Shanksville pics..?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Such nonsense. You sir, are no longer worth responding to.

Has nothing to do with me.

You only have sensationalized speculation and innuendo.

Can you form and provide a counter argument. You are the one making allegations. Its your job to provide the argument.

a reply to: Informer1958


Here are some items that are fact.


Why do you choose to not give the complete details of the flight 93 crash? You completely rely on the suppression of facts to try to push your false narrative.


Ignore the fact the impact area of buried wreckage was actually 85 feet by 85 feet wide. Up to 40 feet deep.

Ignores the fact the soft ground was conducive to the force of impact pushing the wreckage deep into the ground, then being back filled by the unstable soild. The ground was able to absorb the impact instead of being carved out by the fractured fuselage.





Title: Memories of Flight 93 crash still fresh at 5-year anniversary

www.post-gazette.com...

Veteran FBI agent Michael Soohy had been to airplane crash scenes before, and he thought he knew what to expect: chaos, bodies, a hulking wreck of a jet.

"I don't think anyone expected to see what they didn't see," said the 50-year-old who grew up near Johnstown. "It's almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. ... The plane went in, and the stuff back-filled right over it."

How did all the wreckage, DNA, and personal items end up at the flight 93 crash site? Right number of engines and correct nomenclature.

How did the flight recorders end up at the site buried 15 and 25 feet deep.

What created the fire damage and extensive debris field of passenger plane wreckage.

Recognizable piece of fuselage ended up 900 feet from crash site.

Where did flight 93 and the passengers end up in the no crash narrative.

Ignoring that the position of flight 93 was visually verified by other flights and tracked by radar to the crash site.

Eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet on collision course to crash site. Accounts verified by physical evidence of crashed passenger jet.

Claims the crash site was caused by an object rogue from a live fire military exercise. You will not name a live fire exercise that included a cruise missile or missile. You will not state what live fire range the object originated from. The investigations that would result from a missile leaving and / or missing its target on a live fire range. No missile parts or missile engines found at the flight 93 crash site.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have had their inquiries answered by frank and transparent responses. Information based on citing sources and physical evidence.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have only provided:

Quotes out of context from persons that concluded flight 93 crashed at Shanksville.

Giving false dimensions concerning the crash site and will not acknowledge the extensive impact area revealed by the excavation of buried wreckage.

Will not provide answers to questions concerning the eyewitness who said the object that crashed was to small for flight 93.

Personal favorite. Individual stating they had to correct what "debunkers" believed were wing trenches are drainage ditches. This is truely a statement of ignorance. One, the official account was flight 93 hit nose and right wing first and the drainage ditches were never thought to be caused by the wings. Two, the individual would not reply if wreckage / buried wreckage was recovered from the ditches. Three, person never provided quotes and sources of "debunkers" who were confused about the nature of the ditches. Four, my internet search only revealed persons trying to prove flight 93 did not crash referring to the ditches as wing scars.


Quotes by Miller greatly taken out of context. It's expected that a high speed jetliner crash will fragment and leave human remains almost impossible to ID by sight, not whole bodies. Please give a Miller quote that the wreckage of flight 93 held not human remains or victims.

It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been fooled

originally posted by: PoppyThankful
It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been fooled

Which of course, works fine regardless of whose side you're on in this debate.

Anyway, to anyone who is doubtful of what the impact of UA93 should of done in terms of damage:
Impact velocity ~ 580mph = 260m/s
FDR recovered, circa 8m below ground.
757 is about 47.3m long (why is this important? Well the data recorders are in the back, as the impact tends to be less there)
So, assuming the FDR took that full 55m to decelerate - an incorrect assumption, as aluminium tends to crumple when it hits solid ground, and a 757 is approximately a hollow tube:
Approximately 62 g.
Or the other extreme, not using the plane as a crumple zone - 430 g.

An aircraft is not going to survive those sorts of loads in any recognisable chunks. Of course, Data recorders are - in fact wikipedia has them as certified to withstand 3400g for 6.5ms (or 270 knots to 0 in 45cm - makes UA93 look like it hit sponge).

The other problem, that people have, is that their experience just doesn't cover the results of high speed airliner crashes. The NTSB, of course, does but for some reason it is assumed they are in on the conspiracy/get wrong results. A strange belief, given how many accidents were investigated over the course of the 60s to 90s - and look how much safer air travel is now!

a reply to: apex

I didn't understand until these videos.

youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks - I hadn't seen the Reno crash before. Really weird seeing a plane go down with no flame on the impact.

a reply to: apex

It's such a sad event, and I feel morbid for posting the Reno crash. But its power.

