized even though the media DID report on 9/13 that the 1st black box and one of the engines were found that were supposedly buried amongst the rest of the "missing" plane.

The media not reporting when most of the plane was "found" buried is consistent with no other photos of plane debris supposedly being dug out of the ground except the black box and engine scrap which is prove that nothing was buried in the ground.

[killtown]

Now then. In the eight years since that time, not one of the over 1,500 people who worked the site has come forward to say that no plane parts were discovered.
You do know that it was only the FBI who excavated the crater and there looked to be less than 2 dozen of them there, right? The rest of the 1,476 people weren't allowed near the crater. Case re-opened.

[gribz]

For the record, who said anything about "every ounce of AA77 and its contents disintegrating and dissolving upon impact."?



Erm...well where was the plane and its contents after impact???? Do you think that small piece of metal with the AA colours on it that was picked up by some agent about 100m away from the impact is part of the plane???

[tabea_blumenschein]

Erm...well where was the plane and its contents after impact???? Do you think that small piece of metal with the AA colours on it that was picked up by some agent about 100m away from the impact is part of the plane???


"One small piece of metal ...?"

Let's look at some evidence, shall we? (Links to photos of plane wreckage at end of post)

Mark Roberts took the time to go through some of the many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash. Here is a summery of his findings:

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


Mr. Roberts also wants to know why truthers don't contact any of the over 8,000 people who responded to the Pentagon attack:

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police


Wait. Don't tell me. They were all in on it.

Just like the over 1,500 people who assisted at the Shanksville crash site were all in on it.

Just like the hundreds of structural engineers at ground zero (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/STRUCTURE/jim_destefano.pdf) in the hours, days, and weeks after the attacks were all in on it.

Just like the thousands of ironworkers, the forensics experts, the police and fire departments of NYC, just like all these people (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi).

All "in on it", right? Every last one of them, you say? Not tens of thousands of decent, caring human beings but tens of thousands of liars, dupes and shills willing to be complicit in one of the worst crimes ever committed.

Do you really believe that?

Given the collective expertise and combined experience of those mentioned, it's difficult to chalk up their silence to incompetence or simply being oblivious to the (so-called by you) "smoking gun evidence" that was literally right before their very eyes.

One of my biggest beefs with so-called "truthers" is their willingness to accuse absolutely anyone of anything, no matter how heinous, simply to prop up or defend their own paranoid delusions.

Lots of stuff on the Pentagon attacks at Mark's website, including photos of airplane wreckage:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2

More plane wreckage photos and information at 9/11 myths:

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[killtown]

The subject of this thread is about Shanksville, not the Pentagon.

[strt]

Taking threads off topic is not good. Please all continue... carefully.

[killtown]

So any logical explanation skeptics about why the media didn't report it *when* most of Flight 93 was "found" buried on 9/13-14?

[stannrodd]

So any logical explanation skeptics about why the media didn't report it *when* most of Flight 93 was "found" buried on 9/13-14?

Maybe it wasn't reported because the official story said a plane crashed there.

AND

Therefore you would expect there to be wreckage there.

SO

Why report something which is "obvious" .. ?

It wasn't as if the location of the "wreckage" was unknown .. or lost in mountains .. or at sea.

Stann

[killtown]

Maybe it wasn't reported because the official story said a plane crashed there.
AND
Therefore you would expect there to be wreckage there.
SO
Why report something which is "obvious" .. ?
It wasn't as if the location of the "wreckage" was unknown .. or lost in mountains .. or at sea.
Initial official reports were that most of the wreckage traveled into the woods and then after they didn't find much in the woods, the location WAS unknown.

PS - You a planehugger at Shanks too?!?

[stannrodd]

Your question referred to wreckage being "found buried" in the ground. Nothing else.

So any logical explanation skeptics about why the media didn't report it *when* most of Flight 93 was "found" buried on 9/13-14?

I simply responded to your question as a skeptic.

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

Two questions for killtown:

1. How many people were involved in the excavation at Shanksville?

2. How many of them have since come forward to say that the flight 93 plane wreckage really wasn't found in the crater, contrary to published reports?

I pause for a reply.

[killtown]

Two questions for killtown:

1. How many people were involved in the excavation at Shanksville?

2. How many of them have since come forward to say that the flight 93 plane wreckage really wasn't found in the crater, contrary to published reports?

I pause for a reply.
1. The FBI guys in the hazmat suits who had jurisdiction of the site? I don't know. You should be able to count them since they've been photographed.

2. Dude, they are FBI agents, the ones that would have staged the scene. Come on!

Now your turn to answer my question . . . that I asked first.

[stannrodd]

If you have a point to make, don't do it at the expense of other members who are willing to engage in decent discussion.

[killtown]

If you have a point to make, don't do it at the expense of other members who are willing to engage in decent discussion
Ha! What a laugh. You are one of the biggest trolls on this board.

Do us all a favor and stay off this thread.

[matrix911]

1. The FBI guys in the hazmat suits who had jurisdiction of the site? I don't know. You should be able to count them since they've been photographed.

2. Dude, they are FBI agents, the ones that would have staged the scene. Come on!

Now your turn to answer my question . . . that I asked first.

tabea? bueller? LoL

the silence is deafening aint it....

Ooo Ooo! wait a sec, whats that??? errr never mind, i guess those are crickets :rolleyes:

[tabea_blumenschein]

1. The FBI guys in the hazmat suits who had jurisdiction of the site? I don't know. You should be able to count them since they've been photographed.

2. Dude, they are FBI agents, the ones that would have staged the scene. Come on!

Now your turn to answer my question . . . that I asked first.


The only people there excavating the site were "FBI guys in hazmat suits"? Do I understand you correctly?

At Shanksville, which was by far the smallest of the three 9/11 crash scenes, over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations worked at the scene. Including civilian volunteers, many of whom joined an organized effort to collect aircraft parts, the number of crash scene workers reaches well over 1,500.

On 9/11 alone, these included: • 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines

Source. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1)


If the wreckage wasn't found in the impact crater during excavation, why aren't all these people publicly demanding to know what happened to flight 93?

[bsmurph83]

i think people get sidetracked debating questionable second hand information. and the MOST questionable is easily the government's (or at least the criminal elements in it), given their historical record and proud tradition of fleecing and deceiving the american people.

if aerial photos show the farcical "impact crater" was there in the early-mid 90s, then that's "coincidence" enough (or should be) to realise that the whole thing is suspicious and cannot be taken at face value.

america created al-qaeda. so if you believe the official story, it's STILL an inside job. if you don't believe it (and why would you?) it's an inside job. either way, al-qaeda, being an extension of america's unofficial "terror corp," has inside connections, which explains why and how "they" could have pulled off the impossible attack in the world's most protected (except, by "coincidence," on 9/11) airspace. bin laden was an asset for the US right up to the very day. he is probably still an asset. even dead he is an asset because he serves to fulfil the function of "bogeyman" to scare people into accepting the most dubious, irrational and far-fetched tales the Gov can foist on the people.

[killtown]

1) The only people there excavating the site were "FBI guys in hazmat suits"? Do I understand you correctly?

2) If the wreckage wasn't found in the impact crater during excavation, why aren't all these people publicly demanding to know what happened to flight 93?
1) As far as I can tell, yes.

See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWatqp-2zTQ) @ 1:35. The Flight 93 ambassador is telling the tourists that the "white & yellow dots" are FBI agents doing a shoulder sweep of the field.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_ap.jpg

I've only seen people in hazmat suits doing the excavation (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html#excavate).

http://www.ecnnews.com/9112002/pix/flight93.jpg

Here's a blurb that mentions that FBI agents were doing the dig along with "other investigators" although it doesn't specify who they were:

FBI and other investigators at the scene have excavated the crash site down to a depth of about 45 feet looking for clues.

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/emergency/pictures/091201f.htm


As far as I can tell, it looks like it was mostly the FBI, if not only the FBI, who did the dig. If others outside the FBI were a part of the dig, my bet it was people from other govt agencies and those are the types who would be the type of people to be apart of a "hoax" dig.

Just look at this aerial photo of the open excavated hole. There's nothing in there but DIRT!

http://www.dailyamerican.com/fl93site2/images/gallery%20photos/08.jpg
(HI RES (http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate-da1-hr.jpg))

Also note that they are digging STRAIGHT DOWN even though Flight 93 was said to have crashed at a 40deg angle! They should be digging in an oval shape if that really happened.

Of course we know why they didn't have to bother, because NOTHING was down there as we would have seen MANY photos of wreckage coming out of the hole the the MEDIA would have immediately reported *when* the diggers "found" that most of the plane was supposedly buried.



2) Those were all the agencies who "worked at the scene." Please show me evidence they were part of the dig.

But if you want to do straw-man arguments, why didn't any of the reported 1,500 people helping out at the scene MENTION that they saw tons of debris being dug out of the hole?

[stannrodd]

Just look at this aerial photo of the open excavated hole. There's nothing in there but DIRT!

What would YOU (http://sarasota.indymedia.org/global/killtown-conspiracy-flake-or-internet-menace) expect in an open excavated hole ? :D

Dirt .. funny that !

Stann

[ibaster]

It certainly would stand to reason that if they found a plane or even a large portion of a plane underground it would be news. Let`s face it after 9/11 it was shown constantly. Other events went unreported so that they could show every little detail about 9/11 and it`s aftermath. Of course it seems more like it that they actually just appeared to be showing every detail.

We saw the same angles over and over again and as far as Flight 93 we really didn`t see much at all. It was always kind of a side note. They had no cameras to see it as it happened and when they finally arrived there was not much to report. I am not sure what happened there but I am sure something dodgy took place.

Comparing the four plane hits would be when things don`t add up most for me. If only one plane had been involved it would be easier to pull off for the perps. Here though you had 110 floor steel sky scrapers being totally obliterated and on the other hand you have a little hole in the Pentagon and a small ditch with some wreckage that would appear to be part of a plane.

If they found all of the plane why do we never see it? Why was it not rebuilt in a test facility? Why was there not a Newsweek cover of Flight 93 being dug up.

The hole left by Flight 93 is just one of many holes in this story.

[stannrodd]

It certainly would stand to reason that if they found a plane or even a large portion of a plane underground it would be news. Let`s face it after 9/11 it was shown constantly. Other events went unreported so that they could show every little detail about 9/11 and it`s aftermath. Of course it seems more like it that they actually just appeared to be showing every detail.

We saw the same angles over and over again and as far as Flight 93 we really didn`t see much at all. It was always kind of a side note. They had no cameras to see it as it happened and when they finally arrived there was not much to report. I am not sure what happened there but I am sure something dodgy took place.

Comparing the four plane hits would be when things don`t add up most for me. If only one plane had been involved it would be easier to pull off for the perps. Here though you had 110 floor steel sky scrapers being totally obliterated and on the other hand you have a little hole in the Pentagon and a small ditch with some wreckage that would appear to be part of a plane.

If they found all of the plane why do we never see it? Why was it not rebuilt in a test facility? Why was there not a Newsweek cover of Flight 93 being dug up.

The hole left by Flight 93 is just one of many holes in this story.

You're totally right .. even in a game of poker you have to show your hand.

Stann

[killtown]

It certainly would stand to reason that if they found a plane or even a large portion of a plane underground it would be news.

as far as Flight 93 we really didn`t see much at all. It was always kind of a side note.

If they found all of the plane why do we never see it?

Why was there not a Newsweek cover of Flight 93 being dug up.

THANK you! I'm glad to see someone has common sense about this.

[stannrodd]

It's always good KT.

Stann

[killtown]

No reasonable explanation skeptics as to why the media didn't report it when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Why should anyone bother trying to answer your question, killtown? Truthers don't trust the media anyway. You'd just dismiss news reports of wreckage being excavated from the impact crater as "government disinfo". You know you would.

I, for one, am not interested of playing your game of "truther catch-22".

[killtown]

Nice side-step try.

We don't accuse the media of knowingly reporting disinfo in most cases. In the case of this, the media would be merely reporting what the govt has told them, just like when the govt told the media when they supposedly recovered both the black boxes underground and the media merely reported the govt's claim.

So by that, the ONLY logical reason the media never reported it when most of the plane was supposedly found buried is because the govt NEVER told the media they supposedly found most of the plane buried and the ONLY logical reason the govt never told the media this is because nothing was buried and the govt just made it up, right?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Well, isn't that more or less what I was just saying, killtown? If the media is only reporting what the government tells them, then won't you still dismiss those media reports as "government disinfo?"

So even if I post links to media reports like this one (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html), this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010929somerset0929p3.asp), this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp), this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010915blackbox0915p3.asp) and this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp) which document the recovery of the wreckage, black box, and cockpit voice recorder of flight 93, along with reports like this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922coronernat3p3.asp), this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010924scenenat5p5.asp), and this one (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011027flight931027p5.asp) which document the recover of human remains from the site, you'll just move the goalposts and say that those reports are all lies, right?

[killtown]

If the media is only reporting what the government tells them, then won't you still dismiss those media reports as "government disinfo?"
It's besides the point. The point is regardless of whether what the govt tells the media is true or not, why didn't the media report it when the govt supposedly found where most of the plane (and thereby most of the passengers) were?

You telling me the govt never told the media when they "found" were most of the plane was? Why would the govt not tell them that? The govt told the media when they "found" the 2 black boxes and one of the engines in the ground (coincidentally all those claimed finds were photographed), so there is NO logical reason the govt wouldn't tell them the amazing story about where most of the plane supposedly was, right?

So even if I post links to media reports... you'll just move the goalposts and say that those reports are all lies, right?
Again, that's besides the point. Find me ONE report the media posted on 9/13* or 9/14* telling the world that the govt found most of the plane underground.

(*The dates most of the plane would have been found when both black boxes and one of the engines were supposedly found underground too.)

[tabea_blumenschein]

Again, that's besides the point. Find me ONE report the media posted on 9/13* or 9/14* telling the world that the govt found most of the plane underground.

(*The dates most of the plane would have been found when both black boxes and one of the engines were supposedly found underground too.)


A plane hits the ground at 500+ mph, and most of the wreckage is going to be found after only two or three days sweeping and digging, is it?

That's almost as nutty as a few years ago when you tried to add miles per hour and feet over at the JREF forums.

[killtown]

1) A plane hits the ground at 500+ mph, and

2) most of the wreckage is going to be found after only two or three days sweeping and digging, is it?

3) That's almost as nutty as a few years ago when you tried to add miles per hour and feet over at the JREF forums.
1) If most of the plane supposedly buried, what difference does the alleged speed make?

2) Oh I'm sorry, by which day did the digging crew stumble upon most of the plane?

3) Excuse me?

[stannrodd]

You can't dismiss information which is not presented through the media. There is nothing to dismiss .. correct?

You are attempting to create something out of a nonsense.

Most people probably still don't know this, but officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated after it allegedly crashed as all the first witnesses who arrived at the scene had assumed from the lack of a large plane they were told that had supposedly crashed there.

I actually don't think a plane went down at Shanksville BTW.

