the shanksville incident flight 93

Originally posted by robert z
The posts speak for themselves.

Well maybe if the FBI and NTSB would release the information and reports we should have, their would not be all these posts.

Thier are no reports about the different debris fields of flight 93.

Still not videos and photos of Flight 77.

No reports about any of the aircraft parts found matching any of the 9/11 aircraft.

We only have about a tenth of the matrerial out there.



[edit on 17-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
NOT ONE of you has tried to explain HOW the cockpits on all FOUR jets could have ben taken before a mike could have been keyed, and the excuses for that are beyond silly; to imagine anyone taking four cockpits before a mike could be keyed is nonsense.To imagine highjackers taking eight pilots from the cockpits before any of them could respond is nonsense.

Before 9/11/01, cockpit doors were not always kept closed during flights. A have been on flights where the doors were open the entire flight.

How hard would it have been for 2 men to enter the cockpits and slash the throats or snap the necks of the pilots from behind before the pilots even knew anyone was in the cockpit? I don't think it would be hard for ANY man to do this, and when you have a person highly trained in hand-to-hand combat I would say it would be quite easy.

Are you suggesting that there has NEVER been a plane hijacking before where the pilot was unable to make a distress call? Please don't make me go do research about this... but if you insist there has never been a case I will go and do the research.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert z
The posts speak for themselves.

Well maybe if the FBI and NTSB would release the information and reports we should have, their would not be all these posts.

Thier are no reports about the different debris fields of flight 93.

Still not videos and photos of Flight 77.

No reports about any of the aircraft parts found matching any of the 9/11 aircraft.

We only have about a tenth of the matrerial out there.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I agree. However, the lack of reports that have been released does not imply there were no planes. I personally think there was a cover-up of epic proportions that went across party lines.

Look who we are going to have as the candidates next year -Giuliani and Clinton, both insiders with connections to 9/11 and the cover-up.

My point is that the no-planers are making it harder for the T-movement to be taken seriously.

originally posted by craig732
Are you suggesting that there has NEVER been a plane hijacking before where the pilot was unable to make a distress call? Please don't make me go do research about this... but if you insist there has never been a case I will go and do the research.

Save yourself the time and use my research in this thread.

I pointed out to eyewitness86 that in fact, flight 93 did get off 2 radio transmissions during the hijack on page 5 with a link to the ATC radio communication transcripts. For some reason he/she still keeps claiming that not one of the four hijacked airplanes managed to get off a radio call.

On page 6 I pointed out how the pilots of FedEx 105 didn't get off a radio transmission until after the hijacker made his initial assault and then left the cockpit and came back in for the second assault.

On pages 7 and 8 I posted a news link and video of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 where three hijackers stormed the cockpit and the pilots didn't send a radio transmission for at least 15 minutes. Again, he still keeps saying that it is impossible for pilots not to get off a radio transmission.

I guess if someone wanted to convince people that it was impossible then they would give examples to help back up their claim.

Originally posted by craig732

I would be interested to hear Mr. Lear's comments regarding this.

Sorry for the delay in responding to this request.

It is my opinion that there is not the slightest evidence that Flight 93, a United airlines Boeing 757, crashed in the open pit or anywhere around Shankesville. It was not shot down. It did not crash.

I don't know where the airplane is or where the passengers are. It is a mystery.

There is not one piece of wreckage wherein serial numbers were matched with UAL maintenance records. And this is true with all three other aircraft that allegedly crashed on 911. No serial number of any part was ever matched with either American Airlines or United Airlines maintenance records.

You would have to have an extensive background in aviation to realize how impossible this is not to have a part or for it not to match maintenacne records. Every single part, to the tiniest screw has to be identified in maintenance records.

Nor is there the slightest chance that a Boeing 757 could have disappeared completely including its horizontal and vertical stabilizer in that little itty bitty hole in Shankesville that they showed us on TV.

And then if that isn't preposterous enough to then say that they found the flight data recorder which is mounted in the tail specifically because in most crashes the vertical and horizontal stabilizers survive.They survive because they are the last pieces to get to the scene of the accident and have slowed down considerably.

As far as bodies allegedly found in Shankesville here is what Wally Miller, the coroner had to say:

I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there.

I have not to this day seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.

