Shanksville pics..?

a reply to: Salander

Support your arguments!

I found postings by a smart individual that actually bought the ACARS standard used during 9/11, and provides a logical argument with documentation there is no proof ACARS uplinks were acknowledged by flight 93 after the crash!

Can you show from the ACARS logs an acknowledgement that was broadcasted from flight 93 after the crash?

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...-4145817

The United employee David Krenn said the same thing from the start of the investigation. There is no acknowledgements from flight 93 after flight 93 crashed!

You have what? One or two persons milking the movement for notoriety! Telling you what you want to hear? Saying things with no reference and providing on evidence based on the actual ACARS standard and protocols?

a reply to: neutronflux

The vast preponderance of the evidence, more than a decade old, shows the official story to be impossible. Miller's statements and the ACARS data confirm the obvious--there was no airliner crashed at Shanksville that day.

Obviously you are entitled to your delusions, but I must confront the uncomfortable truth.

a reply to: Salander

You have been proven Miller's statements are taken out of Context.

Four simple starting points.....

Why does the truth movement hide the extent of the crash site? (The wreckage was buried in an 80' x 80' area up to 40' deep in soil that was prone to swallowing the jet than being cratered. Under the right conditions, soil can take on almost liquid characteristics. The 600 pounds of recovered human remains spread over a 70 acre area. The debris field was larger with nearby trees scorched.)

How did the wreckage, correct engines, DNA, personal effects, and black boxes end up at the crash site?

Flight 93 was identified by other pilots in the air which varied flight 93's radar presence. Radar tracked the jet to the crash site. On ground witnesses verified the jet crashed.

DNA testing verified and matched the crew and passenger list.

Just because the crash doesn't look like something from the Wile E Coyote and the Road Runner equates conspiracy.

Conspiracists, one odd shape in Antarctica's ice is positively absolutely proof of a crashed space alien starship.

Just because conspiracists don't understand a crash site, the pilots the verified flight 93's position, the crews that recovered the wreckage, the radar crews that tracked flight 93, the recovery of DNA, the persons that conducted the DNA testing, the persons that identified the wreckage, the eyewitnesses on the ground that verified a passenger jet crashed, the persons that testified there is no ACARS evidence flight 93 survived intact after the crash, persons that know / studied ACARS standards and protocols verifying there is no ACARS proof are all lying and part of a conspiracy?

a reply to: neutronflux

Finally in about 2012, Miller explained why he gave 2 diametrically opposed statements, 2 conflicting statements. He explained it to Christopher Bollyn when visited by Bollyn at Miller's funeral home when Bollyn was researching another matter, the destruction of certain human remains associated with Dover AFB in Delaware.

Miller's first statements to the media were truthful and accurate--he found nothing in that field suggesting an airliner loaded with passengers and baggage had crashed in that field.

Sometime later, just hours or days later, Miller was approached by the FBI agents who had arrived at the site AFTER Miller had given his statement to the media. The feds realized the cat was out of the bag, and asked Miller if he could be "a team player".

Who is going to tell the FBI no to a question like that? Certainly not a relatively timid and soft spoken undertaker who also served as required as the county coroner.

Miller agreed to play along, and revised his story.

originally posted by: Salander

Miller's first statements to the media were truthful and accurate--he found nothing in that field suggesting an airliner loaded with passengers and baggage had crashed in that field.

Please quote were Miller said there was never human remains. Please quote where Miller said there was never a jet impact?

Is this the best quote you got? Funny a man would claim a site was like a gaint funnel service if it was void of human remains?

shoestring911.blogspot.com...
He later recounted to the Washington Post what he'd seen when he first got there: "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)

Sad a "truth movement" does not present true facts. Only uses picked parts of whole statements and uses them out of context!


The quote out of context.....

shoestring911.blogspot.com...

He told CNN: "It was a really a very unusual site. You almost would've thought the passengers had been dropped off somewhere. ... Even by the standard model of an airplane crash, there was very little, even by those standards." (CNN, 3/11/2002)

The whole context from CNN.....

edition.cnn.com...

MATTINGLY: From our distant vantage point on September 11th, all that seemed to remain from United flight 93 was a shallow, charred pit. What we didn't know was, according to county officials at the scene, the cockpit and approximately a third of the airplane bounced off the ground and shattered, pieces scattering through the burning treeline across a 50-acre area. The rest collapsed on top of itself, buried into the burning pit.

MATTINGLY: At an estimated 500 miles per hour on impact, the devastation was complete, compounding the delicate job of recovering remains of the passengers and crew.

MILLER: It was a really a very unusual site. You almost would've thought the passengers had been dropped off somewhere.

MATTINGLY: Partial remains of just 12 people could be identified from fingerprints and dental records. Identifying the rest on board depended on DNA testing on the few remains not incinerated in the crash or contaminated by jet fuel or flame retardant.

MILLER: Even by the standard model of an airplane crash, there was very little, even by those standards.

MATTINGLY: But it was enough to eventually identify everyone onboard. Remains of the passengers and crew began going back to the families shortly before Christmas, Coroner Miller sharing with them one inescapable conclusion.


MILLER: For all intents and purposes, the final resting place of their loved ones was at that particular site where the crash occurred.

Where in the heck is the quote Miller said there were no remains, no crashed jet?!?!?

Pseudoscience...,,.

Funny how the truth movement wants to hide facts, rants about their conceived reality being the only truth, and gets angry when true failure analysis and evidence leads to a cause. Not a preconceived notion?

a reply to: neutronflux

Find it yourself friend. It's 15 years old now. His interview coming out of the field was televised here 15 years ago, and also on at least one German TV outlet.

If you were asleep at that time and are not willing to do the research yourself, that is a personal problem. Nobody including you can prove 93 was crashed there, then or now.

a reply to: Salander

Still waiting on a Miller quote of no human remains at the shanksville site.

Still waiting on a Miller quote there was no jet wreckage at the shanksville site.

but neutron, baby....the first chopper on the scene with reporters and video....on tv...showed the pic, man...there wasnt anything there...or in the trees.....plus a widebody aircraft leaves more evidence, my brother.

go stand on the ramp next to one, then it will come to you

plus no excavators dug down.......

So all the in flight spotting of flight 93, radar evidence, eyewitness accounts, the 80' x 80' area of buried wreckage, the buried engines, buried flight recorders, the scorched trees, the personal effects, human remains recovered in a 70 acre area, and the larger debri field of wreckage was not the result of a jet crash? Got a better explanation for the physical evidence backed by eyewitness accounts?

a reply to: neutronflux

It's very old news sir. That you need someone else to do your research for you speaks volumes about your "curiosity quotient".

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

It's very old news sir. That you need someone else to do your research for you speaks volumes about your "curiosity quotient".

Care to answer the quest?

So all the in flight spotting of flight 93, radar evidence, eyewitness accounts, the 80' x 80' area of buried wreckage, the buried engines, buried flight recorders, the scorched trees, the personal effects, human remains recovered in a 70 acre area, and the larger debri field of wreckage was not the result of a jet crash? Got a better explanation for the physical evidence backed by eyewitness accounts?