So KT could you present here in this thread, how you know this .. if it was not reported/presented somehow.. what is your source for this information?

.. officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated ...

You say this as if it is true, therefore you must have been convinced somehow.

And can you do it without the usual labeling me as a troll abuse. Thanks.

Stann

[killtown]

1) You can't dismiss information which is not presented through the media. There is nothing to dismiss .. correct?

2) You are attempting to create something out of a nonsense.

3) I actually don't think a plane went down at Shanksville BTW.

4) So KT could you present here in this thread, how you know this .. if it was not reported/presented somehow.. what is your source for this information?

5) You say this as if it is true, therefore you must have been convinced somehow.

6) And can you do it without the usual labeling me as a troll abuse.

1) What?

2) Huh?

3) Then WTF is your problem?

4) Know what? I'm not making any claims.

5) I'm convinced of what?

6) Man, it was really hard not to.

[stannrodd]

KT, You made this statement in your opening post..

Most people probably still don't know this, but officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated after it allegedly crashed as all the first witnesses who arrived at the scene had assumed from the lack of a large plane they were told that had supposedly crashed there.

I was asking you about the part of that statement.. highlighted in bold above.

What is your source? And would you be so kind as to post that information here.

It is the crux of your thread.

Of course you don't have to provide a source, but it would be useful in terms of your credibility in particular the opening statement of the thread.

Media often don't provide a source do they.

(6) Thanks .. you've known me long enough to know where I come from.

Stann

[dawnismygoddess]

What a joke (the official story)


If it did crash there, wouldn't there be tons of wreckage?

[killtown]

I was asking you about the part of that statement.. highlighted in bold above.

What is your source?
It's in the link in my OP (that's why I included it. ;) )

[killtown]

If it did crash there, wouldn't there be tons of wreckage?
You'd think, especially if the govt claims they recovered 95% of the plane!

[stannrodd]

What a joke (the official story)


If it did crash there, wouldn't there be tons of wreckage?

I agree there should be ..that's true .. but it has yet to be shown there was or wasn't ..

I think this is KT's point, though I'm unsure why the member is doing it the way he is.

I've asked for a source for his opening statement. Let's hope he has one and that it's not simply an invention to bolster a no plane at Shanksville scenario.

That would be bullshit disguised loosely as research.

Most people here think there was no plane crash at Shanksville .. I do too.

If Killtown has good information we would expect him/her to share that truth and not play silly games with it.

Could you post the information here KT.

Stann

[killtown]

Let's hope he has one and that it's not simply an invention to bolster a no plane at Shanksville scenario.

Most people here think there was no plane crash at Shanksville .. I do too.
Does anyone else think Stann just contradicted himself?!

[stannrodd]

Does anyone else think Stann just contradicted himself?!

How about posting the source of your statement KT so I/we can verify it.

I have no interest in visiting any of your links to your own sites.

There is no contradiction in what I said. Perhaps I should have said .. Most people here think there was not a plane crash at Shanksville

Stann

[killtown]

I have no interest in visiting any of your links to your own sites.
Why? Afraid you're gonna get cyber-cooties or something?

[stannrodd]

How about posting the source of your statement KT so I/we can verify it.

I have no interest in visiting any of your links to your own sites.

There is no contradiction in what I said. Perhaps I should have said .. Most people here think there was not a plane crash at Shanksville

Stann

Let's just work on the question of your threads topic KT..

What is your answer .. the source of your information would be good.

We are on your side !
Stann

[jonesy1981]

Let's just work on the question of your threads topic KP..

What is your answer .. the source of your information would be good.

We are on your side !
Stann

Just like to add I'm not on KT side, and are you going to provide a source?

[sidlittle]

Just like to add I'm not on KT side, and are you going to provide a source?

Would you and Stannrodd prefer your arses wiped with scented toilet paper ?

Ok, how about reading through the link in the OP then ? :rolleyes:

[rodin]

Yep, all still consistant with an air to air missile strike

Wouldnt you agree Killtown?

Yes but - why blow up a plane (as per mission gone wrong therefore terminate) if already the crime scene is prepared? The faked crime scene fits better with the plane landed narrative

[killtown]

Would you and Stannrodd prefer your arses wiped with scented toilet paper ?

Ok, how about reading through the link in the OP then ? :rolleyes:
LoL. He's scared to click links to my sites. I think he thinks he might get cooties if he does.

[dawnismygoddess]

I don't care how hot that fire was, there should have been wreckage behind


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010705/5world.gif

[stannrodd]

Just like to add I'm not on KT side, and are you going to provide a source?

I presume he wants us to visit his site and figure it out for ourselves. It's called spamming .. such that his sites get visits and his "information" will be looked through.

I doubt he will post his source here .. but lets wait and see.

Stann

[thematrix]

I don't care how hot that fire was, there should have been wreckage behind


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010705/5world.gif

what fire?

which plane?

In the case of shanksville there WAS a lot of wreckage. I am also at a bit of a loss as to how KillTowns gun is smoking.

93 crashed in shanksville either by means of passenger revolt, or by means of being shot down by tptb.

What claim are you making KT? A large amount of wreckage of 93 was "underground" and was dug up in the days following 9/11.

If a plane flies into softish ground at 500+mph where do you expect most of the wreckage to end up?

[killtown]

Are you being facetious?

[thematrix]

POSTED: 10:27 am EDT September 11, 2001
UPDATED: 8:52 am EDT October 11, 2001

STONYCREEK TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- WTAE-TV reporter Jim Parsons and a cameraman hiked more than two miles along old coal-mining roads through the woods leading up to the point where a Boeing 757 passenger jet crashed in Somerset County, Pa., Tuesday morning.

They were looking for a clear vantage point to view the crash scene, but they found themselves in the midst of debris.

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris... "

[link (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html) ]

if you go to the page and read the whole story amongst other things they have a slideshow showing *pictures of debris*

There was a plane crash - about 2 weeks later they had recovered almost all of the plane, some of it was smashed into little pieces and scattered, some bits of plane fell off a long way from the crater, some plane was "underground" as in buried in the ground where it smashed into it at 500+mph where it was later dug up.

Given that the CVR was recovered, it's recordings correllate with ATC recordings of the same conversations, and given that the CVR has a serial number on it which uniquely IDs it as being from UA93 (pictures of the recovered CVR are in the Moussaoui trial exhibits) thats pretty 100% cast iron solid waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond any reasonable doubt proof that UA93 crashed near Shanksville. Thats before you start looking at recovered personal effects from victims, recovered IDed DNA and passenger manifests that tie the people whose DNA that is, who lets not forget were horribly killed, to UA93, eyewitnesses that saw the plane crash, UA themselves who reported the loss of their airframe, RADAR tracks that track UA93 the whole time it was airbourne until it's crash, soil analysis of the soil around the site that showed jet fuel, how much proof do you need before you accept that UA93 crashed?

[killtown]

Ah, I mixed you up with matrix911.

1) What claim are you making KT? A large amount of wreckage of 93 was "underground" and was dug up in the days following 9/11.

2) If a plane flies into softish ground at 500+mph where do you expect most of the wreckage to end up?
1) Yeah that claim, prove it.

2) Above ground, just like the other couple of plane crashes that hit dirt going really fast and shredded to little pieces, but mostly stayed about ground. And the "soft" dirt claim is erroneous. I called the land owner, Mike Sovonevic, and when I asked him about the soft dirt claim, he responded in a scoffing tone that the "soft dirt" claim was a "relative term," meaning it wasn't really soft like the media portrayed it to be.

Do you know how torn up that ground would be if it was truly "soft" and a huge 757 bore through it at a 40deg angle going nearly 600mph? You wouldn't have a little pile of dirt pushed over to the side and the same amount to fill back in the crater!

[killtown]

1) if you go to the page and read the whole story amongst other things they have a slideshow showing *pictures of debris*

2) There was a plane crash - about 2 weeks later they had recovered almost all of the plane,

3) some bits of plane fell off a long way from the crater,

4) some plane was "underground" as in buried in the ground where it smashed into it at 500+mph where it was later dug up.

5) (pictures of the recovered CVR are in the Moussaoui trial exhibits)

6) recovered IDed DNA

7) and passenger manifests that tie the people whose DNA that is,

8) eyewitnesses that saw the plane crash,

9) UA themselves who reported the loss of their airframe,

10) RADAR tracks that track UA93 the whole time it was airbourne until it's crash,

11) soil analysis of the soil around the site that showed jet fuel,

12) how much proof do you need before you accept that UA93 crashed?
1) Do you really think I wouldn't think they would plant debris for a staged crash? Btw, notice how most of that debris in the sideshow are of small debris that could fit in one's pocket and they are close-up photos that could have been taken anywhere. And a Shanksville witness has confirmed that last photo of the smoke plume is fake (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/shanksville-resident-says-val.html).

2) So says the FBI. Are you really going to base your proof of what the FBI has reported in the media? And btw, speaking of the claim of my OP, why didn't the FBI report it to the media when they supposedly realized that most of Flight 93 was underground??? The FBI reported to the media that they supposedly found both the black boxes and one of the engines underground. Why didn't they tell them they found that MOST OF THE PLANE was allegedly underground??? That would be the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY most of a large plane buried itself. It would logically be where most of the passenger were too!

3) Please show photos of that.

4) Yes, official claim 80% was underground. We are still waiting for some extraordinary proof that back up that extraordinary claim.

5) From those photo, prove they were taken at the scene.

6) Yeah, 100% "ID'd" out of only 8% total mass of the passengers and NOT A SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD on the scene, but a whopping 95% of the plane was allegedly recovered. Those are some INCREDIBLE odds!

7) You really think they'd have it say they ID'd people who weren't on the manifest?!

8) How many actually saw the plane hit the ground?

9) And why is the alleged Flight 93 remains stored away at top secret Iron Mountain? Why they need to hide it???

10) Too bad PilotsForTruth showed the flight path heights differed GREATLY from the ground witness accounts.

11) REALLY??? That's news to me. Please post a source to that claim.

12) Start by proving most of a 757 was buried under that shallow crater.

[dawnismygoddess]

what fire?

which plane?

In the case of shanksville there WAS a lot of wreckage. I am also at a bit of a loss as to how KillTowns gun is smoking.

93 crashed in shanksville either by means of passenger revolt, or by means of being shot down by tptb.

What claim are you making KT? A large amount of wreckage of 93 was "underground" and was dug up in the days following 9/11.

If a plane flies into softish ground at 500+mph where do you expect most of the wreckage to end up?

Dude, dude, dude.

Are you even award that they found wreckage up to 8 miles away from the crash site?

That plane was most likely shot down by 20MM cannon from an Air National Guard F-16 fighter, whose pilot basically went rouge.


It was SUPPOSED to strike the U.S. Capitol building! Can you imagine if that happened!?!? We'd all have RFID National ID cards fo' sure, and then some.

That pilot bought all of humanity a lot of time - I salute him for what he did (even tho I feel bad for the victims and their families)

[thematrix]

Ah, I mixed you up with matrix911.

2) Above ground, just like the other couple of plane crashes that hit dirt going really fast and shredded to little pieces, but mostly stayed about ground. And the "soft" dirt claim is erroneous. I called the land owner, Mike Sovonevic, and when I asked him about the soft dirt claim, he responded in a scoffing tone that the "soft dirt" claim was a "relative term," meaning it wasn't really soft like the media portrayed it to be.

Do you know how torn up that ground would be if it was truly "soft" and a huge 757 bore through it at a 40deg angle going nearly 600mph? You wouldn't have a little pile of dirt pushed over to the side and the same amount to fill back in the crater!


which other couple plane crashes? what speed and angle did they impact the ground?

Where do you get 40degrees from for 93's impact?

1) Do you really think I wouldn't think they would plant debris for a staged crash? Btw, notice how most of that debris in the sideshow are of small debris that could fit in one's pocket and they are close-up photos that could have been taken anywhere. And a Shanksville witness has confirmed that last photo of the smoke plume is fake (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/shanksville-resident-says-val.html).


My point is more about the large spread of debris over the area and large amount of it rather than the size of the pieces. One womans opnion in some phone call which is probably faked, with auido that could have been taped anywhere, with anyone, does not confirm anything other than the fact that IF it is genuine then in HER opinion the photo was fake. Eyewitness testimony from one single eyewitness can be unreliable.

That would be the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY most of a large plane buried itself.
got any proof of this?

Not done much research have you? - Go look up NorthWest Airlines flight 710.

I'll write a more thorough reply next week after I am back from work.

[thematrix]

Dude, dude, dude.

Are you even award that they found wreckage up to 8 miles away from the crash site?

That plane was most likely shot down by 20MM cannon from an Air National Guard F-16 fighter, whose pilot basically went rouge.


It was SUPPOSED to strike the U.S. Capitol building! Can you imagine if that happened!?!? We'd all have RFID National ID cards fo' sure, and then some.

That pilot bought all of humanity a lot of time - I salute him for what he did (even tho I feel bad for the victims and their families)

that depends on how you measure the 8 miles, whether you take the distance travelled by road, or 8 miles as the crow flies.

Reports also state that most of the debris found a distance from the crash site, lets say it is 8 miles for sake of argument, was light materials blown on the breeze.

If a plane hits ground going 500+mph it smashes into little pieces, some of the wreckage burrows into the ground, some of it scatters around the area, some of it will get blown back upwards into the air as it bounces off the ground and then is blown up and out by the explosion.

It's perfectly plausible that light material lke paper, or fabric from furnishings inside the cabin for example could be blown back into the air on impact and then be blown several miles from the impact site if the plane was not shot down.

I don't think there is enough evidence to say one way or the other whether the plane was shot down or not.

There was a revolt on board, and the plane crashed, and there was other air traffic in the area with pilots on a high state of alert having already seen 3 planes crashed that morning. Beyond that it's very difficult to know what happened for sure.

[killtown]

1) which other couple plane crashes? what speed and angle did they impact the ground?

2) Where do you get 40degrees from for 93's impact?

3) got any proof of this? Not done much research have you? - Go look up NorthWest Airlines flight 710.
1) Lots I've archived here (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html) and also Flight 1771 (California/700mph/75+deg?).

2) Oh I'm sorry, what angle did 93 supposedly crash at?

3) Not sure about that crash. Please show photos of the crash so we can compare.


Now, don't forget all the other questions in my previous post, especially the questions relevant to this thread.

[killtown]

I'll be on Jim Fetzer's show (http://revereradionetwork.com/real-deal-dr-jim-fetzer) in about an hour discussing my latest Shanksville smoking gun find and more.

Mon. August 31, 2009
6-8 pm EST

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/08/guest-on-real-deal-with-jim-fetzer-mon.html

[stannrodd]

Which ones are you ? :D

[matrix911]

1) Lots I've archived here (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html) and also Flight 1771 (California/700mph/75+deg?).

2) Oh I'm sorry, what angle did 93 supposedly crash at?

3) Not sure about that crash. Please show photos of the crash so we can compare.


Now, don't forget all the other questions in my previous post, especially the questions relevant to this thread.