Since the time he made those statements he has modified them to include that 12 bodies were found.

He was probably threatened with his job if he didn't change his story. Many witnesses were. April Gallop has certainly had her probelms.

911, and the 4 alleged plane crashes was a hoax. No airplanes were hijacked, none crashed in the WTC, Pentagon or Shankesville. It was a clever PsyOp.

Evil people planned this PsyOp and they don't intend to get caught. I am sure that they will do anything to discredit anybody who is interfering with the "Official Story".

So please don't surprised at all the jumping up and down and screaming at this post.

reply to post by Boone 870

Thank you. Thats part of what I was trying to point out. Prior to 9/11 cockpits were not locked. I also remember flying when those doors were open. The doors, if they were shut, were not that formidable of a barrier as they are now. I dont understand that, if this has been pointed out time and time again, why this is sooooo hard to fathom. Hard to accept the truth?

BTW hats off to you for your reseach. Good job.

Originally posted by johnlear

As far as bodies allegedly found in Shankesville here is what Wally Miller, the coroner had to say:

I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there.

I have not to this day seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.

Since the time he made those statements he has modified them to include that 12 bodies were found.

He was probably threatened with his job if he didn't change his story. Many witnesses were. April Gallop has certainly had her probelms.


John, may I respectfully suggest that you truly have a gift for cherry-picking, distorting, and filtering the evidence all to support your pet theory that there were no planes.

It has become obvious that you really could care less about finding out what really happened on 9/11, and are satisfied to simply mislead people.

Here is what you left out:

Officially, Miller was charged with identifying the victims, returning what remains were recovered and caring for the site of the crash. He personally identified 12 bodies through fingerprints and teeth. The remaining 32 bodies had to be identified with DNA testing.

Unofficially, Miller took it upon himself to meet as many of the victims' families as he could and call those that did not come to Somerset County.

Miller now gets photographs and other "little snippets of these people's lives" from the families and talks to some of them regularly.

"I figured as long as I was around they'd have at least one friend," he said. "I'd do that for anybody."

www.chron.com...

So are you accusing Wally Miller of lying about finding the body parts or not? Either he found them like he said he did or he is making up the whole story.

Is it your position that Mr. Miller was coerced by the government to fabricate all of his work and carry on for years play-acting?

And what about the other people from the area who got to the crash site and saw body and plane parts?

Fox stepped over a seat back. He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote.

He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard.

www.pittsburghlive.com...


So I guess Dave Fox was told to make up his story too? Did you catch what he said, John?

A seat back? Wiring harness? Piston? Chunks of torn human tissue?

And you still make claims that there is no evidence a plane crashed there?

I respectfully suggest that if 9/11 was a psyops and the perps wanted to make sure the Truth Movement was not taken seriously, they could not have found a better person than you to work for them.

Originally posted by six

Thank you. Thats part of what I was trying to point out. Prior to 9/11 cockpits were not locked.

Thanks for the post six. Your statement is incorrect and not supported by the facts.

I was first certificated as an airline captain by the Federal Aviation Adminstration in 1973 in the Boeing 707. I flew as captain for many passenger airlines including Air Club International, Aero America, Ambassador Airlines, Nevada Airlines, Bonanza (2) Airlines, Global International Airways, and AmericanTrans Air not only in the Boeing 707 but the Boeing 727 and the Lockheed L-1011 and other aircraft.

Locking the cockpit door was always of primary concern. The level of awareness was raised several notches with the PSA Boeing 737 hijack in July 1972, while airborne between Sacramento and San Francisco, California.

The locking of the cockpit door and security of the cockpit was not only part of airmans training but also part of simulator checks and line checks. The FAA Inspectors who were giving line checks where very aware of how the integrity of the cockpit was maintained and how access was made.

Usually the captain and flight engineer each had a key and the head flight attendent had another to the cockpit door. No keys were every 'hidden'.

Your statement that prior to 911 cockpit doors "were not locked" is false, not supported the facts and without foundation not to mention contrary to Federal Aviation Regulations.

I also remember flying when those doors were open.

Then you must be as old as me because that only occurred in the beginning of modern airline transportation in the middles 1950's when on the long flights between Los Angeles and Geneva, Switzerland where I went to boarding school I remember the cockpit doors on the Lockheed Constellations being occasionally open for passengers to peek in.

