The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

reply to post by Boone 870


I found numerous links that say wreckage was found as much as 8 miles away. All the "conspiracy theories" are due to so many eyewitness accounts conflicting with the reports. So "Shanksville" doesn't appear to agree on anything. Its nice that they have a nice neat diagram now -- but that isn't what was originally reported. Obviously, this memory hole trick works on many people -- but not me.

I wouldn't put much stock in eyewitness accounts either for or against any theory. People are highly subject to suggestibility, especially with an incident that was not expected. This is an eyeblink in people's day.

I hear what people are saying. But I also am very much aware that the government has paid people to foster certain positions.

Sure, there would be no big pieces from such a crash. But MOST of the plane would be recoverable -- even if in pieces of about an inch in size. The 1992 Attack on the WTC was handled professionally. We saw detailed pictures and the evidence was handled by the FBI and carefully collected and sent to various groups to review. The perpetrators were caught with a chain of evidence.

In the 2001 event. Numerous accounts of molten metal slag, which could only be steel not aluminum were discussed --- even weeks later. The craptastic Popular Mechanics "debunking" special, read to me like a whitewash that I can't believe worked -- the understanding of physics is pretty bad. The idea that a pancake collapse could demolish that building in 8 seconds is impossible, and the building had to be strong enough in the joints to pull down the core -- when those connections are supposed to be the ones that failed. Then we have 10 floors disintegrating in mid-air.

Whatever THEORY is looked at, it has to involve a demolition.

>> The earlier point I made about the transponders -- yes, that was one of the government theories that they couldn't track the planes. Kind of like the reasons to invade Iraq -- whatever sticks at the time and then move on to the next excuse. They knew where these hijacked planes are, because they knew before one of them left that it was hijacked, due to conversations with flight attendants ant the FAA. They landed thousands of planes in half an hour, and yet were totally incompetent such that a plane had 90+ minutes to circle around the sky.

After all that, you have to go with what is consistent with the facts.

And I find it pretty interesting that Marvin Bush ended up with a security company that got the contract when Silverstein took over from the Ports Authority.

>> George Bush wanted a war before he took office. They did nothing to deal with ter'rism but did plenty to plan for war and look for an excuse. Then they profited from that war, in historic, epic proportions. The Government Report now conclusively confirms that Rumsfeld investigated using torture like waterboarding even before they looked for the legal excuse. These people are fascists and believe ends justifies means -- a false flag event seems to me perfectly in line with Elitist concept that truth doesn't matter and that the people should be manipulated. All of that is consistent with coverups and conspiracies. I'm sure they had comments on their college yearbooks; "Most likely to betray country." At least with 20/20 hindsight, and half a million dead, innocent Iraqis, people have to admit that "this is consistent with these NeoCons." I see means, motive, opportunity and above all, the types of characters to carry it out.

it crashed there, it happened, get over it. seriously.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

I found numerous links that say wreckage was found as much as 8 miles away. All the "conspiracy theories" are due to so many eyewitness accounts conflicting with the reports. So "Shanksville" doesn't appear to agree on anything. Its nice that they have a nice neat diagram now -- but that isn't what was originally reported. Obviously, this memory hole trick works on many people -- but not me.

Please post your sources because I don't recall any contradictions with the map I posted.

I wouldn't put much stock in eyewitness accounts either for or against any theory. People are highly subject to suggestibility, especially with an incident that was not expected. This is an eyeblink in people's day.

Fair enough. Please point out the errors and discrepancies in the following sources:

Flight 93 FDR Data

Flight 93 Radar Study

Flight 93 Auto Pilot Study

Flight 93 Recorded Radar Data Study

>> The earlier point I made about the transponders -- yes, that was one of the government theories that they couldn't track the planes. Kind of like the reasons to invade Iraq -- whatever sticks at the time and then move on to the next excuse. They knew where these hijacked planes are, because they knew before one of them left that it was hijacked, due to conversations with flight attendants ant the FAA. They landed thousands of planes in half an hour, and yet were totally incompetent such that a plane had 90+ minutes to circle around the sky.

Please provide sources backing up your claim that the government theorized that it couldn't track the aircraft on radar and point out which aircraft flew around for 90 minutes.