Gee, What a surprise our resident government loyalist/s and OCS defenders have dissappeared from the thread once again. :rolleyes: Lol so predictable

[thematrix]

1) Lots I've archived here (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html) and also Flight 1771 (California/700mph/75+deg?).

Of those you list on that page, only United 585 is similar to U93, and it was travelling slower. Given that kinetic energy on impact goes up with the SQUARE of velocity the energy of U93 on impact is significantly higher than that of U585.

The way I read that page it's also full of superficial cherry picked facts.

you don't have a table for example comparing size weight speed angle of attack for all those crashes - you just bold bits you find interesting

If anything comparisons you draw with Lockerbie for example reinforce the idea that 93 was not shot down (had it been shot down it would have very likely broken up midair and left more larger pieces of debris, the buried wreckage points to a very large energetic impact with the ground, If the plane breaks up in middair it's mass is considerably lower on impact and thus has significantly less energy on impact.


2) Oh I'm sorry, what angle did 93 supposedly crash at?


I am not asking you what angle the plane crashed at. I am asking how you know that the plane crashed at 40 degrees. I am asking where did you get that info from. Whats the source?


3) Not sure about that crash. Please show photos of the crash so we can compare.


I am not aware of any photos, there are witness reports that describe a plane crashing and almost completely burying itself up to 50 feet deep after crashing nose down into soft earth.

You've missed some other similar crashes BTW. Lookup Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771.


Now, don't forget all the other questions in my previous post, especially the questions relevant to this thread.

ah yes...

3) some bits of plane fell off a long way from the crater,

3) Please show photos of that.

why? - the last photos I posted you immediately claimed were fake.


4) Yes, official claim 80% was underground. We are still waiting for some extraordinary proof that back up that extraordinary claim.


It's not an extraordinary claim.

(pictures of the recovered CVR are in the Moussaoui trial exhibits)
5) From those photo, prove they were taken at the scene.


why? - Who cares whether or not the photos were taken at the scene? If we had photos that were credibly taken at the scene, you would just claim that they were faked. The CVR has a PART NUMBER, it contains voice recording that match with voice recordings taken from ATC. It's the right CVR and 100% definitely comes from U93, thats indisputable.

6) recovered IDed DNA
6) Yeah, 100% "ID'd" out of only 8% total mass of the passengers and NOT A SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD on the scene, but a whopping 95% of the plane was allegedly recovered. Those are some INCREDIBLE odds!


sigh - not the "single drop of blood quote" - have you ever read his whole quote in cotext??

A few weeks ago, Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County, walked around the perimeter of this area with a landowner, Tim Lambert.

Their rambling disturbed a flock of wild turkeys. Amid the racket of their departure, a thought occurred to Miller: nature had finally begun to reclaim this place.

He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 ­ the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground, the smell of the burnt and smouldering trees and grass, the silence of nature and the men who had arrived to find they could do nothing, the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated, and with it, the 44 people on board.

...Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. '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. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.' [ source (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html) ]

You can I a person with DNA from ONE CELL of their body. How much of a persons mass does 1 cell constitute?

There was a fire on impact, and people are combustible. Aircraft parts are generally not. Note that the claim is 95% of the plane was recovered. Not 95% of the planes mass )(lots of that mass would have been comprised of jet fuel and the planes cargo and people aboard) that doesn't mean they have 95% of the plane and everything on it, just 95% of the total amount of the actual aircraft, thats assuming that the 95% figure is even reliable.


7) You really think they'd have it say they ID'd people who weren't on the manifest?!


of course not. The fact remains though that DNA was found at the scene, there are all manner of eyewitness reports and pictures, lots of them quite grisly, of remains of people. That DNA was IDed as those passengers. Don't you think the lawers for Massaoui might have tried to argue that such DNA had been planted? Seeing as many aspects of 93 went to trial ina court of law we can infer that that DNA evidence is pretty watertight beyond any reasonable doubt.


8) How many actually saw the plane hit the ground?


I don't know, I am not sure why that is a relevant question. It can be proved beyond any shadow of any doubt that one way or another the plane hit the ground.


9) And why is the alleged Flight 93 remains stored away at top secret Iron Mountain? Why they need to hide it???


What evidence is there that a) the plane is hidden away? b) noone is allowed to look at the wreckage?

10) RADAR tracks that track UA93 the whole time it was airbourne until it's crash
10) Too bad PilotsForTruth showed the flight path heights differed GREATLY from the ground witness accounts.


Eye witness testimony, can be unreliable. The RADAR tracks match the flight paths recorded by the black boxes, and corroborate with some of the witness testimony. Some of the work PFT have done for other aspects of 911 is extremely suspect.

11) soil analysis of the soil around the site that showed jet fuel,
11) REALLY??? That's news to me. Please post a source to that claim.


Seems I am wrong about that. The EPA did analysis. The results have not been released in any kind of detail.

12) how much proof do you need before you accept that UA93 crashed?
12) Start by proving most of a 757 was buried under that shallow crater.


That might be hard. Lets say for sake of argument I could prove that most of the plane was in that crater. Would you accept that UA93 crashed at Shanksville?

I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the CVR and FDR were recovered from the crater. And those airplane parts have serial numbers to positively ID them specifically to a plan, not to mention the data on those recorders which matches data recorded at the same time in ATC.

I can prove pbeyond a reasonbale doubt tha remains of passengers and crew was found at the scene of the crash, how did that get there.


Just to get this straight - are you claiming that no plane crashed at shanksville at all?

[thematrix]

Gee, What a surprise our resident government loyalist/s and OCS defenders have dissappeared from the thread once again. :rolleyes: Lol so predictable

What do you know. You still like popping up in threads, adding no useful content, and calling people names.

Apparently you missd the part of my previous post where I said I'd write up a better reply after I got back from work.

Work took longer than expected, sue me.

[killtown]

1) That might be hard. Lets say for sake of argument I could prove that most of the plane was in that crater. Would you accept that UA93 crashed at Shanksville?

2) Just to get this straight - are you claiming that no plane crashed at shanksville at all?
1) Yes. Anxiously waiting. I'm mean if 80% of a huge 757 was buried in a concentrated spot, it shouldn't be too hard to prove, right? After all, there was a photographer there during the excavation and news reporters where there everyday waiting for all the latest news of what they found.

2) Yes.


PS - feel free to start a new thread about all the non-relevant comments in our last posts. I don't want to take this thread off topic.

[thematrix]

1) Yes. Anxiously waiting. I'm mean if 80% of a huge 757 was buried in a concentrated spot, it shouldn't be too hard to prove, right? After all, there was a photographer there during the excavation and news reporters where there everyday waiting for all the latest news of what they found.


How does the "no plane at shanksville" theory account for the hundreds of people involved in the cleanup operation after the crash?

While I can accept that maybe the miltary took the god awful decision to shoot the plane down to avert an even larger catasptrophe, only to discover later that there was a revolt on board, and that they rigged the story afterwards so that no shoot down occurred to spin an "American Heroes" angle.

(and lets be honest the passengers who tried desperately to retake that plane were definitely heroes, whether the plane was shot down or not)

The sheer scale of the conspiracy and numbers of pepole that would have to be in on it, and who would have to ave kept quiet about it all this time later is mind boggling.

How exactly could it be proved to your satisfaction that 80% of the wreckage was dug out of the ground at shanksville?

You refuse to accept DNA evidence that has been tested in court - or evidence regarding the FDR and CVR which were both recovered from the hole in the ground, and both uniquely IDed as to have come from U93, both by the serial numbers on them and by the content of them matching up to independantly recorded ATC data. The Identity of both of the black boxes was also tested in court.

[killtown]

1) How does the "no plane at shanksville" theory account for the hundreds of people involved in the cleanup operation after the crash?

2) How exactly could it be proved to your satisfaction that 80% of the wreckage was dug out of the ground at shanksville?

3) You refuse to accept DNA evidence that has been tested in court -

4) or evidence regarding the FDR and CVR which were both recovered from the hole in the ground,

5) and both uniquely IDed as to have come from U93, both by the serial numbers on them and by the content of them matching up to independantly recorded ATC data. The Identity of both of the black boxes was also tested in court.
1) How many of them were involved with the excavation and who were they? That's what would be relevant to this thread.

2) I don't know, by showing me tons and tons of debris being dug up?! They showed a pic of an engine scrap (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/09/little-engine-that-couldnt.html) supposedly being dug up. I can't fathom that's the ONLY photo they took and/or released of wreckage being dug up when a minimum estimate of wreckage totaling 24 cars-worth* was supposedly dug up!

(*An empty 757 is about 60tons. 80% of that is 48tons. Average car weighs about 2tons, thereby 80% of a 757 is essentially equivalent to 24 cars, so 24 cars-worth of wreckage should have been dug out of the Shanks ground.)

Then add to the fact (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html) that when the diggers supposedly "found" most of Flight 93 was actually was buried underground, thereby not "disintegrated" as previously reported, the FBI didn't notify the news about this super newsworthy revelation.

3) The FBI claim 8% of the passenger's total mass was recovered. How much of that was found underground where most of the plane was supposedly found?

4) Prove to me they were pulled out of the ground in Shanks.

5) If you were going to stage a crash, would you plant black boxes (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/03/back-in-black-boxes.html) that didn't say that came from the plane you claimed crashed???


PS - Again, to all your other non-thread-related comments, feel free to start another thread since obviously you didn't READ the first time I asked you to do this.

[matrix911]

You refuse to accept DNA evidence that has been tested in court - or evidence regarding the FDR and CVR which were both recovered from the hole in the ground, and both uniquely IDed as to have come from U93, both by the serial numbers on them and by the content of them matching up to independantly recorded ATC data. The Identity of both of the black boxes was also tested in court.

Why should anyone with a brain BLINDLY accept tainted and suspect evidence as proof?

So in regards to your DNA issue, shanksville is not much different than the Pentagon... and as explained by CIT:

"The 'DNA reports' are not valid evidence proving that 77 ( and Flight 93 similarly) crashed because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon (or shanksville)
Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."

[white horse]

Why should anyone with a brain BLINDLY accept tainted and suspect evidence as proof?

So in regards to your DNA issue, shanksville is not much different than the Pentagon... and as explained by CIT:

"The 'DNA reports' are not valid evidence proving that 77 ( and Flight 93 similarly) crashed because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples, which means that the scientists who allegedly analyzed the DNA and turned up matches -- if that did happen -- have no way of knowing whether or not it actually came from the Pentagon (or shanksville)
Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."

There is no indepenfdant chain of anything related to 911... DNA evidence? Not convinced at all... does not wrap it up for me at all; cos again, if teh DNA evidence is 'correct' then we are back to the laws of physics taking the day off again!

[thematrix]

1) How many of them were involved with the excavation and who were they? That's what would be relevant to this thread.

Do you do any of your own research?

There were an estimated 1500 people involved with responding to the shanksville crash to cleaning up afterwards. These included volunteers among them:

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.

All of which information is easily findable from the web, contact information for each of these organisations is trivial to discover.

Why are volunteers important for 93?

volunteers were the primary first-responders to this incident. Initially, volunteers were involved at all levels of response, from fire suppression to hazardous material mitigation to incident command.
However, operations were relatively limited due to the devastation of the aircraft. Personnel reported most of their activities were focused on extinguishing spot fires and securing the site. Once Federal agencies arrived on the scene, volunteers shifted their operations to support the evidence collection and body recovery efforts. [ source (http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf) ]


2) I don't know, by showing me tons and tons of debris being dug up?! ... I can't fathom that's the ONLY photo they took and/or released of wreckage being dug up when a minimum estimate of wreckage totaling 24 cars-worth* was supposedly dug up!

There are pics of small fragments of plane debris collected in containers, there are large pieces of plane debris shown in photos from the massaoui trial.

Send in an FOIA request for photos of wreckage being dug up if you want more.


Then add to the fact (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html) that when the diggers supposedly "found" most of Flight 93 was actually was buried underground, thereby not "disintegrated" as previously reported, the FBI didn't notify the news about this super newsworthy revelation.

See now thats a nice webpage you put together there, with only one problem.

You don't show a source ANYWHERE IN IT to support your claim that the media reported most of the plane was "buried in the ground"

Who claimed this? what source have you got?

While you're at it it do you think you might be able to answer my earlier question of "Whats your source for the angle that u93 crashed at?"

Or are you going to make me open another thread for that one?

I don't see anyone claiming that most of the plane was buried in the crater. some of it was - some of it was smashed into little pieces, some of it was hanging in the trees near the crater, some of it blew up to 8 miles away on the breeze.


3) The FBI claim 8% of the passenger's total mass was recovered. How much of that was found underground where most of the plane was supposedly found?

What does it matter? Eyewitness reports place much human remains scattered about the crash site in pieces. Other eyewitness reports put some passenger remains inside the cockpit a portion of which was found broken off and away from the crater.

Oh and the reason you don't get to see many photos is because families tend to object (and rightly so) to images of their loved ones in tiny bits being posted on the internet.


5) If you were going to stage a crash, would you plant black boxes (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/03/back-in-black-boxes.html) that didn't say that came from the plane you claimed crashed???

How exactly is the data on those black bozxes fabricated to match data from many other sources, and what about the many eye witnesses that saw the plan crash and were on the crash scene in minutes and saw scattered debris and fires?

Again - noone is claiming (well apart from you) that most of the plane was buried in the crater, the media didn't report this "fact" cos it didn't happen.

[thematrix]

Why should anyone with a brain BLINDLY accept tainted and suspect evidence as proof?

why indeed.


So in regards to your DNA issue, shanksville is not much different than the Pentagon... and as explained by CIT:


Sorry but the loons at CIT wouldn't recognise valid evidence if it danced around in front of them shouting "I am valid evidence" wearing a name badge with "valid evidence HERE" written on it, imo.


"The 'DNA reports' are not valid evidence proving that 77 ( and Flight 93 similarly) crashed because they were supplied by the same entity implicated by the independent, verifiable north side approach evidence and the independent, verifiable flyover/flyaway evidence. There is no independent chain of custody of these alleged DNA samples,

There is no indepenfdant chain of anything related to 911...

*sigh*

The DNA evidence for 93 DOES have reliable chain of custody.

If it didn't have that, and wasn't PROVED to be collected from the site and PROVED to be the passengers from 93 then the defense lawyers for Massaoui would have had it thrown out of court for being bad evidence and Massaoui would NOT have been convicted.

For the other crash sites the evidence and chain of custody etc was not tested in the courts. IT WAS for 93 and so it must be considered reliable waaaaaaaaaaay beyond any reasonable doubt.

Oh and to hammer home my point about CIT their "independant verifiable north side" evidence for 77's flight path comes from asking TWO (count them one two) eyewitnesses months after it happened what they remembered seeing. That's just bad. Particularly when the flight path for 77 is easily worked out from physical evidence, but lets not get into that here.

[killtown]

1) Do you do any of your own research?
There were an estimated 1500 people involved with responding to the shanksville crash to cleaning up afterwards. These included volunteers among them:

2) There are pics of small fragments of plane debris collected in containers,
2a) there are large pieces of plane debris shown in photos from the massaoui trial.
2b) Send in an FOIA request for photos of wreckage being dug up if you want more.

