Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville edition

Question 5

The first quotation in Question 5 correspond to comments made by Chris Konicki, a photographer being interviewed by a local FOX News affiliate reporter. The second quotation correspond to comments made by WTAE reporter, Jim Parsons, who arrived shortly after the crash.
Can you explain why the photographer could not tell that an aircraft had crashed there and why the reporter could not smell any jet fuel at the scene?

Again, since most of the fuel would have been driven into the ground by the force of the crash, how much of the fuel would you smell in comparison to the other odors?

BTW, read this:

Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”

Sounds like Flight 93, doesn’t it?

It’s not: it’s from PSA 1771 which crashed in 1987.

Question 6

The quotations in Question 6 correspond to comments made by Somerset county coroner, Wallace Miller, about the remains of any of passengers from the plane and about what the crater looked like.
Can you explain why the county coroner could not find a single drop of blood at the scene and why he thought the crater looked like a man-made trash dump?

What did they expect? None of the bodies were intact.

Question 7

The photos in Question 5 show a flight crew log and a hijacker's red bandana recovered at the crash site. The quotations below correspond to statements made by the sister of a passenger on board who's credentials and badge were recovered there too. Also recovered at the scene were photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, and a copy of a hijacker's letter.

Can you explain how paper, fabric, plastic, and other fragile items survived the crash relatively intact when witnesses could not find any traces of a large airplane or its passengers at the scene?

Small bits and pieces are always found. Read the flight 1771 summary above. They found the note on the bag, they found the gun. How is a wallet fragile?

My problem with Flight 93 isn't whether or not a plane crashed.

My problem is why the plane was spread out over 8 miles, if it simply crashed into a field. Are we to believe that engines bounce hundreds, if not thousands of feet into forests after crashing into soft soil?

Man, did you have to answer each of them in a separate post and make it take up an entire page of the thread? you couldn't just put all your answers nice and neat on one post? Have some courtesy for the rest of us. Or is this a tactic of the COINTELPRO?

Originally posted by HowardRoarkQuestion 2
The extreme range of the photograph makes it hard to distinguish anything, let alone an aircraft that impacted in a straight down dive. The question is misleading and pointless.

So your answer would be there is no plane debris because it's all buried under ground?

Question 3
Invalid comparison. Killtown has not provided any evidence to justify the comparison of the flight 93 crash with the leer jet crash.
Since I doubt that the dynamics of the two crashes were similar, I cannot accept the comparison as valid.

Justify the comparison? They both were PLANE crashes causing SMOKE plumes. What more do you need? And since when are jet fuel fires light grey in color?

Question 4
The first picture does not show the trees in the background which were scorched and burnt. The second shot also does not show this. The second shot is from the upwind side of the site.

Given the extreme telephoto lens used in the shot, it is hard to determine exactly how far the grass is from the edge of the impact crater.

Furthermore, the force of the impact which buried the aircraft components also would have buried the liquid fuel.

What? the bottom pic clearly shows the grass unburnt up to the crater and I swear some of the grass is still growing INSIDE the crater!

Wait a minute, if the fuel was buried, what caused the trees to be scorched and caused that ordnance plume?

Question 5
Again, since most of the fuel would have been driven into the ground by the force of the crash, how much of the fuel would you smell in comparison to the other odors?

Fuel is pretty strong smelling and if that's what scortched the trees, I'd suspect enough.

Sounds like Flight 93, doesn’t it?
It’s not: it’s from PSA 1771 which crashed in 1987.

Sounds like it, does it look like it? Sorry, I need pics to determine. Interesting flight and number, a suicide hijacking with "1771" -- AA 11 & AA 77.

Question 6
What did they expect? None of the bodies were intact.

So the bodies were not intact because they were shredded, yet no blood was found?

Question 7
Small bits and pieces are always found. Read the flight 1771 summary above. They found the note on the bag, they found the gun. How is a wallet fragile?

Yeah, a gun is real fragile there. You are right, wallets are made to resist 600mph impacts. I noticed you didn't comment about the red bandana. Funny how new it looks and that it has no blood stains on it from being wrapped around the head of a hijacker who's body was not intact after the crash.