But the in late 1950's with the introduction of modern jet transports the cockpit doors were kept locked.

If you would like to site and example of when and where 'you remember flying with cockpit doors open' I would be happy to comment. But as a fundamental rule and one that was adhered to by ALL airlines as part of their training and checks the cockpit doors were secured and locked.

The doors, if they were shut, were not that formidable of a barrier as they are now. I dont understand that, if this has been pointed out time and time again, why this is sooooo hard to fathom. Hard to accept the truth?

This statement is only partially true, and it would depend on what you mean by 'formidable'. While current cockpit doors are much more secure, the old cockpit doors were an integral part of the aft cockpit bulkhead and secured to the bulkhead. Most were made out of aluminum structure. The only way to breach the door was to try and jam something into the edge of the door and edge of the bulkhead and try and pry it far enough apart for the bolt to release from the aircraft bulkhead frame.

Since July of 1997 and prior to 911 there were about 12 incidents of passengers breaching the cockpit door. None of these occurred because the cockpit door was left open or unlocked.

While cockpit doors of those 4 airplanes allegedly hijacked on 911 may have been breached it was not with box cutters and it was not with meal service carts.

My opinion is, however, that no hijacker breached any cockpit door on 911. The story is a fantasy, a fable and part of a PsyOp.

Thanks for your post.

reply to post by johnlear

First let me say that while I dissagre with most of what you post, I really must appauld you for your decorum and the way you handle yourself here. There are alot of very personal attacks made against you that I find uncalled for and very unprofessional, and yet you alway seem to handle it with a smile. There are alot of people who need to take lessons from you.

On that note.. I am not as old as you. You have got 20+ years on me. The reason I remember the doors being open is that, just as you do, I have a deep love of flying, and I alway thought it was cool that I was able to look out and see what the pilots are seeing. Personal experience nothing more. Also it didnt happen every time I flew.

Prior to 9/11, some state the doors are aluminum, some give a different material. I do believe that the doors are now, post 9/11, a whole lot tougher to breach. I do bet there isnt a Boeing key to be found either.

As for stating that the doors were not locked. You are right. I am wrong. I I knew that. There would be no need for a key to the door if they were not locked. I was thinking about something else whenI typed that. Admonishment accepted.

And as always...Thank you for your post.

There is not one piece of wreckage wherein serial numbers were matched with UAL maintenance records.

That you know of....although pretty sure that the data recorders recovered from the hole in the ground DID match UAL's records..

No serial number of any part was ever matched with either American Airlines or United Airlines maintenance records.

Again, that you know of, although I highly doubt that you are on the distribution list for any reports developed as part of the investigations.

You would have to have an extensive background in aviation to realize how impossible this is not to have a part or for it not to match maintenacne records. Every single part, to the tiniest screw has to be identified in maintenance records.

Nope not even close. Screws, fasteners, structural beams are very rarely serially coded. Engines, flight instruments, recorders, oxygen cylinders, galley equipment are coded. Sure, the tech manuals will identify what type of screws and fasteners are used, but no way to tell from a pile of screws what came from which airplane.

Not that the humans that maintain the aircraft are perfect when it comes to entering serial numbers into maintenance records. Because on more than one occasion I have found flight instruments installed on our aircraft, that according to the records were never installed.

Originally posted by pigchunks
all i can find here is the shot down theory. maybe i over looked a different one.

but one of the theorys i continually here is the flight never existed that it was a slide of hand kind of deal. ive heard the same about the pentagon being a slide of hand to take the entirety of the focus off wtc.

my question is of all these theory's other then the shot down theory noone talks about the people that were supposedly aboard that/those planes


my question is
what happened to the people

Well if Flight 93 didn't crash in that strip mine, or anywhere else, then only the perpetrators would know where they are.

I think that fact that no Boeing 757 crashed in Somerset should cause great concern to many.

Originally posted by antsi

I think that fact that no Boeing 757 crashed in Somerset should cause great concern to many.

What makes that a fact?

reply to post by snoopy

Well numerous things:

- no evidence of the tail section
- the unusual "wing" markings
- no visual evidence most of the plane was recovered in the hole.
- no evidence there was a hole.
- the burn pattern
- no blood on the scene

Things like that.