3) See now thats a nice webpage you put together there, with only one problem.
You don't show a source ANYWHERE IN IT to support your claim that the media reported most of the plane was "buried in the ground"
Who claimed this? what source have you got?

4) While you're at it it do you think you might be able to answer my earlier question of "Whats your source for the angle that u93 crashed at?"

5) I don't see anyone claiming that most of the plane was buried in the crater. some of it was - some of it was smashed into little pieces, some of it was hanging in the trees near the crater, some of it blew up to 8 miles away on the breeze.

6) What does it matter? Eyewitness reports place much human remains scattered about the crash site in pieces.

7) Other eyewitness reports put some passenger remains inside the cockpit a portion of which was found broken off and away from the crater.

8) Oh and the reason you don't get to see many photos is because families tend to object (and rightly so) to images of their loved ones in tiny bits being posted on the internet.

9) How exactly is the data on those black bozxes fabricated to match data from many other sources,

10) and what about the many eye witnesses that saw the plan crash
10a) and were on the crash scene in minutes and saw scattered debris and fires?

11) Again - noone is claiming (well apart from you) that most of the plane was buried in the crater,
11a) the media didn't report this "fact" cos it didn't happen.
1) Can you even READ what I said? "How many of them were involved with the excavation and who were they? "

Certainly all of those 1,500 people weren't excavating the ground, right? I only see maybe 40 people max working the excavation.

2) Yes the container, and you have NO WAY to tell where they were found. BTW, how many pieces in that big dumpster are sporting United Airlines logo colors?

2a) And those didn't come from underground, did they? In fact, prove to me where those were taken.

2b) Well don't you find it funny that the FBI are telling us most of the plane was underground, but only ONE photo has been released of one large piece supposedly being dug out of the ground? I mean that's what you'd EXPECT if a large plane wasn't really buried underground, but they had to stage a photo to try to fool people that they dug up debris from the ground.

3) See the last 2 quotes on that blogpost. The media reports well after 9/11 that "the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it."

4) Talk about not doing any research! The NTSB show a graph that says 40deg (http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/93-pitch-angle-40deg.gif). Various news article report 45deg (http://boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0914/Data_box_found_from_plane_downed_in_Pa_+.shtml).

5) Then in the 3rd paragraph in the page, I have the link 80% of Flight 93 was buried (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2680) that goes to a video where you can hear the Flight 93 ambassador say this claim. Their job there is to recite the official story, or say "I don't know."

Remember, the FBI claim they recovered 95% of the plane. All that debris has to be somewhere!

6) If most of the plane was buried, isn't it logical that most of the passenger remains were down there too?

7) Can you PLEASE show me photos of that cockpit in the woods?

8) Funny, they didn't seem to object when the Pentagon released photos of the burnt up bodies inside the Pentagon.

9) Who allegedly extracted the black box info, a private company, or the govt?

10) Aren't you the one who said "Eye witness testimony, can be unreliable (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255035&postcount=88)"? Plus, how many said they actually saw it hit the ground?
10a) You mean the ones who said things like this:

"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane," Barron said.
"I never seen anything like it," Barron said. "Just like a big pile of charcoal."
...said Nina Lensbouer..."But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal." - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)

"[Mark] Stahl said...He didn’t realize a passenger jet had crashed until a firefighter told him.
“If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known...” Delano said." - pittsburghlive.com (09/12/01)

11) The Flight 93 ambassadors who are trained to recite the official story are!

11a) Funny, I AGREE with you on that one! The last paragraph from my blogpost:

"There is only one logical reason why the media didn't report when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried underground which is the most likely place where most of the 44 passengers would have been; because it never happened."

[thematrix]

1) Can you even READ what I said? "How many of them were involved with the excavation and who were they? "

Certainly all of those 1,500 people weren't excavating the ground, right? I only see maybe 40 people max working the excavation.

Well I'd agree that only a fraction of those 1500 people were involved with actually excavating, but you'd also agree that there would have been a significant number of those 1500 that would have witnessed large amounts of wreckage being excavated. I don't know which people did what, why don't you contact them and ask?


2b) Well don't you find it funny that the FBI are telling us most of the plane was underground...."

No I don't. i) The FBI are NOT telling us that - or if they are I have not read that anywhere, evidence and source please.

3) See the last 2 quotes on that blogpost. The media reports well after 9/11 that "the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it."

Blogposts shogposts. Blogposts and the opinion of reporters inthe media is idle worthless speculation. Find out who the blog/media is actually quoting then go back to the original quote from whomever it was and THAT is the evidence.


4) The NTSB show a graph that says 40deg (http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/93-pitch-angle-40deg.gif).

Whoah - woah woah hold up right there just a second.

You claim no plane crashed at Shanksville, you don't trust the NTSB, cos they are part of the evil Government - but you are using them as a soiurce for information??!!!! does not compute. Also where do the media reports you cite get their info from - follow things back to the original SOURCE. Media reports are hearsay.

If you were the evil NTSB and wanted to stage a plane crash wouldn't you make sure that what info is in the black boxes that you evilly planted would actually make some sense regarding the physical evidence of the crash scene?


5) Then in the 3rd paragraph in the page, I have the link 80% of Flight 93 was buried (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2680) that goes to a video where you can hear the Flight 93 ambassador say this claim. Their job there is to recite the official story, or say "I don't know."


Flight 93 Ambassador? Who is this Judy Brant, what does she know regarding details of the crash scene, and how does she know them? When was this interview filmed? How do you get to be an Ambassador for a crashed airplane? Your own page lists her as a retired schoolteacher. I would have expected you to have an interiew from someone who was actually assisting in a technical capacity with teh recovery.

One source as well for such a claim is BS. What other sources are there that are qualified to have an opinion about 80% of the plane being buried?

And again where is the media claiming that most of the plane was buried. From what I read some of the plane was buried, and some of it was smashed into small pieces and scattered on impact.


Remember, the FBI claim they recovered 95% of the plane. All that debris has to be somewhere!

source please, and you'll need ot do better than ONE news report from CNN quoting Bill Cowley. Find What Bill actually said. I found another news report that quoting the same interview says "95% of the recovered plane ... been returned to United" i.e. 95% of what we have we've given back to UA and the rest we are investigating.


6) If most of the plane was buried, isn't it logical that most of the passenger remains were down there too?


Yes it is, however please show that most of the plane was buried first.


7) Can you PLEASE show me photos of that cockpit in the woods?
I don't have any


"There is only one logical reason why the media didn't report when most of Flight 93 was supposedly found buried underground which is the most likely place where most of the 44 passengers would have been; because it never happened."

and again the title of this thread is smoking gun shatters MAJOR FLIGHT 93 CLAIM.

What major claim? who is making this major claim? as far as I can see noone is claiming that the plane was mostly buried in the crater, so whats the point of this thread?

[killtown]

Well I'd agree that only a fraction of those 1500 people were involved with actually excavating, but you'd also agree that there would have been a significant number of those 1500 that would have witnessed large amounts of wreckage being excavated.
YES, I would agree. Please show me at least ONE account of one of those 1,500 people witnessing excavated debris coming out of that ground.

No I don't. i) The FBI are NOT telling us that - or if they are I have not read that anywhere, evidence and source please.
See Wally Miller's account in my other thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81224) where he is showing 9/11 research Dominick DiMaggio how the FBI told him what happened to Flight 93 after it allegedly crashed.

A retired trooper who has at the scene even says the plane went straight into the ground (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7140) and that's why you couldn't see much of a plane.

Whoah - woah woah hold up right there just a second.

You claim no plane crashed at Shanksville, you don't trust the NTSB, cos they are part of the evil Government - but you are using them as a soiurce for information??!!!!
Uh, well you did ask me this: "Whats your source for the angle that u93 crashed at?"

Also where do the media reports you cite get their info from - follow things back to the original SOURCE. Media reports are hearsay.

"As the authorities piece together the story of United Airlines Flight 93, which reportedly tore into a southwestern Pennsylvania field at a 45-degree angle..." - boston.com (09/14/01)

"[Wally] Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle." - pittsburghlive.com (05/30/02)

Now I'm just giving you the "official" angle of crash. If you dispute that the plane you think crashed at that angle, by all means, please state what angle YOU think it crashed at.

If you were the evil NTSB and wanted to stage a plane crash wouldn't you make sure that what info is in the black boxes that you evilly planted would actually make some sense regarding the physical evidence of the crash scene?
I'd also plant the correct black boxes (http://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/2007/03/back-in-black-boxes.html) and not make it so obvious (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/04/best-evidence-ua93-recorder-in-crater.html) that they staged them.

Flight 93 Ambassador? Who is this Judy Brant, what does she know regarding details of the crash scene, and how does she know them? When was this interview filmed? How do you get to be an Ambassador for a crashed airplane? Your own page lists her as a retired schoolteacher. I would have expected you to have an interiew from someone who was actually assisting in a technical capacity with teh recovery.
Are you calling Mrs. Brant a liar?

One source as well for such a claim is BS. What other sources are there that are qualified to have an opinion about 80% of the plane being buried?
Well what % of the plane do you think was buried? I'm just reciting the official story. Remember, 95% of the plane was "recovered," so all that debris has to be somewhere!

And again where is the media claiming that most of the plane was buried. From what I read some of the plane was buried, and some of it was smashed into small pieces and scattered on impact.
You know what's funny, YOU don't even believe in the official story! lol

source please, and you'll need ot do better than ONE news report from CNN quoting Bill Cowley. Find What Bill actually said. I found another news report that quoting the same interview says "95% of the recovered plane ... been returned to United" i.e. 95% of what we have we've given back to UA and the rest we are investigating.
And you criticize me for not doing any research!

"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. - CNN (09/24/01)

"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." - post-gazette.com (09/25/01)

It's funny to see you questioning this official claim when you believe the official story!

Yes it is, however please show that most of the plane was buried first.
I showed you Wally Miller's description of what the FBI told him.

I don't have any
Whoah - woah woah hold up right there just a second. How can you say eyewitness reports put some passenger remains inside the cockpit a portion of which was found broken off and away from the crater when you also said things like "opinion of reporters in the media is idle worthless speculation" and "Media reports are hearsay"?

I take it you believe Flight 93 crashed into that field largely based on photographic evidence, so please show me some photographic evidence of this separated cockpit claim, or retract it.

and again the title of this thread is smoking gun shatters MAJOR FLIGHT 93 CLAIM.

What major claim? who is making this major claim? as far as I can see noone is claiming that the plane was mostly buried in the crater, so whats the point of this thread?
I've come to the conclusion that you just don't read and comprehend very well.

The FBI is claiming most of the plane was buried in the ground and it hadn't "disintegrated" after all. If most of the plane was truly buried after everyone thought most of the plane had essentially disappeared, there would have been huge headlines in the news when most of the plane was discovered being underground. The new never reported it, because just as you agree, no plane was buried underground.

[thematrix]

YES, I would agree. Please show me at least ONE account of one of those 1,500 people witnessing excavated debris coming out of that ground.

why do I need to?

I would suggest that you send in a FOIA request for the transcripts of the Massaoui trial, wherein you will find accredited witness testimony detailing such accounts, or that you contact one of the Volunteer fire depts. who attended the scene.

This news report here (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12969.html).

Is another account of a reporter in a newspaper telling us what the FBI said: i.e. hearsay

FBI Agent William Crowley announced Thursday afternoon that investigators using heavy equipment found the recorder in a crater at the crash site ...

It was discovered by an “integrated search team” of state police and federal investigators using heavy equipment to unearth the device from the crater cut into the ground on impact.

and this photo of the CVR buried in the ground along with some other wreckage well that could have come from anywhere couldn't it...

link to photo of CVR being recovered
(http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200065-1.jpg) http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200065-1.jpg

See Wally Miller's account in my other thread where he is showing ... how the FBI told him what happened to Flight 93 after it allegedly crashed.

hearsay. Wally is recounting after the fact what he remembers about stuff the FBI told him. Not reliable as evidence.


A retired trooper who has at the scene even says the plane went straight into the ground and that's why you couldn't see much of a plane.

John Rock a state trooper at the time does say "It actually went straight into the ground," "... You would think you would see big pieces of the airplane. You didn't."

But only a layman might think they would see big pieces of airplane, high speed crashes tend to fragment airplanes into tiny little pieces on impact.

I note with interest from the same article "Small pieces of debris were scattered in the crater and in the surrounding woods. Trees smoldered from the fire caused by the crash." which would support the idea that some of the plane was buried, some of it was scattered in little bits. While that particular quote is simply hearsay there are other eyewitness reports that confirm that.

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

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. from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 - Glenn J. Kashurba"


Uh, well you did ask me this: "Whats your source for the angle that u93 crashed at?"

You missed the point, my point is that on the one hand you dismiss out of hand information from the NTSB, and on the other hand you use information that you cherry pick from them to try to paint this picture that no plane crashed there.

If you accept that the 40 degree angle is correct then why do you not accept other information from the NTSB? You can't have it both ways.




Are you calling Mrs. Brant a liar?

No I am sure she is recounting things as she remembers them 100% truthfully. I am asking you, who she is, why she knows so much about 93, and what qualifies her to speak?


Well what % of the plane do you think was buried? I'm just reciting the official story. Remember, 95% of the plane was "recovered," so all that debris has to be somewhere!


I don't know and speculating about what % of the plane was buried under the ground is pointless. Some of it was buried, some of it was not, that much we can tell for 100% certainty. along with the fact that U93 crashed there.

The physical evidence showing that a plane, and that flight United 93 crashed in that field is overwhelming.

I am not 100% certain as to why it crashed, that's my only issue with the "official story"


Whoah - woah woah hold up right there just a second. How can you say eyewitness reports put some passenger remains inside the cockpit a portion of which was found broken off and away from the crater when you also said things like "opinion of reporters in the media is idle worthless speculation" and "Media reports are hearsay"?

Bolded the relevant bits there.

Do I need to explain the difference to you, or would you like me to draw you a picture?


I take it you believe Flight 93 crashed into that field largely based on photographic evidence, so please show me some photographic evidence of this separated cockpit claim, or retract it.

lol thats a pretty wild assumption you just made there. I am beginning to understand how you can come to such stupid conclusions and then back them up with zero evidence.

I believe 93 crashedinto that field because the totality of the evidence in the public domain regarding the crash points to that unequivocably.

i.e. the witness reports [if you are still unsure a witness report is a direct quote or series of quotes taken from an eyewitness], the photographic evidence and physical evidence, that is the DNA and the uniquely identifiable bits of 93 wreckage. When you look at all that together it makes it certain to me. The separated cockpit claim is just me believing the account of Wally Miller. I don't have any photos of that, I just believe the guy.

Even if this cockpit didn't seperate the way it was described it makes little difference to the fact that 93 crashed in that field.