I have been to lazy to research the fuel aspect. Was wondering if the gas was more volatile than jet fuel? If race plans only carry small amounts of fuel to save weight? Or the race planes / WW II planes have special fuel tanks?

Side note: people are starting to try debunk the P4 crash test?

a reply to: apex

It's not really much of a debate anymore, is it?


It never was IMO. Though I did believe the official story for a number of years, the absence of a wrecked airliner and the initial testimony of the county coroner on that day was my first realization that something was wrong with this picture.

The ARINC information discovered years later was confirmation that UA93 was not in that field that day. It was an example of "fake news" that have consumed the headlines these days. Yes, something happened there, but it was not the crash of UA93. That they made a movie about it so quickly is proof positive of "fake news".

a reply to: Salander

Another misstating of facts by you. There was a large debris field. Section of fuselage with windows found among the debris field. Bits of flight 93 and bits of personal effects from passengers of flight 93 found in debris field. Correct engines recovered from crash site. Correct flight recorders recovered. An excavation 85 foot by 85 foot and 40 feet deep to recover the parts of the jet and personal effects not in the extensive debris field. Remains identified by DNA of the crew, passengers, and the high jackets.

Why do conspiracy theories rely on false narratives, withholding truth, and lack of transparency. Very telling of the people that push 9/11 conspiracy theories.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you could show a picture of the field with those parts in it, you would have some measure of credibility. You cannot, and therefor you do not. Photos from the sham trial of Moussaoui don't count. Those pieces were not observed in any photos or videos in the field. What the US Justice Department presents is trials of this nature is staged.

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING

The brand new jet ranger that had the first news crew with a video cam runnin....said toro caca........about that being a crash site.......I'm a seasoned pilot.......you whom say it's a crash site are possibly unencumbered by the thought process

How can you live your life like that....this the real one....stop selling out or what ever you are doing ...you gotta stop that...I ain't lyin'


Did you know the smoke ball was the equivalent of 5 gallons of kerosene

originally posted by: Salander

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING

You realize the debris field was larger than a football field, how do you take a picture of that and reasonably show context. Or context of buried and totally fractured air frame.

But from the get go, you already debunked yourself. Well documented articles and eyewitness accounts of seeing the jet on route to the crash site, wreckage, DNA, engines, flight recorders, and the remains of luggage and personal effects.

Why would you take pictures of buried wreckage once you have the crash site documented. Proven key wreckage was not photographed when found?

Numerous eyewitnesses and physical evidence debunks your one eyewitness.

The numerous on site crime scene photos of wreckage alone proves your statement wrong. Sorry.

Links with crash site wreckage photos. Or the documented photos of crash cite artifacts.

www.unitedflight93.com...
www.montrealgazette.com...
photoblog.nbcnews.com...
www.flight93friends.org...
sites.google.com...
sites.google.com...
sites.google.com...


And the F4 video that proves the devistating effects of a high speed collision.
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Salander

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING

Also, please provide the actual quote. it's context. And a source.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: apex

It's not really much of a debate anymore, is it?


It never was IMO. Though I did believe the official story for a number of years, the absence of a wrecked airliner and the initial testimony of the county coroner on that day was my first realization that something was wrong with this picture.

OK. Quick question. What is your position of expertise to say definitively that an aircraft did not go down there? Most high speed dive impact airliner disasters don't leave that much obvious wreckage.

As for the coroner; is it Wallace Miller? He seems to be the only coroner I can find to do with UA93:

"It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled. "Usually, when you see a plane crash on TV, you see the fuselage, the tail or a piece of something. The biggest piece I saw was as big as this (spreading his hands less than a metre apart). It was as though someone took a tri-axle dump truck and spread it over an acre."

As coroner for the previous four years, and a funeral director all his working life, 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."

A smoking black crater and a no-longer-existent jet plane are not as telegenic as the explosive and awful demise of twin skyscrapers, or the airborne breach of the perimeter of a nation's military headquarters.

www.theage.com.au...
Source from one year later.

a reply to: apex

Yes, it was Wallace Miller. Yes, it's old news. I saw Miller's comments to the cameras about 10 years ago, not yesterday, so please forgive me if I don't have a link to it.

I used to fly helicopters, and have flown photographers and video men quite a few times. I have also flown over several wrecked airplanes, but no wrecked airliners. The view from above, as noted by the news guy in the back seat, agreed with Miller's observations--there was nothing in that field that even remotely looked like a wrecked airliner. The claim that it was a vertical entry does not wash.