Originally posted by antsi
reply to post by snoopy

 

Well numerous things:

- no evidence of the tail section
- the unusual "wing" markings
- no visual evidence most of the plane was recovered in the hole.
- no evidence there was a hole.
- the burn pattern
- no blood on the scene

Things like that.

So unless a tail is found, a plan can't exist? I have seen crashes where the tale was destroyed. Does that mean it was all in my imagination and part of a big conspiracy too?

What was unusual about the wing marks?

They recovered the majority of the plane.

Except the hole itself might be considered evidence of a hole.

What's odd about the burn pattern?

Why should there be blood on the scene?


How are any of those things proof that makes it a fact there was no plane?

Originally posted by snoopySo unless a tail is found, a plan can't exist? I have seen crashes where the tale was destroyed. Does that mean it was all in my imagination and part of a big conspiracy too?

What was unusual about the wing marks?

They recovered the majority of the plane.

Except the hole itself might be considered evidence of a hole.

What's odd about the burn pattern?

Why should there be blood on the scene?


How are any of those things proof that makes it a fact there was no plane?

If the tail was destroyed, what destroyed it? If you comeback with "from crashing into the ground," please show me which are of the ground did it come in contact with before the ground destroyed it.

Hint, the wings were still have full.

Where is the visual evidence of them recovering most of the plane from the "hole"?

A crater is not a hole.

Only inside the crater and part of the forest looks singed, however the no forest fire witnessed by 1st responders.

Why? I don't now, maybe because there were 44 people alleged on board and pristine bandannas and bibles were alleged to be recovered.

I would just like to make the following observation considering the
various theories / views / beliefs on the matter (Flight 93).

I am firmly on the fence nowadays when it comes to 9/11 and the tragic
events which occurred on that fateful day, there are so many
unanswered questions yet if you apply occam's razor and take a common
sense view it is easy to accept the official version of events.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, Flight 93 and the other
planes which allegedly took off and were hijacked and used
as missiles,
I have seen questions such as where are the passengers, how can we know for sure these planes took off etc. etc.

I also found this interesting article: www.counterpunch.org...

My question is, how many valid opinions can be dismissed?
Firstly airport staff, security,UA desk staff, air traffic controllers, baggage handlers, ground staff, maintenance people, aircraft technicians, surely these people whose number I am certain could reach a high three figure number at the very least are still out there and could give first hand accounts of what they experienced, saw, heard on that day.

I know from reading John Lear's posts that he believes no plane was hijacked or deliberately crashed on that date.
I expect many employees of Newark, Dulles and Logan who were present that day are still in those positions six years on and could possibly vouch for much of the speculated details prevalent in threads such as this.
I am surprised given the ever growing ATS member population that
there isn't someone out there who knows someone who in some way would have come into contact with some of the poor victims of these crashes or perhaps were on the ground when these planes took off, were fuelled up, cleaned, stocked etc etc.
Just trying to shed some light on some 'dark' areas here.

Thanks.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by antsi
[
If the tail was destroyed, what destroyed it? If you comeback with "from crashing into the ground," please show me which are of the ground did it come in contact with before the ground destroyed it.

Hint, the wings were still have full.

Where is the visual evidence of them recovering most of the plane from the "hole"?

A crater is not a hole.

Only inside the crater and part of the forest looks singed, however the no forest fire witnessed by 1st responders.

Why? I don't now, maybe because there were 44 people alleged on board and pristine bandannas and bibles were alleged to be recovered.

What would the location of the impact have to do with the tail being destroyed? Why should the tale survive? How in any way is this remotely suggestive of there being no plane? Are you suggesting it's impossible for a tale to be destroyed by a 500mph impact into the ground? Do you know it was destroyed? And are you making the argument also that just because there hasn't been any picture of it published on the internet that it therefore does not exist? Also proving that before the internet nothing existed.

The wings are full of fuel. Still waiting for your argument.

Once again, making the argument that if there isn't published footage of something, then you can assume it never happened? So before the advent of cameras nothing really existed correct? The old, if something is unknown, then we can just assume anything we want and verify it through lack of evidence. I never saw Jesus killed on the cross, therefore, it couldn't have happened. Imagine how murder trials would go with that logic. Unless someone has video or pictures of the crime, it didn't happen.