The FBI is claiming most of the plane was buried in the ground and it hadn't "disintegrated" after all. If most of the plane was truly buried after everyone thought most of the plane had essentially disappeared, there would have been huge headlines in the news when most of the plane was discovered being underground. The new never reported it, because just as you agree, no plane was buried underground.

Again I ask you where does the FBI claim that MOST of the plane was BURIED.

You are saying this over and over and providing not one shred of evidence to back it up.

This thread started with you stating that you you were debunking a MAJOR CLAIM of the official 93 story.

Where is this MAJOR CLAIM?

There are many eyewitness reports of pieces of wreckage scatered all over the site. Wreckage was blown up to 8 miles away, VFD people report larger pieces of wreckage at the site.

Where is anyone in any official capacity claiming that most of the plane was buried??

[thematrix]

This is your OP in this thread...

Most people probably still don't know this, but officials claimed that they "found" most of Flight 93 buried deep under ground and it hadn't mostly disintegrated after it allegedly crashed as all the first witnesses who arrived at the scene had assumed from the lack of a large plane they were told that had supposedly crashed there.

I am asking you to provide evidence to back this claim up.

i) Where do officials claim they found most of 93 buried underground?
ii) Where do officials claim it hadn't mostly disintegrated?

Basically you are saying "Officials claim X but the evidence proves Y"

I am saying "yes the evidence proves Y, but where are officials claiming X?"

Please show us some evidence for your original claim.

[killtown]

why do I need to?
Um, cause you said "you'd also agree that there would have been a significant number of those 1500 that would have witnessed large amounts of wreckage being excavated."

Are you in agreement with me that no significant plane wreckage was buried?

This news report here (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12969.html). Is another account of a reporter in a newspaper telling us what the FBI said: i.e. hearsay and this photo of the CVR buried in the ground along with some other wreckage well that could have come from anywhere couldn't it...
So is that pretty much the only plane debris that was dug up? Remember, they claimed they had to dig 50ft down to recover all they claimed was buried.

hearsay. Wally is recounting after the fact what he remembers about stuff the FBI told him. Not reliable as evidence.
So is Wally lying, or so incompetent that he can't remember for the most part how the FBI told him (and landowner Tim Lambert) how Flight 93 allegedly crashed? He sure describes it like he remembers exactly how the FBI told him, along with hard gestures!

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9006/wallymillercockpit.gif

John Rock a state trooper at the time does say

But only a layman might think they would see big pieces of airplane, high speed crashes tend to fragment airplanes into tiny little pieces on impact.
I took it that the reason he said "You would think you would see big pieces of the airplane. You didn't" is because "It actually went straight into the ground."

There's a couple of other news reports that I highlighted in my blog posts that shows the media basically saying most of the plane buried.

I note with interest from the same article "Small pieces of debris were scattered in the crater and in the surrounding woods. Trees smoldered from the fire caused by the crash." which would support the idea that some of the plane was buried, some of it was scattered in little bits.
So if it turns out that officials are saying most of UA93 was buried, would you believe them? yes or no

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... from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 - Glenn J. Kashurba"
Can you show me photos of all that alleged debris that seems like would be big enough to see easily in photos?

If you accept that the 40 degree angle is correct then why do you not accept other information from the NTSB? You can't have it both ways.
I'm not "accepting" so much as just taking the official story and seeing if it matches the evidence. If you don't think the plane you think crashed there and mostly disintegrated (or whatever you think happened to it) crashed at about a 40deg angle, then by all means, tell us what angle you think it crashed at.

I really don't care about the official angle. I'm only concerned about if the planed mostly buried, then I want to see evidence to prove that.

No I am sure she is recounting things as she remembers them 100% truthfully. I am asking you, who she is, why she knows so much about 93, and what qualifies her to speak?
LoL, and you criticize me for "not doing any research."

Do you really think these Flight 93 ambassadors just go out to memorial and pull info out of their butts?

Here's a video of a male Flight 93 memorial ambassador (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=28187819) reciting the official story that they are trained to recite. Go to 2:15 and type here what exactly he said.

I don't know and speculating about what % of the plane was buried under the ground is pointless.
Would you agree that if the FBI said 80% of UA93 was buried, would you agree they were lying? yes or no

The physical evidence showing that a plane, and that flight United 93 crashed in that field is overwhelming.
In your opinion maybe.

Do I need to explain the difference to you, or would you like me to draw you a picture?
I tell you what, how about you draw on a map where this cockpit with remains found inside landed?

lol thats a pretty wild assumption you just made there. I am beginning to understand how you can come to such stupid conclusions and then back them up with zero evidence.
tsk, tsk. You know hurling insults is a sign of you losing a debate!

The separated cockpit claim is just me believing the account of Wally Miller. I don't have any photos of that, I just believe the guy.
Whoah - woah woah hold up right there just a second. Didn't you just get through saying "hearsay. Wally is recounting after the fact what he remembers about stuff the FBI told him. Not reliable as evidence."?

Even if this cockpit didn't seperate the way it was described it makes little difference to the fact that 93 crashed in that field.
Why would the FBI lie about stuff like that if 93 crashed?

Again I ask you where does the FBI claim that MOST of the plane was BURIED. You are saying this over and over and providing not one shred of evidence to back it up. This thread started with you stating that you you were debunking a MAJOR CLAIM of the official 93 story. Where is this MAJOR CLAIM? Where is anyone in any official capacity claiming that most of the plane was buried??
Answered above and in previous posts.

[killtown]

ii) Where do officials claim it hadn't mostly disintegrated?

Well if they found most of it, then obviously most of it didn't disintegrate. Duh.

[thematrix]

Um, cause you said "you'd also agree that there would have been a significant number of those 1500 that would have witnessed large amounts of wreckage being excavated."

Are you in agreement with me that no significant plane wreckage was buried?

No!

I believe that a significant portion of the plane was recovered from inside the crater, some of the plane was recovered from another debris field, some of the plane was smashed into little pieces on impact and was found in the burning portion of woods nearby, some of it hanging from the trees, and some of the smashed pieces of plane wrecked Tim Lamberts house.



So is Wally lying, or so incompetent that he can't remember for the most part how the FBI told him (and landowner Tim Lambert) how Flight 93 allegedly crashed? He sure describes it like he remembers exactly how the FBI told him, along with hard gestures!

You are using *hearsay* as evidence. Wally Miller Claims that the FBI claim that....

Maybe Wally was misinformed, maybe he was told this by a junior agent who was misinformed, maybe he was told by the head guy from the aircrash division who worked out exactly what happened and is recanting this exactly correctly, we don't have the foggiest. There is no way to tell.

Does Wally ever refer to a specific member of the FBI that informed him thus, or does he refer to them as the FBI?


I took it that the reason he said "You would think you would see big pieces of the airplane. You didn't" is because "It actually went straight into the ground."

You took it to mean that.... - what does this witness bring in the way of experience re: aircrashes, has this witness ever seen a high speed aircraft impact close up before, is he just a layperson who has seen crashes on TV? When was he interviewed and how much excavation clean up etc had been done at that point? Why haven't you contacted him to ask him these questions since you make such a big thing about his two lines of cherry picked testimony????

If you are serious about making a case for you versoin of shanksville, surely the best thing to do would be identify witnesses who were there, and then interview them yourself, it's called research.


There's a couple of other news reports that I highlighted in my blog posts that shows the media basically saying most of the plane buried.


I couldn't find any of them and I looked pretty dam hard. Can you please link those reports here, presumably you also went and got the original source for the quotes etc that those blog posts are based on, would just be sloppy not to do that wouldn't it.


So if it turns out that officials are saying most of UA93 was buried, would you believe them? yes or no


Irrellevant. Let us first determine what the officials ARE saying and go from there.

Your OP was "smoking gun shatters MAJOR CLAIM" and still you have provided NO EVIDENCE of any MAJOR CLAIM by these nameless officials.

If there is a MAJOR CLAIM being made by officials to further some aspect of the OCT then when was it made, and who made it?

A major claim is one being made by the FBI, the NTSB or some other investigative branch of government with regard to the events of 9/11.


Do you really think these Flight 93 ambassadors just go out to memorial and pull info out of their butts?

Here's a video of a male Flight 93 memorial ambassador (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=28187819) reciting the official story that they are trained to recite. Go to 2:15 and type here what exactly he said.


Whats the job descriptoin of a 93 ambassador? How do you get to be one? What qualifies you as one?

What makes the opinion of an ambassador any more valid than some random person?


Would you agree that if the FBI said 80% of UA93 was buried, would you agree they were lying? yes or no


thats the 2nd time you asked me this. It's an irrellevant question. I'd ask them to show some evidence for how much of the plane was buried.

I am of the opinion that 93 was likely shot down by military means. If the plane was crashed into soft earth and the vast majority of it burrowed into the earth then it points to the fact that it was NOT shot down owing to hte laws of physics.

I don't know the plane was shot down - it might very well have crashed the way the official story claims, there's simply not enough evidence to be able to determine it for sure.


tsk, tsk. You know hurling insults is a sign of you losing a debate!


Only when you insult the agruer and not the argument.


Why would the FBI lie about stuff like that if 93 crashed?


Why have the FBI made no official comment anywhere about the amount of plane that was buried? Nor any other official dept of government?

Answered above and in previous posts.

No you haven't - other posters have asked you the same question in this thread, and you haven't answered them either.

WHERE ARE THE OFFICIALS MAKING THIS MAJOR CLAIM?

If it's a major claim it must have a major source. What is it?

Wally Millers account is hearsay, what other source is there to back up Wally Miller? Where is the FBI document that claims 80% was buried, which member of the FBI told this to Wally Miller, where did THEY get their information from, who is informing these ambassadors, and what makes their hearsay any more relevant than Wally who was at least on the scene of the crash??

If Wally Millers account of what the FBI told him is accurate then why do you dismiss all the other witness statements of Wally that prove unequivocably that U93 crashed in that field in shanksville?

[thematrix]

Well if they found most of it, then obviously most of it didn't disintegrate. Duh.

What do you think disintegrated means?

The plane hit the ground in one piece it was an integrated collection of parts built into a plane.

On impact it broke into many pieces. It Dis integrated.

[decim]

'if' the whole 'plane' disintegrated, on impact or by prior explosion, the parts of the plane would not have momentum nor mass to bury themselves 45ft underground.

How is it possible or feasible that an alluminium aircraft would retain not only the structural integrity, but maintain a fuselage shape conducive to self burial into the Earth.

More lies from the govt.

[matrix911]

No!
I believe that a significant portion of the plane was recovered from inside the crater,

so WTF does "significant" mean?


You are using *hearsay* as evidence. Wally Miller Claims that the FBI claim that....

Maybe Wally was misinformed, maybe he was told this by a junior agent who was misinformed, maybe he was told by the head guy from the aircrash division who worked out exactly what happened and is recanting this exactly correctly, we don't have the foggiest. There is no way to tell.

Does Wally ever refer to a specific member of the FBI that informed him thus, or does he refer to them as the FBI?

You took it to mean that.... - what does this witness bring in the way of experience re: aircrashes, has this witness ever seen a high speed aircraft impact close up before, is he just a layperson who has seen crashes on TV? When was he interviewed and how much excavation clean up etc had been done at that point?

I couldn't find any of them and I looked pretty dam hard. Can you please link those reports here, presumably you also went and got the original source for the quotes etc that those blog posts are based on, would just be sloppy not to do that wouldn't it.

Irrellevant. Let us first determine what the officials ARE saying and go from there.

WHICH IS WHAT in YOUR MIND?

what ARE the officials saying


Your OP was "smoking gun shatters MAJOR CLAIM" and still you have provided NO EVIDENCE of any MAJOR CLAIM by these nameless officials.

If there is a MAJOR CLAIM being made by officials to further some aspect of the OCT then when was it made, and who made it?

A major claim is one being made by the FBI, the NTSB or some other investigative branch of government with regard to the events of 9/11.

Whats the job descriptoin of a 93 ambassador? How do you get to be one? What qualifies you as one?


what doesn't?


What makes the opinion of an ambassador any more valid than some random person?


so who do you say are we supposed to believe about what the official conspiracy story is?

you CLAIM there's no MAJOR CLAIM by OFFICIALS about what happened... yet it seems that you yourself don't even know what HAPPENED.

So what is the OFFICIAL STORY? don't you know? Are you actually saying there is no official story?

because in essence you're saying there is no official story when you claim an ambassador doesn't have the qualifications or authority to discuss the "story" or what he claims he's been told is the "story".

Stop playing word games and defending the PERPETRATORS... because that IS what you're doing.

The ORIGINAL AND OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY STORY IS A LIE.

Just the fact that you're playing these semantical word games etc when there's so many obvious unanswered questions and contradictions surrounding the basic story about 911 which doesn't match the evidence, is very telling about your agenda, level of intelligence and lack of critical thinking skills.


thats the 2nd time you asked me this. It's an irrellevant question. I'd ask them to show some evidence for how much of the plane was buried.

I am of the opinion that 93 was likely shot down by military means. If the plane was crashed into soft earth and the vast majority of it burrowed into the earth then it points to the fact that it was NOT shot down owing to hte laws of physics

I don't know the plane was shot down - it might very well have crashed the way the official story claims,


and what WAY does the official (conspiracy) story claim it crashed?

In your "mind", WTF do you think is the official story!?

what evidence do you have that it was shot down by military means?


Where is the FBI document that claims 80% was buried,

a good question?

but then, where are so many other FBI documents of so many OTHER stories that have comprised what most of the MSM and Government officials claim about what happened on 9/11?

What do you think disintegrated means?

The plane hit the ground in one piece it was an integrated collection of parts built into a plane.

On impact it broke into many pieces. It Dis integrated.

you can't have it both ways.

if it DIS integrated, how can you find or have the alleged sections or intact PARTS recovered?

[killtown]

thematrix, why don't you tell me what kind of evidence you will accept before I start thinking you're nothing but another skeptic troll.

[druggalo]

just like they nevah found one peice of tha plane that eledgelly crashed into satans pentagon. or the intact terrorist hijakerz passports unscathed from all the carnage & explozshions could it be any more obnoxiously blaten

[thematrix]

so WTF does "significant" mean?


"of a noticeably or measurably large amount"


in essence you're saying there is no official story when you claim an ambassador doesn't have the qualifications or authority to discuss the "story" or what he claims he's been told is the "story".

I am asking what an ambassador is. Who decides who is an ambassador and who isn't? How do you qualify as an ambassador of the official story?

Killtown is saying that Wally Miller & one "Ambassador" are who is making the MAJOR claim he's gone to all that trouble to debunk. At least I think so. If that's correct then the OP is pointless and a waste of time imo.

I was interested in this thread cos if the plane is mostly buried then it likely hit the ground in one piece, a plane in bits before it hits the ground won't get buried as much, as it's energy on impact is more spread out.

Only the plane wasn't mostly buried, and noone ever claimed it was mostly buried.


Just the fact that you're playing these semantical word games etc is very telling about your ... level of intelligence

Still calling me names huh. Or is that a compliment, I can't tell.



if it DIS integrated, how can you find or have the alleged sections or intact PARTS recovered?