Please stay on-topic, there are dozens of threads that discuss the World Trade Center.

reply to post by Grock


Actually, cellphones are still inoperative at 757/767 speeds and altitudes. At .82 Mach, or about 460 knots (520 mph) at 30,000 feet , the phone passes out of tower range, given the inverse square law, before it has time to complete the required "handshake" with the cell tower. As an Airline Transport pilot flying jets at that speed and altitude, I have tried to make cell calls and have not even once been successful.

dble post... dang button

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, you're the disengenuous one. many times you've said the DFDR was 'faked'. How? I've asked you numerous times, how can the data be faked?? Did you even bother to look at Boone's links?? Are you afraid to?

Or, are they too technical?

reply to post by IvanZana


Here's a photo of another aircraft accident. It's an airplane and it looks like a crashed.

Is this what you expected to see in Shanksville?

>SNIP<

MOD EDIT


To answer your meaningless arguements, the answer is.... who cares... there was no plane that crashed in shankville on 911... look at the pictures If a picture can say a thousand words, the above only needs to say six.. "
"Flight 93 did not crash here". The proof in in the 1st post and links provided.

The truth needs no explaining it ususally speaks for itsself.

Lies need low lives and degenerates to fuel them.

Thank you for coming out boone.



Why dont you 2 or three disillusioned people who know that flight 93 didnt crash in shanksville but are trying to convince poeple one did start by trying to debunk the diagrams, the lack of burn or broken grass where the wings hit, etc......

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[Mod Edit] If you're going to indicate you're quoting a member, please quote the member.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by yeahright]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, 2 or 3 'disillusioned' people?

The Air Line Pilots Association represents over 50,000 professional pilots. A handful of pilots joined the 'Pilotsfor911truth', or whatever it's called.

So, why not try to find at LEAST 10,000 of we 'disillusioned' to jump on your wagon??

Oh, and be sure to convince ALL of the families from the four airplanes that day. Oh, and find all of the AAL and UAL employees who work in Maintenance and Aircraft Records to get them to point out all of the discrepancies as to what happened to the four airframes. Or, go out to the airplane 'graveyards' in various Arizona desert locations, and find the intact airframes that were secretly put there to 'hide' them.

Finally.....one more time, can you please describe, or better yet, cite a reference as to how Flight Recorders can be 'faked'???

Because either a real B757 was crashed into the ground somewhere else, and the Recorders magically moved to and buried at the Shanksville site to substitute for UAL93 or....easier answer? The real UAL93??

Originally posted by IvanZana


Thanks very much. To answer you Q. Here is the transcript from flight 93. As you can tell there was no struggle in the cockpit.

why didn't you include the parts where the pilot is saying he doesn't want to die and not to hurt him anymore? you have 2 pages out of 8. did you miss those or did you purposely not include them? "As you can tell there was no struggle in the cockpit." is an outright lie.

i suggest you read the whole thing and not just two pages of misrepresentation.





[edit on 1-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

reply to post by fastfingersfunk


Thanks for adding the earlier context, fff....but, again, unless you're familiar with CVR transcripts it lends itself to more confusion....Each sound must be attributed to the source....the CAM, RDO-1, RDO-2, etc.

AND that is still an incomplete transcript, but it's nice for someone to point out how IvanZana ignored some parts, and just used what he wanted.

Just for everyone to know, the CAM (Cockpit Area Microphone) is installed in the Overhead Panel, roughtly in the center, just in between the pilots. There is a good deal of air noise in a cockpit, not just from flying, but from the Air Conditioning airflow as well. The cockpit door is about 6 feet aft of the microphone.

Many CVRs from other aviation accidents have (unintelligable) sprinkled liberally within the transcripts. Sometimes, there will a note...[click....sound similar to flap handle being moved] or some such. This is for ACTUAL NTSB reports where they are trying to determine the reason for the crash....looks like, since UAL93 is not an unknown accident, much was edited out.....

there was no plane that crashed in shankville on 911... look at the pictures If a picture can say a thousand words, the above only needs to say six.. "
"Flight 93 did not crash here". The proof in in the 1st post and links provided.


Try to debunk the diagrams, the lack of burn or broken grass where the wings hit, etc......

Answer the question. Where the wings hit, why is there no wing parts, fuel, lack of any ground penatration, fire and unbroken grass?