I find it interesting that you feel this comparison:

• Central section of PanAm 103 flew into the ground at ~400 knots and steep angle
• Flight 93 flew into the ground at ~400 knots and steep angle

… is apples and oranges?

Yet, you give more credence to comparing a 200-knot crash to a 400-knot crash …. Or you compare photos of smoke plumes from two very different crashes (taken how long after each crash?) and take it as evidence of something or other?

Anyway, some general thoughts on the crater size:

Why do people have trouble believing this? Just because the tail isn't sticking out of the ground doesn't mean a plane didnt crash. Planes are not tanks -- and they are NOT BUILT to sustain a direct impact going over 400 miles an hour. THAT IS REALLY FAST. I have seen car wreckages where you can barely recognize the car, and that is only going barely 100 mph. So, just believe it. Cause either way, the plane is gone, and the people are dead. There is nothing you can do, say, or find that can change that.

Originally posted by vor75
I find it interesting that you feel this comparison:
• Central section of PanAm 103 flew into the ground at ~400 knots and steep angle
• Flight 93 flew into the ground at ~400 knots and steep angle
… is apples and oranges?

did 93 break up in mid air?

Yet, you give more credence to comparing a 200-knot crash to a 400-knot crash …. Or you compare photos of smoke plumes from two very different crashes (taken how long after each crash?) and take it as evidence of something or other?

When planes crash hard enough with fuel still on board, it catches fire, generates thick dark smoke, and rises up for miles for everybody to see. What is so complicated about that?

Anyway, some general thoughts on the crater size:

Actually that cool, but what are your thoughts about it?

And why don't you take that challenge and answer the 7 questions so I know how you think this crash happened, or just respond to my rebuttal of Howard's answers. I'd like to make sure we are on the same page, deal?

From question 7, still waiting for someone to explain to me how this red bandana survived the crash of UA 93 so well when the 757 didn't and why it has no blood on it from being tied around one of the hijackers head which got shredded when the plane crashed:

Exh. GX-PA00111 (intr'd: unknown)

Red bandana recovered from the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site

www.rcfp.org...

Isn't it obvious it was planted?

How do you know anyone was wearing the bandana when the plane crashed? it could have been knocked off one of the hijakckers when the the passengers attempted to overpower them.


Diggs, did you miss this one?

Great. Even more crap dis-information to muddy the waters of a decent 9/11 research project.

Obviously you people havent seen too many real plane crashes involving big ol passenger planes, have you?

Wheres the Boeing? The parts that werent virtually cremated by the impact are scattered over a a wide debris field because, I am convinced, the plane was shot down.

The key here is that THERE WAS A FRIGGIN PLANE INVOLVED. JUST LIKE AT THE PENTAGON.

But I can see that the 9/11 forum will be clogged with a bunch of threads now stating that a Boeing did not crash in Pennsylvania. All serious discussion of the more troubling and truly disturbing 9/11 discrepencies will be ignored, and people will debate whether or not passenger planes were used (despite the fact that hundreds of witnesses in DC and Pennsylvania all saw Boeings with their own eyes) instead of talking about the REALLY suspicous activity of 9/11 (like the massive delay in responding to flight 77 despite two pleanes hijack confirmed and crashed in New York, the lack of response by the Secret Service in hustling the president to safety, the convience of discovering an abandoned van full of arab flight manuals and fuel consumption calculators at Logan Airport, the gag order on the 911 operator who recieved a distress call from a flight 93 passenger, ect ect ect)

Well, battle on people. Argue in circles and never come any closer to discovering the truth in 9/11. Im sure the powers that be that sent these disinformation stories into the field to further obscure research into 9/11 are quite proud of their accomplishment. After all, they achieved their objective: throw red herrings for everyone to chase.

For those who are interested in SERIOUS 9/11 conspiracy research, visit:

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How do you know anyone was wearing the bandana when the plane crashed? it could have been knocked off one of the hijakckers when the the passengers attempted to overpower them.