A plane is integrated, a collection of parts and broken parts is disintegrated.

[thematrix]

thematrix, why don't you tell me what kind of evidence you will accept before I start thinking you're nothing but another skeptic troll.

If you are talking about evidence to support your OP:

You say that officials claim that most of the plane was buried.

Please can you provide a link to where officials state that most of the plane was buried.

Your Wally Miller video half counts, he is an official and was at the scene, but what he is saying in the video is hearsay. Essentially he is relating a story that someone else told him. Seeing as he was there then OK I can listen to what he's saying. 1 point for Wally. The "Ambassadors" I've never heard of, how do we know they know anything at all? 0 points so far. If an ambassador was on the scene and was a witness to excavations or something, then they get points.

Ideally a link to statement from the FBI or NTSB or some official department who investigated the crash that says "most of the plane was buried" - that'd be 10 points.

[killtown]

I am asking what an ambassador is. Who decides who is an ambassador and who isn't? How do you qualify as an ambassador of the official story?
If you bothered to do any research (as you like to say (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1227175&postcount=82)) you would have found this:

Local 'ambassadors' tend to Flight 93 site
Tuesday, September 12, 2006

"Mr. Wagner is one of 42 volunteer "ambassadors" at the crash site. They are all local people who now see it as their duty to tell visitors about the heroics on that plane, when passengers fought back against terrorists.

The ambassadors say they try not to speculate too much. During a training process led by Ms. Glessner, ambassadors agree to stick to the official 9/11 Commission Report or to say, "We don't know."

Flight 93 took off from Newark, N.J., bound for San Francisco. There were 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, and given the impact of the crash -- the plane hit the ground at 580 miles an hour and debris was imbedded 45 feet deep -- more than 90 percent of human remains couldn't be recovered from the site, according to the county coroner."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06255/721163-85.stm


Now, are you still going to dismiss what Ms. Brant said and that other male Ambassador who told visitors that most of the plane went into the ground?


A side-note on that article:

"Locals say the past five years haven't been easy for them. Some ambassadors say their home lives have been tested, as they pay less attention to their children while giving long hours to Flight 93 projects. Others have been targeted by bloggers and conspiracy theorists, who charge that they are somehow involved in nefarious cover-ups involving the flight."

Not sure if the article is talking about just the Ambassadors, or other locals, but I never suggested any of the Ambassadors were in on it. I think the article might be talking about locals like Val McClatchey in which I was the first to bring up her photo may be a fake (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/) which local witness Ms. Leverknight confirmed (http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/shanksville-resident-says-val.html).

[follz20]

If a plane flies into softish ground at 500+mph where do you expect most of the wreckage to end up?

Scattered for hundreds of meters across the ground... where else? Even the density of water is enough to break up a plane into hundreds of pieces... and yet you are trying to say that 'soft ground' would almost entirely absorb the plane so it's nearly all underground?

Heck, why not? After all, you 9/11 anti-truthers have had to invent new laws of physics, engineering, chemistry & now you have to make planes disappear into the ground and vanish without a trace... all this just to make the official lie fit.

Common sense much?

[rodin]

Yep, all still consistant with an air to air missile strike

Wouldnt you agree Killtown?

No

Prepared site in advance means no missile strike. It means no plane.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9006/wallymillercockpit.gif

Who is this liar? Looks made in Israel

[thematrix]

Now, are you still going to dismiss what Ms. Brant said and that other male Ambassador who told visitors that most of the plane went into the ground?


If the ambassadors are trained as you say to stick to the Official 9/11 Commission report, then where in that report does it say that most of the plane was buried?

What sources do they cite in the report?

[thematrix]

Scattered for hundreds of meters across the ground... where else? Even the density of water is enough to break up a plane into hundreds of pieces... and yet you are trying to say that 'soft ground' would almost entirely absorb the plane so it's nearly all underground?

Of course the plane was smahed into hundreds of pieces on impact. Who's claiming that it wasn't?

The sheer power of the impact drove some parts of the plane deep into the ground. Some parts of the plane were blown away from the impact point by the ensuing explosion and were found scattered about the area, some of the debris drifting several miles away on the breeze.

I am asking if the plane was "mostly" underground, and how killtown comes to this conclusion.

He's not provided anything much in the way of evidence to show that either the government/FBI/FireDept/etc is saying it was mostly underground, or that the media claimed that it was mostly underground.

[rodin]

Of course the plane was smahed into hundreds of pieces on impact. Who's claiming that it wasn't?

Anyone with IQ greater than lint not being paid to lie

[drakul]

Excellent work Killtown - someone needs to keep this in the public eye, before people forget...

[matrix911]

If the ambassadors are trained as you say to stick to the Official 9/11 Commission report, then where in that report does it say that most of the plane was buried?
What sources do they cite in the report?

Look...

If the plane hit the ground and skidded along 8 miles leaving wreckage behind, it wouldnt just disintergrate at the end. On one hand, for that much of a D field, it had to have been destroyed in the air to be scattered all over the place if thats what occurred.

Now there is an official CLAIM though, but where is the official document about the crash details of Flight 93?

No such document was EVER released.

[signalnorth]

A plane hits the ground at 500+ mph, and most of the wreckage is going to be found after only two or three days sweeping and digging, is it?

That's almost as nutty as a few years ago when you tried to add miles per hour and feet over at the JREF forums.


Can I just say that I do not believe for one moment that an aeroplane ever crashed at this site, however bizzarely it is true that aeroplanes can bury themselves deep underground in a crash and leave little wreckage on the surface. Many many cases of recovered ww2 wrecks point to this . That said this only seems to occur when aeroplanes head into the ground directly from above and not when they hit the ground at an angle.

[matrix911]

however bizzarely it is true that aeroplanes can bury themselves deep underground in a crash and leave little wreckage on the surface. Many many cases of recovered ww2 wrecks point to this . That said this only seems to occur when aeroplanes head into the ground directly from above and not when they hit the ground at an angle.


Do you have any documentation to support that? Be sure that you can also show a comparable scenario including plane type etc.

WW2 is comparable? :eek:

[tabea_blumenschein]

Look...

If the plane hit the ground and skidded along 8 miles leaving wreckage behind, it wouldnt just disintergrate at the end.

(etc.)


Wow, that caught me off guard. Matrix911, could you clarify that phrase "skidded along 8 miles leaving wreckage behind"? In other words, do you think that is what the "official story" claims happened?

[matrix911]

Wow, that caught me off guard. Matrix911, could you clarify that phrase "skidded along 8 miles leaving wreckage behind"? In other words, do you think that is what the "official story" claims happened?

NO... thats what some have claimed... not the official "claim"... thought that was clear when i said IF THATS WHAT OCCURRED or if that "theory" was realistic. even If there was a shootdown of some sort,
it wasn't 93.

[camreeno]

No. THIS is the smoking gun proving the flight 93 crash was bogus.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/red_bandana.jpg

We were told this was worn by one of the hijackers on flight 93, whereas the rest of the plane vaporized on impact. Oh well aside from the passport. How ridiculous.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Nobody said the whole plane vaporized. Nobody said that ANY part of the plane vaporized.

And it's commonplace for "delicate" objects or papers to survive plane crashes.

It's astonishing how out of touch with reality truthers are.

[camreeno]

Nobody said the whole plane vaporized. Nobody said that ANY part of the plane vaporized.

And it's commonplace for "delicate" objects or papers to survive plane crashes.

It's astonishing how out of touch with reality truthers are.Out of touch? So somehow the entire plane turned to debris reported to be no larger than a phone book, with no bodies found, and yet we have this bandana in pristine shape? Keep in mind 757s have twin 6-ton engines made of a titanium steel alloy, so it's absolutely impossible they just disappeared, were shattered, or melted given what we were told about the impact. If we look at plane crashes around the world in similar cases, you can clearly see large parts of the fuselage and scattered suitcases and seats. But in the pictures of "flight 93" we have NOTHING. How can you confirm the plane crashed in Shanksville when absolutely no evidence has linked anything with flight 93? You simply can't conclude that.

Go to google and search for pictures of the Lockerbie crash. That's what I call a typical plane crash. Flight 93 is just a joke.

[triforcharity]

Engines are made up of hundreds, even thousands of tiny parts. Parts break apart, leaving the bigger pieces intact.

For you to say "Flight 93 is a joke" means one thing. You're an ass who loves to crap on the graves of the Heroes that saved many lives that day.

[matrix911]

Nobody said the whole plane vaporized. Nobody said that ANY part of the plane vaporized.

And it's commonplace for "delicate" objects or papers to survive plane crashes.

It's astonishing how out of touch with reality truthers are.



a) Sorry. You're either LYING or haven't done any real research as I thought. the MEDIA did in FACT sell a STORY that 93 nearly VAPORIZED... those were the WORDS they used and that contributed to whats known as the OFFICIAL STORY aka CONSPIRACY THEORY of 9/11.

b) and NO, its NOT commonplace for the item above to have survived THAT crash in the way it did. The odds it did are beyond astronomical.

c) the fact that both assertions can be proven false and misleading, shows you're far more out of touch with reality than truthers. It shows willful ignorance or intentional deception... something far worse than what you claim about truthers.

[tabea_blumenschein]

a) Sorry. You're either LYING or haven't done any real research as I thought. the MEDIA did in FACT sell a STORY that 93 nearly VAPORIZED... those were the WORDS they used and that contributed to whats known as the OFFICIAL STORY aka CONSPIRACY THEORY of 9/11.

b) and NO, its NOT commonplace for the item above to have survived THAT crash in the way it did. The odds it did are beyond astronomical.

c) the fact that both assertions can be proven false and misleading, shows you're far more out of touch with reality than truthers. It shows willful ignorance or intentional deception... something far worse than what you claim about truthers.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the professionals who were actually involved in the recovery efforts and investigation of the crash used the word "vaporized" with regards to flight 93. According to them, 95% of the wreckage was recovered during a search of several weeks involving hundreds of people.

If any journalists used the word "vaporize", then shame on them. It's both misleading and very incorrect.

I don't spend hours and hours poring over old news reports online. But I suspect that even the media -- the blow-dried idiot media -- didn't say the plane "vaporized" as you say they did. Is there anything you can cut and paste here to back up your assertion?

As for the bandana, I believe that you're insinuating it was planted to support the "islamic hijackers" theory. That wouldn't have been necessary; the case was conclusive even if the bandana had never been found.

[matrix911]

To the best of my knowledge, none of the professionals who were actually involved in the recovery efforts and investigation of the crash used the word "vaporized" with regards to flight 93. According to them, 95% of the wreckage was recovered during a search of several weeks involving hundreds of people.

so now you're changing what you were originally suggesting/implying/assuming/asserting?

thats fine... as long as thats now clarified. :cool:


If any journalists used the word "vaporize", then shame on them.


so who would you deem an "official"?

surely you'd have to agree a coronor in charge of analyzing 93's remains, falls within the term an OFFICIAL.


It's both misleading and very incorrect.

which is why you need to stay away from the word NOBODY

but the MEDIA aren't just "ANYONE"... and whether any from "reputable" companies reported such misleading statements has many times been a major factor in creating the OCT.




I don't spend hours and hours poring over old news reports online. But I suspect that even the media -- the blow-dried idiot media -- didn't say the plane "vaporized" as you say they did. Is there anything you can cut and paste here to back up your assertion?

http://www.casttv.com/video/cvsi2p1/cnn-flight-93-vaporized-video



As for the bandana, I believe that you're insinuating it was planted to support the "islamic hijackers" theory.

YES, the bandana was planted... other than basic common sense, that is the only logical explanation unless you have a better one which I have yet to see.


That wouldn't have been necessary; the case was conclusive even if the bandana had never been found.

So why then, would they bother using it as evidence? :confused:

Conclusive? ROFL! there's multiple lines of evidence contradicting what you CLAIM to be "conclusive"

In fact, the evidence proving the OCT isn't conclusive, far outweighs the evidence against.

[camreeno]

Engines are made up of hundreds, even thousands of tiny parts. Parts break apart, leaving the bigger pieces intact.

For you to say "Flight 93 is a joke" means one thing. You're an ass who loves to crap on the graves of the Heroes that saved many lives that day.Where is your corroboration? We can see from countless plane crashes the engines are clearly intact, but somehow 9/11 was just a magical day where physics were defied and both the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes left us with absoultely no 757 engines. This has no credence at all. What research have you done? What books have you read? Where did you get the idea that 6-ton passenger jet engines made of a titanium steel alloy could disappear with absoutely no trace, given we have numerous cases where they were easily intact - including Lockerbie?

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are saying and you haven't done any research about this.

Here are some fundamental questions about 9/11 we need to have answered. Why did the hijackers purchase their plane tickets the day before the events when the supposedly tirelessly worked to plan it all out? Why haven't we been given footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the FBI say it has it? (if they could simply release the footage when it really did show a plane, surely they would release it immediately to put an end to the speculation)

I really don't think you can answer these in a way that complies with the official explanation. You're simply looking at all this from a bias and you just have to look at the evidence for what it is and draw your conclusions. This is the case with too many people who write things off as "Oh conspiracies" without every looking at the evidence. People don't WANT to believe it was a conspiracy, rather people figured out it was given the evidence and they happened to use their brain.

Let's see...



If the "terrorists" were devout Muslims who were willing to kill themselves for their religion, then why is there obvious documentation of frequent visits to bars and strip clubs?
Why did Atta arrive at the Boston airport just six minutes before the plane took off?
Why was the flight school in Florida taken over by the CIA shortly before the hijackers were admitted?
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report never one mention World Trace Center 7 when it was one of the three buildings to collapse?
Why did none of the testifiers for the commission go under oath?
Why did president Bush meet with the 9/11 Commission only on the grounds of complete secrecy? (no family members, no recording devices, no news crew)
If building 7 really collapsed by fire on a couple floors, then why was it admitted by leaseholder of the building Larry Silverstein that the building was "pulled" (demolished)? If it was by structural failure then all of the support beams would have had to fail within 1/10th of a second within each other. (which is virtually impossible)
Why was Cleveland Hopkins airport evacuated shortly before a plane reported to be United flight 93 arrived?
Why was president Bush not rushed out of the Florida classroom after being told of the towers being hit?


These are just a few of the countless questions that cripple the official explanation of what happened. Once again, it is clear you haven't done any research. If you did then I have no doubt it wasn't done without an observer bias. The evidence is there and insulting to the intelligence of a 10-year-old to not spot these obvious discrepancies...

It was an inside job. I have nothing more to say other than do your research and figure it out.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Matrix911:

Dial-up connections are not very good for watching videos. Why not just quote word-for-word what was said and tell me who said it.

You mentioned a coroner. Based on that, I'm going to guess at what was in the video you linked to. Was it this?

...Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. '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. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'

If this is what you were referring to, Mr. Miller's use of the word 'vaporized' refers to blood, not to the airplane itself. The context makes that very clear.

