Shanksville pics..?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

There was no wreckage in the morning. That's what Coroner Miller said when he exited the field and spoke to the media, and that's what every single photo or video showed--no wreckage consistent with a wrecked airliner.

Some say, including a friend of mine who actually visited the scene as a volunteer firemen that evening, that some human remains and other tokens supposedly from the airliner that wasn't there, were "found" inside the forest nearby, in the roped off area created by the feds, on the land owned by Jim Svonavec.

It was terrific sleight of hand, a magnificent deception.

Oh I see. so there WAS enough wreckage to satisfy you but it was planted later. Got it

a reply to: Salander

that some human remains and other tokens supposedly from the airliner that wasn't there, were "found" inside the forest nearby, in the roped off area created by the feds, on the land owned by Jim Svonavec.

You are aware that UNITED 93 broke up on impact - the forward 1/3 of the aircraft (from cockpit to 1st class section)
was thrown forward into the woods while rest ploughed into the ground

It was from the woods that the larger pieces of wreckage were found

Much of the debris was found caught up in the trees

.It was rough going, on hands and knees in some cases, looking for anything that didn't belong in the woods.

More than 300 volunteers gathered yesterday at the site in Somerset County where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Members of Southwestern Pennsylvania Emergency Response Group scoured a wooded area near the crash scene for airplane fragments and human remains. They found some of both.

Yesterday's search focused on an area where debris may have fallen from trees because of recent rain and wind. Major pieces of the wreckage already have been removed by federal investigators. Miller said searchers now are recovering pieces of airplane too small to identify.

Human remains were also found in woods - in one case a tooth recovered from a tree

Trees were draped with scraps of luggage, clothing, bits of the fuselage and human remains. Walking through the crash site in the days after the attacks, Miller's eye caught a flash of light 20 feet up in the branches of a hemlock tree. "I only noticed it because the sun happened to hit it at just the right angle," he says. A tree climber brought it down. It was a single tooth with a silver filling. Eventually it was matched to one of the passengers.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If you understood how the ACARS system worked, if you understood how the cell phone system worked, how the computers on the airplanes communicated with the computers on the ground, you would get it. But you don't, so you can't.

If you were curious about those things you would educate yourself, but obviously you prefer the bliss of ignorance. I do understand why.

ACARS is like a cell phone? You can call a number tied to a cell phone that has been destroyed and the network will let you leave a voice mail.

What you neede to show from the logs of ACARS is were flight 93 transmitted a ACARS message after the crash. If you cannot do that, you an't got squat!

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Salander

that some human remains and other tokens supposedly from the airliner that wasn't there, were "found" inside the forest nearby, in the roped off area created by the feds, on the land owned by Jim Svonavec.

You are aware that UNITED 93 broke up on impact - the forward 1/3 of the aircraft (from cockpit to 1st class section)
was thrown forward into the woods while rest ploughed into the ground

It was from the woods that the larger pieces of wreckage were found

Much of the debris was found caught up in the trees

.It was rough going, on hands and knees in some cases, looking for anything that didn't belong in the woods.

More than 300 volunteers gathered yesterday at the site in Somerset County where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Members of Southwestern Pennsylvania Emergency Response Group scoured a wooded area near the crash scene for airplane fragments and human remains. They found some of both.

Yesterday's search focused on an area where debris may have fallen from trees because of recent rain and wind. Major pieces of the wreckage already have been removed by federal investigators. Miller said searchers now are recovering pieces of airplane too small to identify.

Human remains were also found in woods - in one case a tooth recovered from a tree

Trees were draped with scraps of luggage, clothing, bits of the fuselage and human remains. Walking through the crash site in the days after the attacks, Miller's eye caught a flash of light 20 feet up in the branches of a hemlock tree. "I only noticed it because the sun happened to hit it at just the right angle," he says. A tree climber brought it down. It was a single tooth with a silver filling. Eventually it was matched to one of the passengers.

I am aware that according to ACARS data 93 was still airborne 30 minutes later, transmitting to a VHF tower somewhere in Illinois. I am aware that every swinging Richard on site in Pennsylvania could not find a wrecked airliner in that field. I am aware that the official story is full of holes.

a reply to: Salander

The ACARS logs are available on line. Show where flight 93 actually sent a ACARS transmission after the crash! You cannot, then there is no proof of your belief which is emotional and void of reason.

a reply to: Salander

And there was a large surface debris field at the flight 93 crash site and scorched trees. Sorry a high speed crash into loose soil doesn't look like a squashed plane on wile e coyote and the roadrunner.

Always can count on your lack of understanding of the crash site and your willingness to forget key facts.

It's sad the truth movement doesn't git a majority of people understands the movement uses innuendo, hides facts and evidence, uses items out of context, the movement does not self police itself from con artists, and results in concerned people treating the movement as toxic.

a reply to: Salander

Thank you Salander.

You are correct in your observation and research.

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

Click on bottom source to read following transcript.

