FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Compared to a Boeing 757 or 767, that is a small plane.

Bedrock in the Everglades? Exactly where is bedrock located in the Everglades?

Was there more than one Valujet crashing into the Everglades? If not, I found news reports which said they sent in divers to dredge for the plane. Provided it is the same plane of reference.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Do you, by chance, know the cruising and top speed of a Valujet commuter plane?

reply to post by OrionStars


A DC-9 is Smaller than a 767 but is this a small plane?

Recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult by the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter of a mile (401 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was summarized as deep-water swamp with a bedrock base. The DC-9 shattered on impact with the bedrock, leaving very few large portions of the plane intact. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Did you note the words "deep water swamp"? Would that indicate from the air that a plane might just be sitting under all that murky water and flora cover of the Everglades?

How does that crash compare to the topography conditions at Shanksville, PA? Because if there is no comparison why make a comparison at all?

The Valuejet crashed in swampland. Flight UA 93 crashed on solid ground. There's no point trying to compare them, they are two different planes and they crashed at two vastly different crash sites. Any further discussion about the Valuejet crash only serves to deviate the topic away from the alleged crash at Shanksville.

reply to post by OrionStars


First of all I didnt make the comparison.

Secondly, as i pointed out. Shanksville is not a swamp. But the soil conditions were reported to be soft.

The comparison is not exacly apples -apples, but indeed shows how little debris can be evident at a crash site.

Same goes for the bodies, for instance here is a blurb from an interview after the ValueJet crash:

MARGARET WARNER: Now how about recovering the parts of bodies of these victims? How much progress have they made in that regard?

DEREK REVERON: Well, they're recovering parts of bodies, very small parts of bodies. The latest is that they've recovered more than three body bags full of human remains, and they say that the largest human, piece of human remain they've discovered so far is a knee.

www.pbs.org...


Edit to add source







[edit on 27-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

The black box was recovered during a carefully plotted grid search of the crash site, as divers continued collecting body parts and bits of aircraft from the swampy mire.

Francis also said it is doubtful that large sections of the plane will be found. The largest piece of wreckage found so far is only 8 feet long. Thus far, no bodies have been located, but searchers have reportedly recovered body parts.

Many of the searchers are calling it the most difficult crash scene they had ever encountered. How to go about the search amid the swamp's sludge has stumped investigators. Twenty-eight rescue experts held a conference call Sunday to discuss methods, but no one could agree on a set plan, Francis said.


A proposal to build temporary dams to drain the area appears to be impractical.

"The porous limestone underneath would just allow the water to come back up again," Francis said. Source

There were concerns about protecting rescue workers trying to extricate bodies and parts of the submerged plane from the water and muck, which together are up to 10 feet deep. Source

Former NTSB member Vernon Grose said the search would probably continue to be difficult because the water was four to five feet deep in the area where the plane crashed. Source

So much for deepwater and no limestone in swamps

reply to post by tezzajw


It was known there was a fire on the Valujet, while in the air, and was out of control.

www.cnn.com...

"While no official cause of the crash has been named, sources have told CNN that improperly packed oxygen generators stowed in the DC-9's cargo hold caused the fire that brought down the plane."

I seriously doubt that plane crash landed at any 580 mph 5 minutes after take-off. Considering the actual events of the Valujet crash, it becomes completely irrelevant to the disappearance of alleged Flight 93 on 9/11.

reply to post by Boone 870


Considering it was a swamp with all sorts of carnivorous critters, particularly in the water, I am not surprised no bodies could be recovered in that type of a crash, particularly one with a fire on board while in the air. Oxygen fire at that, according to unofficial reports on the Valujet. Not even close for comparison to the circumstances of alleged Flight 93.

Chances are they would have to dredge for at least a mile radius in the case of the Valujet for highly obvious reasons. It is the Everglades, a huge swamp, some of it running very deep.

Originally posted by OrionStars

 

alleged Flight 93.

"Alleged".... lmao .... Yeah..thats right..all the phone calls were morphed. It's posts like that, that make me smile.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Shanksville's ground conditions are soft enough to bury an entire Boeing 757 leaving no trace? I would sincerely enjoy seeing you prove that one.