Oh, and Mr. Miller believes the "official story" as you call it, that flight 93 did indeed crash at Shanksville:

Here on this mound and elsewhere, in hundreds of face-to-face conversations and on the telephone, Miller explains to families from New Jersey to Berkeley to Japan to Germany the grisly calculus of what happened to their loved ones: The Boeing 757 still heavily laden with jet fuel slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land that had long ago been strip-mined for coal. The impact spewed a fireball of horrific force across hundreds of acres of towering hemlocks and other trees, setting many ablaze. The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground.

As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

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, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes.

[triforcharity]

Where is your corroboration? We can see from countless plane crashes the engines are clearly intact, but somehow 9/11 was just a magical day where physics were defied and both the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes left us with absoultely no 757 engines. This has no credence at all. What research have you done? What books have you read? Where did you get the idea that 6-ton passenger jet engines made of a titanium steel alloy could disappear with absoutely no trace, given we have numerous cases where they were easily intact - including Lockerbie?

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are saying and you haven't done any research about this.

Here are some fundamental questions about 9/11 we need to have answered. Why did the hijackers purchase their plane tickets the day before the events when the supposedly tirelessly worked to plan it all out? Why haven't we been given footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the FBI say it has it? (if they could simply release the footage when it really did show a plane, surely they would release it immediately to put an end to the speculation)

I really don't think you can answer these in a way that complies with the official explanation. You're simply looking at all this from a bias and you just have to look at the evidence for what it is and draw your conclusions. This is the case with too many people who write things off as "Oh conspiracies" without every looking at the evidence. People don't WANT to believe it was a conspiracy, rather people figured out it was given the evidence and they happened to use their brain.

Let's see...



If the "terrorists" were devout Muslims who were willing to kill themselves for their religion, then why is there obvious documentation of frequent visits to bars and strip clubs?
Why did Atta arrive at the Boston airport just six minutes before the plane took off?
Why was the flight school in Florida taken over by the CIA shortly before the hijackers were admitted?
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report never one mention World Trace Center 7 when it was one of the three buildings to collapse?
Why did none of the testifiers for the commission go under oath?
Why did president Bush meet with the 9/11 Commission only on the grounds of complete secrecy? (no family members, no recording devices, no news crew)
If building 7 really collapsed by fire on a couple floors, then why was it admitted by leaseholder of the building Larry Silverstein that the building was "pulled" (demolished)? If it was by structural failure then all of the support beams would have had to fail within 1/10th of a second within each other. (which is virtually impossible)
Why was Cleveland Hopkins airport evacuated shortly before a plane reported to be United flight 93 arrived?
Why was president Bush not rushed out of the Florida classroom after being told of the towers being hit?


These are just a few of the countless questions that cripple the official explanation of what happened. Once again, it is clear you haven't done any research. If you did then I have no doubt it wasn't done without an observer bias. The evidence is there and insulting to the intelligence of a 10-year-old to not spot these obvious discrepancies...

It was an inside job. I have nothing more to say other than do your research and figure it out.

When was the last time a plane was crashed into a building at ~500 mph? Show me the engines then.

http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html
http://911review.org/_webimages/wtc/_wtcm_em.JPG

How about this one??

Flight school taken over by CIA?? What one was that??

9/11 comission focused on the buildings attacked. Not on WTC 7, as that was not attacked. It was collateral damage. Also, 9/11 Comission was not an engineering report. It was political.

Pulled?? Please come up with something better than that. The fire department has never been involved in the demo of a building. Ever.

1/10th of a second?? Who says that? You?? Oh, thats it. Because you believe that, it makes it true. Gotcha.

Cleveland was evacuated, as they believed that a Delta flight was landing there, that had been hijacked. This turned out to be in error. This was a chaotic morning, with a complete clusterfuck of events.

Most likely because they A) Didn't want to frighten the children, which it most certainly would have and/or B) Someone told him to sit tight while they get everything ready to go, as its not just every day that this type of thing happens. 767's don't just start up like a car. Its not a Honda you know.

[killtown]

I am asking if the plane was "mostly" underground, and how killtown comes to this conclusion.
Here ya go:

"Because where the plane hit the ground, it LITERALLY WENT INTO THE GROUND! (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/10/flight-93-literally-went-into-ground.html) They had to excavate and try and recover what they could and this top picture shows the excavation that they did. They excavated down about 40 to 45 feet and the last pieces were recovered at about 30 to 35 feet." - from a male Flight 93 Memorial Ambassador

"80% of Flight 93 was in the crater (http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=994)." - from a female Flight 93 Memorial Ambassador

The volunteer Ambassadors at the Memorial are trained to recite the official Flight 93 story:

"Today Ambassadors are at the temporary memorial every day of the year and have welcomed over one million visitors from all over the world. They have participated in rigorous educational training to become familiar with details of Flight 93 (http://www.honorflight93.org/memorial/memorial-today/?fa=ambassadors) and the passengers and crewmembers to inform visitors about what happened here on 9/11." - HonorFlight93.org

He's not provided anything much in the way of evidence to show that either the government... is saying it was mostly underground
From Barry Lichty, the Mayor of Indian Lake:

"92%-93% (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFZ980zafY) of the remains of the aircraft and the people are still in that hole."


He's not provided anything much in the way of evidence to show that either the ...FBI... is saying it was mostly underground
Here ya go:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9006/wallymillercockpit.gif
"The explanation was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54)...the front 1/3 broke off and flew up into the trees and there was a fireball behind it and the remaining 2/3'rds went down in the ground." - Wally Miller (Sept. 2008)"

This "explanation" Wally mentions came from the FBI, who were in charge of the site.


He's not provided anything much in the way of evidence to show that either the government ...FireDept... is saying it was mostly underground
Here ya go:

"The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/10/news_pf/Worldandnation/Small_town_shoulders_.shtml)." - St. Petersburg Times (09/10/03)

or that the media claimed that it was mostly underground.
Here ya go:

"The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart... digging more than 30 feet into the earth (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90823.html), which was spongy from the old mine work." - Pittsburgh Live (09/11/02)

and...

"it took a while to identify the exact location of impact because there was no plane visible... "There is no plane there, believe me."
The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explains Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2006/Feature2.asp)." - St. Anthony Messenger Online (09/06)


So thematrix, do you believe this official claim? Don't worry if you don't believe it. I don't.

[heartysoup]

how does this idea sound:

There was no flight 93, and a JASSM (or other) cruise missile was fired right into the ground.

End of story?

[dawnismygoddess]

how does this idea sound:

There was no flight 93, and a JASSM (or other) cruise missile was fired right into the ground.

End of story?

No, it was an A-3........just like the Pentagon.

[clachan]

Im no expert on this subject,but we only know what we are told and what we have seen and heard since 911....I mean,I only think I know man went to the moon,cos they told me.

BUT.....how come those 2 planes that hit WTC were aloud to remain airbourne for 30 or 40 minutes after loosing contact with ATC when really F16,s could have been scrambled by homeland security and intercepted them within 20 mnutes,maybe less ??

Anyone can see it does not add up,even me.

[heartysoup]

No, it was an A-3........just like the Pentagon.

and this A-3 jet just evaporated?

[clachan]

and this A-3 jet just evaporated?

No....a black triangle in low orbit vapourised it before anyone could get to the scene:D

[camreeno]

Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania...

THE.
END.

[disorder2k8]

http://www.infowars.com/new-footage-of-the-911-wtc-attack/

[killtown]

thematrix? Any further comments?

[1776]

Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania...

THE.
END.

Evidence supports this. You are correct.

Great information here killtown, thanks for the post and your blog website, it's excellent! :)

[matrix911]

thematrix? Any further comments?

after this long, do you really think you're gonna get a response?

maybe he's one of the more intelligent people in denial... at some point even these types realize they've been wrong.

[shepherdess]

If you ask me, it would be the first time in history that a plane substantially buried itself underground after crashing. Maybe Moses was there to part the dirt and then cover it up again?

Just like the first time in history that A...sorry...3 skyskrapers fell down during fire on 9/11.......:rolleyes:

[killtown]

Evidence supports this. You are correct.

Great information here killtown, thanks for the post and your blog website, it's excellent! :)
Thanks 1776!

[killtown]

thematrix? Any further comments?
bump (for any skeptic)

[1776]

Thanks 1776!

No, thank you!!!!!!!!!

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

[killtown]

No, thank you!!!!!!!!!

Some vids from my YouTube chan below
Cool, I'll check them out. =)


Now skeptics, are you ready to concede defeat?

[1776]

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

[killtown]

Some books (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html) that mention how the official story says most of Flight 93 was buried:

I didn't see a single piece of airplane anywhere... Little could be found. Because of the reclaimed strip mine, the ground was softer than other surrounding areas. The plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon as though nothing had troubled the surface. Anything that remained of Flight 93 was buried deep in the ground.
(Lisa Beamer, Let's Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage, July 2002, p. 231)

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

Bill Baker, the 911 Addressing Specialist for Somerset County's Emergency Management Agency: "When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, 'There is no way there is a 757 scattered here.' At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole."
(Kashurba, Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 Aftermath, Aug 2002, p. 42-43)

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

The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water.
(Longman, Among the Heroes, July 2003, p. 215)


Is any skeptic going to concede that the official story states most of Flight 93 was buried?

[supersmell]

Most of flight 93 was buried.

[killtown]

Most of flight 93 was buried.
Glad to see you skeptics finally concede.

Now, prove most of Flight 93 was buried.

Shouldn't be too hard to do if most of it was buried and all that was buried was then dug up.

[triforcharity]

And yet, Killtown has not presented a single shred of evidence.

Personal speculation and factless rambling does not equal fact.

[matrix911]

And yet, Killtown has not presented a single shred of evidence.

Personal speculation and factless rambling does not equal fact.

Its a FACT the official narrative clearly asserts flight 93 was mostly buried.

yet you accept and defend the official story without any proof based on factless rambling and speculation, but hyporitically accuse killtown of wanting more than FACTLESS rambling and speculation to PROVE what the OS claims?

why should killtown accept what you don't when the burden of proof doesn't rest upon him?

[triforcharity]

So, the burdon of proof is only applicable to someone else?? It never applies to him??

That's illogical.

He has asked numerous times where the plane is. Numerours times, myself and others have told him how to figure out where it went. But, yet, suprisingly, he never has to anyone's knowledge.

It only take a few minutes to contact American Airlines.

Killtown,

Have you done this?

[matrix911]

So, the burdon of proof is only applicable to someone else?? It never applies to him??

That's illogical.

He has asked numerous times where the plane is. Numerours times, myself and others have told him how to figure out where it went. But, yet, suprisingly, he never has to anyone's knowledge.

It only take a few minutes to contact American Airlines.

Killtown,

Have you done this?


Please point me to an example of the post and link you claim has adequately or remotely answered KT's line of questioning and show me where he has or hasn't answered or where and what exactly was wrong with his answer.

But since when does the BOP rest upon anyone but the ones making CLAIMS that something is true?

Killtown and thousands of others who don't rely on factless rambling and blindly accept on faith what they're told by their government, want PROOF of what they've been told is the TRUTH and official narrative.

OFFICIAL being the keyword as well here.

IT WASN'T KT that made the assertion something was true and fact... so why would the BOP rest on those who didn't CREATE the STORY?

CONTACT AMERICAN AIRLINES???? Hahahaa!!! R u serious? :eek:

and do what pray tell! They'd spew the same OS as the rest of those ignorant of the REAL FACTS, or apart of the lie and cover-up.

The likely hood that those who control the airline behind the scenes (similar to how Larry Silverstein was with the WTC), were complicit in the operation, is a high probability. So what would be accomplished by inquiring to a faction of the PERPS? Thats like trying to call up fox news or cnn and asking them to investigate or admit they're involvement in the FAKERY.

[killtown]

And yet, Killtown has not presented a single shred of evidence.

Personal speculation and factless rambling does not equal fact.
I'm trying to decide if you are just a liar, or just dumb. Considering later on you asked why don't I contact American Airlines about United Flight 93, I'm going to lean towards dumb.

[3stepsahead]

add: you all know the NY plane that landed in water?

suprised noone has used this as an argumet as to how tough an aircraft is.
because thats the reason for that story, to validate events such as the 911 aircratfs superior outerworldly properties.

so get with the program!

well that is a point of wiev

the given course of events, the day of 911, is enough to dismiss any "evidence supporting the official story"

Kt there is no point in debating or reasearching these topics here(at least if issues get grinded like in these threads) but its very good to have an op to study, the rest is just a waste of time (mostly). realise they are winding this into a mad house dicussion. and that is no fucking good for anyone.
even if you post an thread and do not respond i will bet you chocolate money that the "guys" will manage to clutter it up, it is their purpose here.
given the majority of this issue. you understand that right?

no planes, except those chemtrailing us everyday.

[morethanatheory]

Yep, all still consistant with an air to air missile strike

Wouldnt you agree Killtown?

+1

[morethanatheory]

And yet, Killtown has not presented a single shred of evidence.


Although the forum is public, and he publicly asked a question.

If i'm correct he asked if anyone can prove that it was buried.

You don't crash 84,100 lbs of metal into the ground and expect it to bury itself, so you can't ask him to provide proof it wasn't buried. It's illogical.
-Personal Speculation? (50% of what you read on this forum is "Personal Speculation")

But this.. not really.. this is Common Sense.

[killtown]

+1
Curious to those who think Flight 93 was shot down. Where did the bulk of the plane land?

[antipodean]

Curious to those who think Flight 93 was shot down. Where did the bulk of the plane land?


If it was shot down I think probably somewhere over the Atlantic.

The Egyptian airline crash 2 years previously in 1999 may have been a dress rehearsal.

[1776]

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

The vids got deleted from the original post, so re-posting them here for the skeptics to gawk at :p

[thematrix]

thematrix? Any further comments?

What is there to comment on?

I asked you to post some evidence from official sources to back up your claim that "most of the plane was buried"

You STILL haven't done so.

I specifically discounted the hearsay evidence that you found from Wally Miller. Likewise the "Ambassadors"

Find the FBI or the NTSB or the Fire Dept that were there involved with the recovery operations telling us that "most of the plane was buried" and I'll comment.

You have a big pile of straw that you made into a little man and proceeded to debunk.

Pointless.

How's life over at the TruTV forums?

o wait...

[killtown]

Find the FBI or the NTSB or the Fire Dept that were there involved with the recovery operations telling us that "most of the plane was buried" and I'll comment.
Sure:

Pennsylvania Firefighters Share Bond With Flight 93 Families
Posted: 09-11-2008
'Dave Andolina, who drove the Central City fire engine to the crash, said it was a hopeless feeling when he arrived. "There was nothing. There were a few spot fires. There were no big pieces, nothing."
Shanksville Chief Terry Shaffer said the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft and closed up (http://www.firehouse.com/node/36647). He said the ground at the site was soft because it had been a strip mine." - firehouse.com

You would have seen that already if you actually followed the links (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html) I posted.

How's life over at the TruTV forums?

o wait...
Aah, you wouldn't be a true skeptic without wiggling in an ad hom attack somewhere. Tell me, what is it with skeptics and ad hom attacks? It's like bread and butter.