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I find it interesting that the only rebuttal to this evidence is ridicul and nothing else.

Thank you for bringing this up, the transcripts speak volumes to truth here.

That morning on 911 I witnessed a broadcast of the Mayor of Cincinnati announcing that flight 98 had landed and that there was a bomb threat on board, the plane was being escorted into a hanger and was surrounded by bomb sniffing dogs and police.

10 minutes After that public broadcast live News was made, a new report was announced that flight 98 just crashed in Shanksville PA.

What I found interesting was, why would a political figure ( the Mayor ) go live on television with a Cincinnati airport representative to broadcast this information without checking the facts first.

Then I thought, why would the Mayor risk his reputation and career to go live on the air if the facts were false. The Mayor wouldn't have done that.

The evidence points that flight 98 did not crash in Shanksville PA.

a reply to: Phage


Your probably right, when a body impacts at high speed its very likely to go "Splash" considering the water content.

Here is the list that kills all the innuendo....

Can you form and provide a counter argument. You are the one making allegations.

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.

No ACARS logs of flight 93 transmitting an ACARS message after flight 93 crash.

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.


There is no proof in the ACARS log of flight 93 transmitting an ACARS message after the crash!!!!!!!

a reply to: neutronflux

Please stop parroting the os narratives of 911.

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

Seriously, where do you get your information from?

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001.

According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset County, PA.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


I have provided very credibal evidence on the contrary, ignoring it will not help your case.

What I have presented in my above post, you have not debunk.

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

You claim false dimension, yet you cannot prove you're allegations to back up you "opinions". This is not how debates work.

There is no proof in the ACARS log of flight 93 transmitting an ACARS message after the crash!!!!!!!

False.

You failed to read the report that was given to you. I guess the next thing you will claim is the earth is flat.

a reply to: Informer1958

Yeap and it's all their opinions, false narratives, items out of context with no proof.

Step one!

Please post the actual log that shows an ACARS transmission from flight 93 after the crash. Put up or shut up.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeap and it's all their opinions, false narratives, items out of context with no proof.

Step one!

Please post the actual log that shows an ACARS transmission from flight 93 after the crash. Put up or shut up.

That quick response was a knee jerk reaction, You need to read what was given to you and you're questions are in the report.

You still haven't read it because you refuse to read it. I have PUT UP!

OPEN your eyes, or do you have selective seeing as well?

a reply to: Informer1958

Come on Mr cite the source. You cannot produce the ACARS log and show where an actual transmission originated from flight 93 after the crash.

You really need to stop having the truth movement tell you what to think and do some of your own research.

Oh,boy....neutron, baby.....up close now....at the ramp ...
Up close to a 767, oh man it was friggin huge,,,,,,

Yep, I'm the one talking about my track hoe digging down forty feet in six hours.....yeah....can I join in....but you seem like Hal9000......just kiddin

a reply to: neutronflux

Read the source.

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission.

However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Read the rest from this source.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I have given you the facts and have proved how the 911 Commissioners ignored some of the credibal findings.

Not all the information was provided through the FOIA Report. However, enough information was given to prove there was many discrepancy in the OS narratives of the alleged flight 98 crash.

If said plane crashed in Shanksville, why hide the critical information ,is the question you should be asking?

a reply to: Informer1958

Back to the cell phone argument. You can leave a voice mail to a number tied to a cell phone that has been totally destroyed through the cell phone system.

There is ACARS system wide acknowledgement that ACARS tried to send a message to a destroyed jet.

You need to show in the actual ACARS logs where an actual ACARS transmission originated from flight 93 after the crash.

You cannot use the actual logs to show an ACARS message originated from flight 93 after the crash, can you?

a reply to: Informer1958

Maybe you don't understand positive feedback.

Take a simple control system with no valve position feedback.

The control system will send a single to open a valve, the system will log the valve open, and the control system will operate thinking the valve is open when in the field the valve is actually stuck closed. Only an upset system or visible check of the valve reveals the valve is stuck closed.

If you cannot show from the actual ACARS logs an ACARS transmission originated from flight 93 after the crash for positive feedback the jet was in the air, you have no proof!

a reply to: neutronflux

If you cannot show from the actual ACARS logs an ACARS transmission originated from flight 93 after the crash for positive feedback the jet was in the air, you have no proof!

Oh boy, you didn't read anything I have posted, posting back and forth with you is like me talking to a brick wall.

Ignorance is bliss for those that embrace it.

a reply to: Informer1958

It's not ignorance.

Did flight 93 continuously broadcast an ACARS single that originated from flight 93 to prove positive feedback of its location at all times?

Or

Can you show where an ACARS message originated and was broadcast from flight 93 after the crash to prove positive feedback of its location using the logs.

What originated from flight 93 to prove positive feedback of its after crash existence, and where is it logged in the actual ACARS logs?

a reply to: Informer1958

Just spit out a time stamp of a logged ACARS message that originated from flight 93 after the crash, so I can research the given time stamp. Can you even to that?