My new idea on Shanksville

a reply to: EvilAxis

The steel, along with all the other debris was shipped to Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island

Here it was sorted - there are video of the team marking beams SAVE they wanted with spray paint

These were pulled out in special pile for examination

They only wanted beams from the impact/collapse zones for study

All beams at WTC were marked with a code telling what building, floor and section if building were from

By reading the code could tell which beams to check

a reply to: matafuchs

There was debris up to 6 miles away but they were 'downwind' from the flight path. Indian Lake.

Is actually just over mile - the idiot who posted this used a MAPPING PROGRAM to calculate the distance

It gave the DRIVING DISTANCE, not the direct line distance

Also the debris found consisted of scraps of paper and metallic foil insulation , lightweight pieces carried there by wind

Wonder why people consider "truthers" to be fools …….??

a reply to: EvilAxis

Once the NTSB is done with it all aircraft wreckage becomes property of the airline. At that point they can scrap it, store it, donate it... It's entirely up to the airline and their insurance company.

a reply to: Salander

For the record. I believe Flight 93 crashed with not being shot down. My mind was in about three different places when I posted, and I miss typed.

But it seems you have no credible evidence to cite and link to either way?

a reply to: neutronflux

VP Dick Cheney did have a slip of the tongue and say the plane was shot down over Shanksville. Not sure about that one, but I am in the belief the plane that hit the Pentagon was in fact a drone missile. And the FBI gets credit for letting 911 happen while they concentrated on spying on politicos for the deep state. They ignored so many red flags. They still do, but Trump has scared them at least somewhat.

The biggest issue with Shanksville and the entire 9/11 event is the total lack of transparency of those responsible for the investigation, this mentality is a serious problem and it only adds to the questions.

An article from 2002, I would suggest that most of the questions are still relevant today seeing as nothing has been produced publicly since:

Unanswered questions: The mystery of Flight 93

The absence of official information has led to lively and often well-informed debate in the unofficial medium of the internet (see www.flight93crash.com.) But there are also a number of individuals in the aviation industry convinced that there do exist other plausible interpretations of what actually happened. Because there are, most certainly, a number of important unanswered questions – questions based on evidence, as well as on a manifest absence of candour on the part of the authorities – which the national US media, typically so sceptical and inquisitive, have shown a curious reluctance to ask.

How has the US government and its various agencies responded to doubts raised by the above questions? In the following ways:

1. The paper debris eight miles away, the FBI says, was wafted away by a 10mph wind; the jet-engine part flew 2,000 yards on account of the savage force of the plane's impact with the ground. The FBI conclusion: "Nothing was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact." Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth.

2. The Air Force jets were on their way but failed to make it on time, according to General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Fighters did finally approach Flight 93, he acknowledges, "moments" before it crashed, but did not shoot it down. Which begs the question why they were unable to arrive sooner to intercept an aircraft that clearly had terrorists aboard and that was flying straight for Washington more than one hour after another United Airlines plane had crashed into the second World Trade Centre tower. The report in the New Hampshire newspaper, and the one on CBS, have not been explained, and the air-traffic controllers in Cleveland who tracked the last minutes of Flight 93 on radar have been forbidden by the authorities to speak publicly about what they saw on their screens.

3. Neither the FBI nor anyone else in authority has explained the reported 911 phone call from the plane toilet, even though it appears to be the last of the phone calls made from the plane and even though it conveys the far from insignificant claim that there was an explosion on board. The FBI has confiscated the tape of the conversation and the operator Glen Cramer has received orders not to speak to the media any more.

4. The explanation furnished by the FBI for the mystery plane, whose existence it initially denied, serves less to reassure than to reinforce suspicions that a cover-up of sorts is under way, that the government is manipulating the truth in a manner it considers to be palatable to the broader US public. The FBI has said, on the record, that the plane was a civilian business jet, a Falcon, that had been flying within 20 miles of Flight 93 and was asked by the authorities to descend from 37,000ft to 5,000ft to survey and transmit the co-ordinates of the crash site "for responding emergency crews". The reason, as numerous people have observed, why this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on 11 September, all non-military aircraft in US airspace had received loud and clear orders more than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport; second, such was the density of 911 phone calls from people on the ground, in the Shanksville area, as to the location of the crash site that aerial co-ordinates would have been completely unnecessary; and, third, with F-16s supposedly in the vicinity, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time of tremendous national uncertainty when no one knew for sure whether there might be any more hijacked aircraft still in the sky, the military would ask a civilian aircraft that just happened to be in the area for help.

Most suspicious of all, perhaps, has been the failure of the FBI or anybody else to identify the pilot or the passengers of the purported Falcon, and their own failure to come forward and identify themselves.

The Independent

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

1. It wasn't 8 miles and 2000 yards. Light debris was found at the lake, but someone used a map program to figure out how far the lake was from the crash site. They came up with 6 miles, but left out that was by road. It's 1.5 miles in a straight line from the crash site to the lake.