A crater is not a hole? OK, then perhaps maybe you should start making an actual argument then instead of arguing the semantic of the hole/crater created by the plane.

And how are those burn patterns indicative of there being no plane?

Still waiting for your point on the last one. Wow, they found a bandana and a bible. Clearly an inside job. Can't see anyone bringing up an argument with that one. Are you suggesting that it's both impossible for a plane to be smashed into tiny pieces but also impossible for there to be remains found?

Originally posted by snoopy
What would the location of the impact have to do with the tail being destroyed? Why should the tale survive? How in any way is this remotely suggestive of there being no plane? Are you suggesting it's impossible for a tale to be destroyed by a 500mph impact into the ground? Do you know it was destroyed? And are you making the argument also that just because there hasn't been any picture of it published on the internet that it therefore does not exist? Also proving that before the internet nothing existed.

The wings are full of fuel. Still waiting for your argument.

Once again, making the argument that if there isn't published footage of something, then you can assume it never happened? So before the advent of cameras nothing really existed correct? The old, if something is unknown, then we can just assume anything we want and verify it through lack of evidence. I never saw Jesus killed on the cross, therefore, it couldn't have happened. Imagine how murder trials would go with that logic. Unless someone has video or pictures of the crime, it didn't happen.

A crater is not a hole? OK, then perhaps maybe you should start making an actual argument then instead of arguing the semantic of the hole/crater created by the plane.

And how are those burn patterns indicative of there being no plane?

Still waiting for your point on the last one. Wow, they found a bandana and a bible. Clearly an inside job. Can't see anyone bringing up an argument with that one. Are you suggesting that it's both impossible for a plane to be smashed into tiny pieces but also impossible for there to be remains found?

Tails don't spontaneously combust. If the tail was obliterated, then something has to obliterate it. What obliterated Flight 93's tail? If it was the ground, there would be evidence of where the tail hit.

Wings that are laden with fuel don't make triangle markings. They'll make impression in the dirt as if a bomb dropped on it and exploded.

What is your evidence that most of the plane was recovered there, the government tell us it was? I hope it's more than that.

If there was a hole with a plane in it, surely there would be photo of them taking out 90% of the plane (or whatever was claimed). If not, then that claim is just hearsay.

Because if that much fuel hit a grass field, you would have a huge grass fire.

When the bandannas and bibles survive like you just dropped them 10ft in the air compared to them telling us no blood was found because the crash disintegrated all the passengers, then yes, planted. Inside job.

Originally posted by antsi

Tails don't spontaneously combust. If the tail was obliterated, then something has to obliterate it. What obliterated Flight 93's tail? If it was the ground, there would be evidence of where the tail hit.

Wings that are laden with fuel don't make triangle markings. They'll make impression in the dirt as if a bomb dropped on it and exploded.

What is your evidence that most of the plane was recovered there, the government tell us it was? I hope it's more than that.

If there was a hole with a plane in it, surely there would be photo of them taking out 90% of the plane (or whatever was claimed). If not, then that claim is just hearsay.

Because if that much fuel hit a grass field, you would have a huge grass fire.

When the bandannas and bibles survive like you just dropped them 10ft in the air compared to them telling us no blood was found because the crash disintegrated all the passengers, then yes, planted. Inside job.

No one is claiming the tail spontaneously combusted. I am sure even you are aware that there was an impact. A large aluminum object impacting solid ground at 500mph. It's more than reasonable for the object to be shredded. Case in point is the F4 footage impacting a solid block. No tale, no thing. The plane pretty much turns to dust. While not a 20/20 comparison, it demonstrates what can happen to an aircraft upon high speed impact of a solid mass. In that case there was no tail left either. And it is captured on high speed film. No spontaneous combustion. So if other planes can impact and have the tale destroyed, why do you seem to think this is somehow not possible for Flight 93? And there was evidence of the tale hitting. It left a crater with the rest of the plane. Why would you think there has to be a separate impact mark for the tale?

Can you back up your claim that all wing impacts regardless of type size, shape, angle, speed, etc all make impressions in the dirt as if bombs exploded? Where do you get that from? You do know that the measurements match up to a 757 perfectly right?