[thematrix]

You would have seen that already if you actually followed the links (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html) I posted.

Thats hearsay. The reporter is saying thats what this fire chief said, it's not a direct quote.

Still I am sure there must be lots of people from official channels making this claim that you spent so long debunking with this thread.

The title to this thread says "Major Flight 93 claim"

It's not as though you would outright lie, or distort the facts to make yourself seem more important than you really are.

o... wait....

[killtown]

.
Goodbye troll.

[keithm]

Well, the end game was this: Flight 93 was to land on the Whitehouse. You see, under US law at the time, if that happened, it would be martial law in the US and under those conditions, the entire 911 plot could have been completely tidied up, all the evidence buried. We would not be able to have the 911 truth movement today. Anyone claiming that it was an inside job would be so far out on the extremes of conspiracy theory that they would never be taken seriously and certainly must less of the material available today would have been available to the truth movement.

Now we KNOW that this was planned (martial law) because on the 10th Nov 2001 it had been put in the MSM! There were articles published to the American people about how martial law could be enacted in the event of the US government (Washington DC) being attacked directly. So the US population was actually PRIMED for that.

Not only that, but the antrax attacks DID attack the US government, only it was too late then to declare martial law so Plan B didn't bail them out either. And worse, the antrax was traced by the FBI to US laboratories where on a few select personnel had access to it so it was undeniably and inside job. Which is why the headlines claiming that the anthrax was Iraqi played enough to imprint the mantra in the population's minds, then the entire anthrax hoax was made to quietly and quickly disappear.

So what went wrong?

The shooting down of 93 was a renegade action by a true American hero officer and the pilot that did the deed. The order to shoot down WAS NOT GIVEN. I.e. The inaction was there to guarantee the Whitehouse would be hit. Instead of the lies in the movie "United 93", the real hero of 911 was indeed associated with flight 93 coming down but it was not some fictious all American man in the street blued eyed boys. The real hero remains unknown. Anonymous. Denied. The real hero was the officer that saw the no-shoot as a NORAD botch and did his job and had that aircraft shot down.

The entire planet owes that man its thanks. I wonder if he even lived through the day? They may well have shot him on sight.

Now, I haven't researched this but I am willing to bet good money that if you go back in the news archives, you will find that NONE of the important people were in the Whitehouse on 911. You may even find Bush opponents WERE in the Whitehouse that day!

Not only that, but as Shayler points out, Jeb Bush jumped the gun. He declared martial law too soon in Florida. There was no reason for that declaration and it's one of those key facts that the 911 truth movement has missed. It's key fact for prosecuting as conspiracy to the murders, Jeb Bush as well as the usual suspects in the Administration. It's the smoking gun against Jeb Bush being an insider.

But the "failure" in NORAD and the other points of control, i.e. the things that were meant to allow 93 to hit the Whitehouse were undone by a quick thinking officer who ordered the plane to be taken down. 93 was, to use Shayler's term, a key failure in the plot. A cockup that, to quote Shayler "they simply didn't expect or plan for this".

When you realise this truth, suddenly many of the loose ends click into place. Suddenly, so much makes sense. So many of the Bush "incompetancies" are shown to be not incompetance, but quickstepping out a contingency. The inept neoCon scrambling and bumbling of the invasion is suddenly very clearly a group of well rehearsed, well disciplined, well planned people wrongfooted by the most unexpected of cockups.

Flight 93 is where 911 went wrong for them. And one of the reasons that the propaganda around that plane was in overdrive. United 93 the film, the stories of the heros, the only "black box that survived"... all these were disctractions. Very clever distractions. You see, by keeping the "was is shot down" debate going as an initial catch point for the sheep backed up by the "how come the mobile phones worked?" as the catch point for those not fooled by the first catch point, no-one got thinking about the actual flight itself and the key role it played. No-one has been thinking about the possibility that it was a monumental cockup that the plotters simply hadn't accounted for. No-one has been thinking "what if it had reached its target, what would have happened?". And that's clever human manipulation for you. That's really clever brains thinking at high speed to bail out of a catastrophe.

But 93 went badly wrong for the plotters. Because it gave that little window of opportunity for the truth movement to see the faults in the story, see the holes in the evidence and start to question the official line. Martial law was meant to ensure that no questions could be asked, no evidence could survive and no-one would have the time to ask because of what was meant to immediately follow. The sequence of events would have been so swift that we would be focussed now on the fallout of the WMD use that was almost certainly in the plan. 911 would be a minor footnote that no-one would be interested in by now.

Had 93 reached "mission complete". Had martial law been declared, complete control over the media, release of information and the cleanup (getting rid of the evidence) would have happened and bingo! The entire 911 plot would have played out and the world right now would have been a completely different place. Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan probably would have had nuclear weapons used against them to simply "solve the problem". With the US government "wiped out", no-one would have either held the Bush crowd accoutable nor have the ability to even if they tried.

Which explains another anomally about the plot: How the neoCons so totally screwed up the invasions without an exit strategy. The visible evidence being the mess that Iraq is in with the US having its butt kicked.

See, they never needed an exit strategy because they were never going to invade the way that they were forced to. That was NOT the plan. The plan was to use the overwhelming force of American super weapons in quick, lethal blows that the world would have had to stand by and accept because the US government itself would have been directly attacked, possibly with key opponents to the WH wiped out as part of the deal. Who would stop the US? Indeed, who would even BLAME the US?

Their original plan was perfect. It was a good plan. I was a perfect plan.

There was no need to plant a passport. There was no need to explain 911. If you don't explain then there are no holes in the story because there simply is no story. Your cover is perfect. No 911 commission, no NIST scrambling to prove the impossible, no questions about WTC7. Nothing to attack the neoCon agenda with because no accountability given because under martial law, the US government would be unassailable.

And that also explains those massive FEMA detention camps that GLP was so hyped up about many years ago. We were all mystified as to why they were being built. Now it's clear! Even under martial law there would have been those who didn't agree with the neoCons. Those detention camps would have been filled with these dissidents.

Sit back and think of all the odd behaviour that has puzzled us about the BushCo. How they seem to have wrongfooted themselves all the time. And think about how things would have been different in 93 had hit its target. It all makes perfect sense.

Behind the scenes there must have been frantic redrawing of plans. Years and years of careful, step by step detail was trashed when that missile hit 93. And because of that, errors were made. And because of THAT, we have the truth movement and the very real chance to expose this hoax and nail the guilty party.

Which could be why Bush bought into Paraguay.

Also, look at where Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bremer and all the other PNAC players were on the day. Look at their actions. In the light of what was EXPECTED to happen, it all makes sense. Perfect, perfect sense.

This is a startling revelation by Shayler and an absolute lynchpin in understanding 911 and what has followed. It explains so much, ties up so many loose ends and just fits the picture so well, even down to the reactions of the people involved, that it really is the only credible missing piece.

And more still, it's clear that the recycling deal must have been planned months before for the steel shipments from the 911 demolition. All that executed perfectly. But rather than it being a secret kept "for security reasons" away from any public knowledge for decades to come, maybe even centuries, it's now in the open. And one more item to point at the guilty parties with.

For me personally, it's the effectiveness of the psyops of 93 that gets me. How the diversion has worked so extremely well, How the realisation of how 911 was actually a massive cockup simply hasn't featured anywhere up until now.

That makes me shake my head in admiration for the brains that pulled it together. Real professionals. Nasty, evil, but so very clever.

[matrix911]

Well, the end game was this: Flight 93 was to land on the Whitehouse. You see, under US law at the time, if that happened, it would be martial law in the US and under those conditions, the entire 911 plot could have been completely tidied up, all the evidence buried. We would not be able to have the 911 truth movement today. Anyone claiming that it was an inside job would be so far out on the extremes of conspiracy theory that they would never be taken seriously and certainly must less of the material available today would have been available to the truth movement.

Now we KNOW that this was planned (martial law) because on the 10th Nov 2001 it had been put in the MSM! There were articles published to the American people about how martial law could be enacted in the event of the US government (Washington DC) being attacked directly. So the US population was actually PRIMED for that.

except flight 93 wasn't in shanksville. The evidence is overwhelmingly consistent with a bomb/missle impact. The shanksville hoax was a psyop deception and only those in denial, ignorant of all the evidence or shills claim a shootdown or plane crash.

[1776]

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

Just re-posting these videos because it's obvious someone doesn't want them seen. This is the 3rd post of them. The "glitch" seems awfully convenient sometimes.

[1776]

Here's another investigative documentary on my YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/n0b0dy508):

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 1 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-eA2V-0gdo

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 2 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfGdDpI7X0I

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 3 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9sgedc8vh8

(Part 4 was removed by YouTube permanently)

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 5 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_G0gDu_qTM

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 6 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sFkiN4ycv8

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 7 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OlEwH0UdVk

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 8 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5GpevaO-rc

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 9 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYTGkA1ecUM

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 10 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hk5Eaucdzw

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 11 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAAJz18x6FI

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 12 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckwACAA01s

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 13 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fahuZT2Yhv4

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 14 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXSzdsfqtk

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 15 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ktPFH8fldY

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 16 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4K6fIZhWLE


Hope you enjoyed it....

Peace&Love
God bless

[killtown]

It's been a year since I discovered this huge smoking gun and no skeptic has been able to rationally explain it away.

Skeptics, when can you admit defeat?

[policestate]

(subscribed to read later - will catch up. by the way, i'm a fan of your blog)

[killtown]

(subscribed to read later - will catch up. by the way, i'm a fan of your blog)
Thanks! Glad to hear. I you like this smoking gun, please forward it around. No skeptic has a logical explanation for it.

[rodin]

Thanks! Glad to hear. I you like this smoking gun, please forward it around. No skeptic has a logical explanation for it.

Of course its a smoking gun. No crash. Not even a 'shoot down'. No Jewish Gay Hero Bingham shouting 'Let's Roll'. Nothing.

[ultima1]

Hopefully i will soon be getting the declassified document i have filed a FOIA for and will settle if Flight 93 was shot down or not.

[killtown]

Hopefully i will soon be getting the declassified document i have filed a FOIA for and will settle if Flight 93 was shot down or not.
Of course I'm curious about what any FOIA has to say, but I don't see any conclusive evidence of a shoot down. If a plane was hit in the air before the crater, you'd have debris leading up to the crater, not the other way around. If a plane was shoot down and crashed, say, somewhere like New Baltimore 8 miles away, that means the FBI planned a shoot down along with staging the Shanksville field and that is too hard to believe. Plus if a plane crashed is a different spot, there'd still be an explosion and smoke cloud rising which would give away where it really crashed.

[ultima1]

Of course I'm curious about what any FOIA has to say, but I don't see any conclusive evidence of a shoot down. .

Well we do have 2 distinct debris fields and the fact of the engine core being found away from the main site.

[killtown]

Well we do have 2 distinct debris fields and the fact of the engine core being found away from the main site.
Let's continue this shoot down theory discussion here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56888).


As for this thread, I'm still waiting for skeptics to give a logical explanation as to why the FBI didn't alert the media when they supposedly found the "mother load" during their week-long excavation of the hole.

[egokiller]

Probably the best thing and starting place might be ending or shortening Governments "Official secrets acts"...that would be a good start, and possibly a preventative measure too?...

[1776]

No, thank you!!!!!!!!!

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

Some vids from my YouTube chan below

FBI Covers Up 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs5yYg514-Y

Pentagon Strike 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILS5ssDMW4

9/11 When is enough.. enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrImmannqE

Boeing Jets fly THROUGH buildings on 9/11!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Jj7Y7r3bc

What are you waiting for?? They lied to us!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCd3UMH7hmY

2001 a Fake Odyssey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgFL7mKcHg

9/11 NORAD: The Full Minetta Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qUp0fGReSw

Here's another investigative documentary on my YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/n0b0dy508):

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 1 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-eA2V-0gdo

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 2 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfGdDpI7X0I

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 3 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9sgedc8vh8

(Part 4 was removed by YouTube permanently)

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 5 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_G0gDu_qTM

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 6 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sFkiN4ycv8

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 7 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OlEwH0UdVk

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 8 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5GpevaO-rc

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 9 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYTGkA1ecUM

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 10 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hk5Eaucdzw

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 11 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAAJz18x6FI

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 12 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckwACAA01s

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 13 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fahuZT2Yhv4

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 14 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJXSzdsfqtk

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 15 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ktPFH8fldY

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 16 of 16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4K6fIZhWLE


Hope you enjoyed it....

Peace&Love
God bless

Just re-posting these videos because it's obvious someone doesn't want them seen. This is the 3rd post of them. The "glitch" seems awfully convenient sometimes.

I'm going through my posting history in the 'usercp' control panel of the forum and I'm finding that most ALL of my video posts are DELETED (even ones that have been quoted to show the vanished videos again.)

Knowing the content on most all of my YouTube videos will make you wonder what's really going on here...



Peace&Love
God bless

[killtown]

No rational explanation skeptics?

[macgyver1968]

No rational explanation skeptics?

well..there aren't many "skeptics" on this board..which point did you want to address?

[killtown]

well..there aren't many "skeptics" on this board..which point did you want to address?
This (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2009/07/media-not-reporting-when-flight-93.html).

[killtown]

Skeptics, any response?

[krakhead]

I'm going through my posting history in the 'usercp' control panel of the forum and I'm finding that most ALL of my video posts are DELETED (even ones that have been quoted to show the vanished videos again.)

Knowing the content on most all of my YouTube videos will make you wonder what's really going on here...


They haven't been deleted - it's a known bug in the forum software.

[whatsinaname]

Skeptics, any response?


I very much doubt it.;)

Burried under ground FFS! Them just saying that is proof enough that they think we're all morons.

[killtown]

I very much doubt it.;)

Burried under ground FFS! Them just saying that is proof enough that they think we're all morons.
Yeah, seems like the skeptics want to stay clear of this one.

[killtown]

Oh skeptics?

[1776]

They haven't been deleted - it's a known bug in the forum software.

Right.



Uh huh.

[apollo_gnomon]

Right.



Uh huh.

Try using the "quote" feature on posts with invisible pix/vids. You'll see that teh URL is there, bracketed by tags. Sometimes the tagged item is visible, sometimes not. Once in a while you'll see someone post "quoted to view content" or some such - and the media items are there in the quoted post.

In order to get around this I usually post the raw url for the item, stripped of the "http://www." to prevent the forum software from automatically adding the "media" tags.

Can you see a video here? It's right between this line and the url line below.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/v/S-eA2V-0gdo
http://www.youtube.com/v/S-eA2V-0gdo
youtube.com/v/S-eA2V-0gdo

[killtown]

(OK, back on topic.)

Skeptics, a rational explanation?

[3stepsahead]

it cant be explained away
can sot understand why youre grinding soup on this old and done issue
arent there other loose ends to tie together?

[killtown]

it cant be explained away
can sot understand why youre grinding soup on this old and done issue
arent there other loose ends to tie together?
I didn't know the skeptics had conceded. They still say we have no proof yet.