The engine was found in a catch basin 300-500 yards from the crash site.

2. There were seven fighters armed and ready to launch. Four between Cape Cod and Virginia. The two from Cape Cod went to New York, and the two from Langley went to Washington. It took 45 minutes to an hour and a half to arm additional fighters and get them airborne as each pair was armed.

4. The military didn't ask anyone to look for Fight 93. The Air Traffic Control center had received reports of smoke and a possible aircraft down. The Falcon business jet was in the area so the civilian controller asked if he would be willing to look for them before landing. The pilot agreed, and after over flying the site was routed to an airport and landed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sources?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Your source?

Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth.

So? Experts that cannot be named, cited and quoted? Strange?

Funny. Trash from the road blows into my yard without being airborne. I have seen paper blown on down the road. Just rolling along. I have found corn stock leaves in my yard from a field several hundred feet away, blocked by a tree row.

The paper being thrown from the explosion along with jet wreckage on impact probably had something do with the distribution of debris.

a reply to: neutronflux

So? Experts that cannot be named, cited and quoted? Strange?

There is so much strangeness around 9/11, hence my point

Pilots are in contact with air traffic controllers often no?

Why weren't these planes not picked up as not following the correct fight paths?

Because I believe a pilot is not allowed to make any maneuver whether in speed or direction with air traffic controller consent.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

My mistake on the 8 miles. There WAS some paper debris found in New Berlin, but they don't say when it was found. It could have taken hours to blow there before it was found. They weren't exactly looking that far away for debris right away.

The engine was 2,000 FEET, not yards.

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

web.archive.org...://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html

backwards in time to when the change in official strategy shifted responsibility for air defense of North America from over 100 air bases on alert status to less than a half-dozen bases, with a total of only 16 planes, armed and on alert. Some of these were in the South or West Coast and not even on the gameboard on 9/11.

They could have been airborne within minutes except for the fact that their planes had to be armed, with air-to-air missiles, which are kept, for security reasons, across the base from the hangers, and they took an excruciatingly long time to get to and bring to the planes. Since each missile requires three men to carry and lift into position, and there was a lack of maintenance personnel on duty, the pilots themselves, and reportedly even some office personnel assisted in arming the planes, which took approximately an hour.

ratical.org...

Prior to the crash-

Cleveland Center then asks the ExecuJet pilot if he can change course and try to spot Flight 93.

www.historycommons.org...

After-

Stacey Taylor appears to be the Cleveland Center controller who made the request. She later recalls: “I had another airplane [other than Flight 93] that I was working. And I told him, I said, ‘Sir,’ I said, ‘I think we have an aircraft down.’ I said, ‘This is entirely up to you, but if you’d be willing to fly over the last place that we spotted this airplane—and see if you can see anything.‘… So he flew over and at first he didn’t see anything and then he said, ‘We see a great big plume or a cloud of smoke.’” [MSNBC, 9/9/2006] The business jet belongs to VF Corp, a Greensboro, North Carolina clothing firm.

www.historycommons.org...

a reply to: Bloodworth

They were. But the transponder on at least one was changed, and Flight 93 had its turned off. That made tracking them significantly harder.

a reply to: Bloodworth
The Air Traffic Control system relies on transponders, not radar skin paints. Zap is right, when they turned off the transponders ATC lost contact.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bloodworth

They were. But the transponder on at least one was changed, and Flight 93 had its turned off. That made tracking them significantly harder.

Yet, the Falcon business jet described above knew where it was, and witnesses testify to that fact, additionally, there was a witness from the Pentagon who also described (can't remember the exact words) a small, white business plane in the area at the time the alleged airliner struck the building.

Surmising that this place could've been the same aircraft, it knew the locations of both aircraft and could've covered the distance between the Pentagon (9.37) and Shanksville (10.03), which was around 200 km

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The transponder came back on shortly before the aircraft crashed. They still don't know why. They also had at least one primary radar that saw them after the transponder was off. So they had at least a general idea of where they were.

The white aircraft at the Pentagon was an E-4B NAOC, not a Falcon business jet. There was a C-130 that left Andrews that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, then passed over Shanksville shortly after 93 went down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Those aircraft were not what was described at Shanksville.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I didn't say that the E-4 was at Shanksville. I said it was at the Pentagon. There were two different aircraft between the two locations. The C-130 is well known to have been at both. It's the only aircraft that was at both locations.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I didn't say that the E-4 was at Shanksville. I said it was at the Pentagon. There were two different aircraft between the two locations. The C-130 is well known to have been at both. It's the only aircraft that was at both locations.

Regardless, neither of these aircraft are what witnesses described

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Yeah, the Falcon actually was. They described a small white aircraft with engines in the back. That's a Falcon business jet.