There are many pictures of the debris that survived from flight 93, there's much eyewitness testimony, there are reports, there are phone calls. Quite a bit o evidence. But if that's they way you want to argue, what evidence do you have that it was all staged? None of course. And then when you start getting into all the other things you have to explain such as the passengers and their calls, etc you start digging a much deeper hole (no pun intended). And when you say government, who do you mean? Because the majority of people involved did not work for the government.

Once again, maintaining a perpetual conspiracy by claiming that if you aren't given photographic evidence of something, it doesn't exist. There is a lot of photographic evidence of the parts being removed. Even the black boxes, and engines. But I get the feeling that the only thing that would convince you would be an entire plane that is still in one piece. Something that is completely impossible. heck, if there was an intact plane at the scene, then *I* would be crying conspiracy. But to expect little damage from a 500mph impact into the solid ground? That's not very fair.

So while the conspiracy side argues that an explosion consumes all the fuel when convenient, then it argues that the fuel should have just spilled on the ground and burned. Kind of a double-edged sword there. Why should all the grass have burned? Is there some calculation that can be done to say that no matter what the circumstances are, this wil happen?

Never in history has there been a crash where no objects survived in tact. But yet you claim inside job when it happens here just like it happens with every crash? Why should every single object be obliterated, yet the plane should impact mostly intact? How is that even a reasonable argument? And what does blood have to do with it? What percentage of all the wreckage do you suppose the blood is? And what temperature do you think the blood will dry up in? I don't see how that's a valid argument.

Originally posted by snoopyNo one is claiming the tail spontaneously combusted. I am sure even you are aware that there was an impact. A large aluminum object impacting solid ground at 500mph... And there was evidence of the tale hitting. It left a crater with the rest of the plane. Why would you think there has to be a separate impact mark for the tale?

Can you back up your claim that all wing impacts regardless of type size, shape, angle, speed, etc all make impressions in the dirt as if bombs exploded? Where do you get that from? You do know that the measurements match up to a 757 perfectly right?

There are many pictures of the debris that survived from flight 93, there's much eyewitness testimony, there are reports, there are phone calls. Quite a bit o evidence. But if that's they way you want to argue, what evidence do you have that it was all staged? None of course. And then when you start getting into all the other things you have to explain such as the passengers and their calls, etc you start digging a much deeper hole (no pun intended). And when you say government, who do you mean? Because the majority of people involved did not work for the government.

Once again, maintaining a perpetual conspiracy by claiming that if you aren't given photographic evidence of something, it doesn't exist. There is a lot of photographic evidence of the parts being removed. Even the black boxes, and engines. But I get the feeling that the only thing that would convince you would be an entire plane that is still in one piece. Something that is completely impossible. heck, if there was an intact plane at the scene, then *I* would be crying conspiracy. But to expect little damage from a 500mph impact into the solid ground? That's not very fair.

So while the conspiracy side argues that an explosion consumes all the fuel when convenient, then it argues that the fuel should have just spilled on the ground and burned. Kind of a double-edged sword there. Why should all the grass have burned? Is there some calculation that can be done to say that no matter what the circumstances are, this wil happen?

Never in history has there been a crash where no objects survived in tact. But yet you claim inside job when it happens here just like it happens with every crash? Why should every single object be obliterated, yet the plane should impact mostly intact? How is that even a reasonable argument? And what does blood have to do with it? What percentage of all the wreckage do you suppose the blood is? And what temperature do you think the blood will dry up in? I don't see how that's a valid argument.

Can you show me evidence of where the tail hit?

Objects with fuel in them don't make impressions of themselves, they explode cause shapes unlike themselves. I'd like to see your claim of the wing measurements actually.

How do phone calls prove a plane crashed somewhere? The only thing that proves is people were on a plane making phone calls.

Any photos of 90% of the plane being taken out besides the engine photo? One engine does not equal 90% of a 757.

I never said all the fuel would be consumed or all the grass should have been burned. Stop being dishonest. How do you explain the small evidence of a fire in the crater and a burned forest with no forest fire?

You are being ignorant or dishonest if that's what you think I'm saying. 44 passengers would make a fair amount of blood on the outside, especially if body parts were found in the trees. How do you explain that? I believe the temp there that day was around 70deg, surely not hot enough to dry up all the blood in 20min before the coroner got there.