Ok, then when didn't it shred to pieces like the plane and passengers did?

Diggs, did you miss this one?

The one of the planted engine? No, seen it before. Funny how that engine is only a couple of feet underground when we were told they had to dig 20 some ft down to find the rest!

BTW, you ever going to my rebuttal to your challenge answers?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-6-2006 by diggs]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Great. Even more crap dis-information to muddy the waters of a decent 9/11 research project.

Are you acusing me of this: " Deliberately misleading information announced publicly..."

Obviously you people havent seen too many real plane crashes involving big ol passenger planes, have you?

And you have? I've scanned through tons of plane crash photos and two things always appear, unmistakeable plane debris and a big plume of thick dark smoke if the photos were taken not too long after the crash.

Wheres the Boeing? The parts that werent virtually cremated by the impact are scattered over a a wide debris field because, I am convinced, the plane was shot down.

Go answer question 7 in that challenge I posted then.

The key here is that THERE WAS A FRIGGIN PLANE INVOLVED. JUST LIKE AT THE PENTAGON.

Prove it.

Well, battle on people. Argue in circles and never come any closer to discovering the truth in 9/11. Im sure the powers that be that sent these disinformation stories into the field to further obscure research into 9/11 are quite proud of their accomplishment. After all, they achieved their objective: throw red herrings for everyone to chase.

You calling me a schill?

For those who are interested in SERIOUS 9/11 conspiracy research, visit:

911research.wtc7.net...

Good for the WTC collapses and that's about it.

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How do you know anyone was wearing the bandana when the plane crashed? it could have been knocked off one of the hijakckers when the the passengers attempted to overpower them.

Ok, then when didn't it shred to pieces like the plane and passengers did?

like I said, not everything is totally destroyed. Cloth and paper often survives intact. Are you basing your whole theory on that? Weak, man.

Diggs, did you miss this one?

The one of the planted engine? No, seen it before. Funny how that engine is only a couple of feet underground when we were told they had to dig 20 some ft down to find the rest!

Is that the engine or the APU?

BTW, you ever going to my rebuttal to your challenge answers?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-6-2006 by diggs]

maybe. if I'm bored enough.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
like I said, not everything is totally destroyed. Cloth and paper often survives intact.

And yet no bodies did? Hmm.

Is that the engine or the APU?

Say it is, why no other plane debris near it in the crater? It looks all alone. Where did the rest of it go? Or did the rest totally disintegrate, except for the cloth and paper of course.

maybe. if I'm bored enough.

You won't because you'll be noticed you're trying to have it both ways.

Originally posted by diggs

Are you acusing me of this: " Deliberately misleading information announced publicly..."

No, I am criticizing you for believing and propogating the disinformation that is being created by the powers that be to deliberately obscure and throw a monkey wrench in in serious 9/11 investigation. All this nonsense about whether or not civilian planes were used is about as productive speculating whether or not a bullet or raygun killed Kennedy. While you may believe youre spreding "truth" you are basically working unknowingly to help frag up any serious examination of the 9/11 conspiracy.

And you have? I've scanned through tons of plane crash photos and two things always appear, unmistakeable plane debris and a big plume of thick dark smoke if the photos were taken not too long after the crash.

Obviously you havent really seen many then. My cousin is a Boeing engineer. He has quite an extensive library of plane crash investigations and photos. In many of the ones that involved a plane hitting something of high density, like the earth, the plane wreckage was not recognizable as a plane.

Go answer question 7 in that challenge I posted then.

I did. Its nonsense.

Prove it.

I don't need to. The hundreds of witness statements, the charred bodies and airplane seats and luggage found in the pentagon, the large debris field full of personal effects, luggage, and papers found in Pennsylvania, are pretty damn conclusive. It is you who has yet to prove, by using REAL science and not junk science, that planes were not used.

You calling me a schill?

I didn't call you anything. I am criticizing the fact that people continue to argue over non issues instead of pushing serious investigation forward.

Good for the WTC collapses and that's about it.