I did not say you brought up any Valujet crash. I was referring to your comments on the Valujet crash.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Prove those phone calls were ever made. Prove the people alleged to be making them actually made them if any calls can be proved at all.

reply to post by OrionStars


Please provide me evidence that shows a plane didn NOT crash there. There are several photos that I'm sure you have seen that shows debris.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Lest I forget this pertinent bit of information regarding those alleged calls by alleged passengers on alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001.

"Hello, mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham." Why would a son have to fully identify himself to his own mother?

I refer to the following trial exhibit where the passenger list excludes Mr. Bingham's name as being on alleged Flight 93:

911research.wtc7.net...

"Moussaoui Trial Exhibits

Low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits in July of 2006. These include the names of the alleged hijackers. 6"

911research.wtc7.net...

Another perspective on Shanksville:

www.total911.info...

"Fact #4: No Boeing 757 Crashed at Shanksville
•Hole too small: 20'x20'x10'
•Witnesses saw low flying, struggling jet, versus vertical crash "imprint"
•No reported crash witnesses
•No airplane debris, bodies, blood
•Cell phone calls impossible
•Fake dialogue: "Hello mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham."
•FBI destroyed evidence, no report."

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Why don't you show us how to prove a double negative? Because that is what you are asking me to do, and you are the second poster with your same views requesting the same of me.

No one in the recorded history of the human species has ever been able to prove a double negative. If you think it can be done, please attempt to do that as long as you wish to try.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion... the Mark Bingham line is pathetic at best. I actually listened to an interview with his mother on 9/11/07 while I was on my way to work. She once again explained this was how he talked to her. She said he was speaking to her like that so she would not get too upset to somehow try to keep her calm.

Your entire post showed nothing at all.

If you are suggesting the calls were faked, please provide evidence to prove it. I can assure you, you will not be able to.

reply to post by OrionStars


Allow me to re- phrase that....

Please provide me proof that the physical evidence (plane parts, body parts, damage to trees, hole in the ground) were all planted. Please also provide proof that the several phone calls that were placed were not real.

Better?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Allow me to re- phrase that....

Please provide me proof that the physical evidence (plane parts, body parts, damage to trees, hole in the ground) were all planted. Please also provide proof that the several phone calls that were placed were not real.

Better?

Not really and this is why. Planted where? At Shanksville? What plane parts, bodies, etc were there to prove existed? Phone calls from where and by whom? Alleged Flight 93?

I have repeatedly stated I did not see any evidence, and none has been proved to exist. Now why would I remotely desire to prove your case for you? Please prove your own case, including any alleged phone calls were made, and that any positively ID'd evidence was ever there. Hearsay from someone else or opinion is not proof anything crashed in Shanksvillle, PA or any phone calls were made from any alleged Flight 93 on 9/11.

reply to post by OrionStars


Evidence has been made public for years Orion. Body parts, plane parts, family members of victims speaking about last conversations. IT goes on and on. Would you like the photos posted here? Would you like interviews with the victim families here? Please tell me what evidence you seek. I will do my best to find it.

In addition, can you please explain to me how one fakes a phone call to a loved one? Unless you are suggesting that the victims families are in on it too.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Is it? There is no proof a human being actually named Mark Bingham made any call to earth from the air. Then to find his name missing on trial exhibit passenger list, adds even more suspicion, particularly when there is no trace of a human being named Mark Bingham on any alleged Flight 93 on 9/11/2001. And no trace of any alleged Flight 93 either.

It was reported by US bureaucrats, someone calling identified himself as "Mark Bingham". However, since no trace of Mark Bingham has been found, where is the proof an acutal Mark Bingham made any call from air to earth?

I know of no child who identifies him or herself to his or her own mother by first and last name. Parents are well aware of their children's voices. There is no need to initiate a call and say, "Hello, mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham." Instead, a child may say, "Hello mom, this is Mark." Particularly, if children's voices should so much alike, provided parents have more than one child.