One of the government witnesses about 15 northwest of the site had the airplane down to an altitude that he could see its wings rocking and other details that mean it had to be below 2000 feet or so. The vertical impact claim is bogus.

Years later Miller came clean in an interview by Bollyn, and admitted that the FBI had encouraged him to be "a team player" and change his story.

The normals say no to the story and Hal 9000 neutronflux seems automated....huh!

I'' m a pilot, there is no wide body airliner down in the dirt,,,!

Think about it....if it went in there ....I could dig it out with merely a long boom track hoe....see how that fails.....

I could dig that much dirt and dump each bucket into a truck......in 6 hours.....in just six friggin hours so don'T be a dumb bunny

Leave ya a hole 40 feet deep....neutronflush would say it's down at 90 feet!

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Things you need to answer?

Why do you choose to not give the complete details of the flight 93 crash? You completely rely on the suppression of facts to try to push your false narrative.

Ignore the fact the impact area of buried wreckage was actually 85 feet by 85 feet wide. Up to 40 feet deep.

Ignores the fact the soft ground was conducive to the force of impact pushing the wreckage deep into the ground, then being back filled by the unstable soild. The ground was able to absorb the impact instead of being carved out by the fractured fuselage.

Title: Memories of Flight 93 crash still fresh at 5-year anniversary

www.post-gazette.com

Veteran FBI agent Michael Soohy had been to airplane crash scenes before, and he thought he knew what to expect: chaos, bodies, a hulking wreck of a jet.

"I don't think anyone expected to see what they didn't see," said the 50-year-old who grew up near Johnstown. "It's almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. ... The plane went in, and the stuff back-filled right over it."

How did all the wreckage, DNA, and personal items end up at the flight 93 crash site? Right number of engines and correct nomenclature.

How did the flight recorders end up at the site buried 15 and 25 feet deep.

What created the fire damage and extensive debris field of passenger plane wreckage.

Recognizable piece of fuselage ended up 900 feet from crash site.

Where did flight 93 and the passengers end up in the no crash narrative.

Ignoring that the position of flight 93 was visually verified by other flights and tracked by radar to the crash site.

Eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet on collision course to crash site. Accounts verified by physical evidence of crashed passenger jet.

Claims the crash site was caused by an object rogue from a live fire military exercise. You will not name a live fire exercise that included a cruise missile or missile. You will not state what live fire range the object originated from. The investigations that would result from a missile leaving and / or missing its target on a live fire range. No missile parts or missile engines found at the flight 93 crash site.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have had their inquiries answered by frank and transparent responses. Information based on citing sources and physical evidence.

The persons questioning the crash of flight 93 have only provided:

Quotes out of context from persons that concluded flight 93 crashed at Shanksville.

Giving false dimensions concerning the crash site and will not acknowledge the extensive impact area revealed by the excavation of buried wreckage.

Will not provide answers to questions concerning the eyewitness who said the object that crashed was to small for flight 93.

Personal favorite. Individual stating they had to correct what "debunkers" believed were wing trenches are drainage ditches. This is truely a statement of ignorance. One, the official account was flight 93 hit nose and right wing first and the drainage ditches were never thought to be caused by the wings. Two, the individual would not reply if wreckage / buried wreckage was recovered from the ditches. Three, person never provided quotes and sources of "debunkers" who were confused about the nature of the ditches. Four, my internet search only revealed persons trying to prove flight 93 did not crash referring to the ditches as wing scars.


Quotes by Miller greatly taken out of context. It's expected that a high speed jetliner crash will fragment and leave human remains almost impossible to ID by sight, not whole bodies. Please give a Miller quote that the wreckage of flight 93 held no human remains or victims.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If you could show a picture of the field with those parts in it, you would have some measure of credibility. You cannot, and therefor you do not. Photos from the sham trial of Moussaoui don't count. Those pieces were not observed in any photos or videos in the field. What the US Justice Department presents is trials of this nature is staged.

As Miller said to the cameras when he stepped out of the field, there was nothing there that suggested an airliner had crashed there. NOTHING

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing left of this plane either.

"disintegrating instantly. "

And his suicide note was found afterwards:

"note on the airsickness bag "

And the gun he used, with part of his finger still in it.

" lift a print from a fragment of finger stuck in the pistol's trigger guard, "

So, conspiracy believers have evidence that suggests that their expectations and preconceived notions of what a high speed plane crash should look like to be wrong.

What will you do with this information?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: facedye

Pieces of flesh are more than traces of DNA. But yes at speeds in excess of 600mph, there is little left intact. I'm surprised you aren't aware of that from your first hand experience.

That's some high knotage for a passenger airliner.