Its good for just about everything regarding 9/11. It is far more credible, well researched, and based on REAL scientific investigation and an honest look at data. Because they are examining and theorizing on that which can be proven, and because they don't resort to sensational junk science and blindly jump on every new theory that comes along, folks like yourself disregard it in favor of sites with big flashy pictures that have been photoshopped and enhanced, with big flashy writing and knee jerk ranting.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfNo, I am criticizing you for believing and propogating the disinformation that is being created by the powers that be to deliberately obscure and throw a monkey wrench in in serious 9/11 investigation. All this nonsense about whether or not civilian planes were used is about as productive speculating whether or not a bullet or raygun killed Kennedy. While you may believe youre spreding "truth" you are basically working unknowingly to help frag up any serious examination of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Yawn. I've heard all this tripe before. Some of you so called "9/11 researchers" just seem afraid to turn over every stone.

Obviously you havent really seen many then. My cousin is a Boeing engineer. He has quite an extensive library of plane crash investigations and photos. In many of the ones that involved a plane hitting something of high density, like the earth, the plane wreckage was not recognizable as a plane.

Did I say a plane is always recognizable? Get some glasses and go back and read what I said. And I bet you knew someone who was at the Pentagon at the time of the crash, huh?

Go answer question 7 in that challenge I posted then.

I did. Its nonsense.

No you didn't. YOU are a liar.

I don't need to. The hundreds of witness statements, the charred bodies and airplane seats and luggage found in the pentagon, the large debris field full of personal effects, luggage, and papers found in Pennsylvania, are pretty damn conclusive. It is you who has yet to prove, by using REAL science and not junk science, that planes were not used.

Like the witnesses who "saw" it hit the ground first, or "saw" the passengers in the windows? Charred bodies, airplane seats, luggage, where? Papers at PA when the entire plane "cremated"? Conclusive my arse. What happened to all the fuel from 93? Talk about junk science.

I didn't call you anything. I am criticizing the fact that people continue to argue over non issues instead of pushing serious investigation forward.

Non-issues? I don't think a couple of 757 not crashing where we where told is a "non-issue".

folks like yourself disregard it in favor of sites with big flashy pictures that have been photoshopped and enhanced, with big flashy writing and knee jerk ranting.

Oh, so now you are accusing us of photoshopping? Go stick with your eyewitness accounts, the WORST form of evidence. And notice most of the witnesses at the Pentagon who described a 757 were military and media types. Most others saw an object and then said they saw a plane when they were told afterward that the object they saw was a plane.

*chortle* Do you know what's funny? This 'police state', 'new world worder' etc that you're so scared of, well you're helping create it it better and faster than you would care to imagine..
You're propogating the seeded lies which will be their fuel to help contain these 'outlandish conspiracy theories', if (and when if the situation gets to level where it's necessary) they decide to show the conclusive evidence (which they may not need to do the rate things are going anyway), the whole so called 'truth movement' is going to be left in tatters, the real truths masked by the lies and forgotten never to be passed on. It will be another thing contained by tighter controls on the Internet, another 'threat to our youth, polluting their minds'.
I wouldn't be surprised if soon there is a violent uprising by certain extremists and/or their followers in the 'Truth Movement', all predicted and controlled of course, more reason to 'shut it down'.
You and many like you are your own worst enemy, you will be used as examples of how a few people are ignorant yet influential enough to be perceived a threat to the normal 'happy' way of life, your own freedom of speech will be the final nail in your coffin. Even today I still find it astounding how there are so many people who cannot see the bigger picture and are too narrow minded to actually see what is going on behind the scenes. It really is quite funny in a way, to me anyway...

Well done, ignorance reigns under the guise of education and independant thought, on behalf of Mr Bush - the master himself:



[edit on 2-6-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
*chortle* Do you know what's funny? This 'police state', 'new world worder' etc that you're so scared of, well you're helping create it it better and faster than you would care to imagine..

who was that directed to?

You I'm afraid. I've noticed that you have been propogating (what I consider to be, I hasten to add) are some of the weakest, most outlandish and inaccurate theories regarding 9/11. You're doing a good job - keep it up