[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, you keep showing the same darn pictures....no context, no date....no nothing.

Instead, we politely ask you to review the Flight Recorder data....which you insist was 'faked' in some way, but provide no way to show...no proof...how they (both Flight Recorders) were faked.

Maybe they were!! Maybe Apollo, Gemini, Mercury and Soyuz were all faked too!!! I'm not going off the topic, by that last sentence, just trying to make a point.

When you claim "The Final Nail in The Coffin...." you must provide something new, rather than the same old stuff you've coughed up from all of your other UAL93 threads!!!

Sorry....hate to be harsh, but if you actually have something new, then bring it, and prove it. It's convenient, you never respond to my request to prove the 'fakery' of the Flight Recorders. You NEVER get out to interview the first responders, nor the families.....you just parrot stuff you see from other, not always reliable sources, and have made up your mind, and stick your head in the sand (just as UAL93 crashed into) when presented with any data that refutes your preconceptions.

Cowardly actions, I claim. I will be heroic, and actually change my mind, if you can convince me that I'm wrong. I have a very different background in life, than you....obviously. As I've said, just a pilot here, no particular agenda either way....but so far, your 'evidence' is just not convincing.

ps....I WISH I could get paid for this!!!! What, ten cents a word?? Man, I could afford a couple gallons of gasoline!!!!

hint: no pay. no agenda. just truth.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS KIDDO.


there was no plane that crashed in shankville on 911... look at the pictures If a picture can say a thousand words, the above only needs to say six.. "
"Flight 93 did not crash here". The proof in in the 1st post and links provided.


Try to debunk the diagrams, the lack of burnt or broken grass where the wings hit, etc......

Answer the question. Where the wings hit, why is there no wing parts, fuel, lack of any ground penatration, fire and unbroken grass?

Why did the fueselage leave no imprint or displace any dirt?

Just for comparison. Here is a real plane crash.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan....all you did, 'kiddo', is repeat a post right above mine.

I told you , this is one image of something. Please describe to everyone how THIS is a photo from Shankesville, PA, on Semptember 11, 2001.

Then, reference this photo to the crash site. Angle the picture was taken, who took it, his/her location, focal length....etc.

Please provide an aerial view, to help us....location of the photographer, as asked above.

THEN....explain to the audience how fires start. There must be, of course, fuel....something to burn (the grass, you claim) and an ignition source.

When it comes to Jet-A, the ignition source requires somthing very hot.....when it is atomized. THEN, in order to sustain the burn, there MUST be oxygen!!!!

UAL93 buried itself, into soft ground.....much as you'd do to a campfire, if you wanted to put it out. Sources of ignition.....the hot engines....buried deeply. Seems some fires did breakout, but not as you'd expect, since MOST of it was in the soft soil!!!!!

Some planes have crashed onto pavement....lots of oxygen, lots of fuel misting about, it burns and causes fires, of course. Throw this same volatile mixture into a soft bunch of dirt.....at 500+ MPH....almost straight in....whole different result.

Why is this so hard to understand???????


AND, to EDIT.....I am getting tired of asking.....you say the Flight Recorders are 'faked'.....please explain HOW!!!!!


[edit on 7/1/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by IvanZana


To reply to your latest....just the last photo....that looks very much like a picture of Pan Am in Lockerbie....am I right????

Pan Am 103, out of London, was blown up in mid-air by a sutcase bomb. Big pieces FELL from the sky.....it WAS NOT FLOWN into the ground at a nearly vertical angle at 500+MPH!!

Some large piece made that gouge, because it fell on a trajectory, since it was flying level, then fell. OH! AND, where is your fire???? Hmmmm????

See, kiddo....you need to understand airplanes better.....how they fly, and what happens.....but you just don't care to look at the DFDR data yet, do you??? Nor, how to fake it....see, you keep at it, to earn points (maybe?)...but it is showing the cracks in your argument, when you can't argue with real facts, just re-hashed nonsense from your previous posts...over and over again. Seems you're hoping for a new audience each time, who won't see through your lies. Works well on YouTube.....

Mabey your not as smart as I thought.

If you read the orginal post and its proofs you would of saw that a plane travelling at Flight 93's alleged angle, and speed would of deflected not only dirt and wreakage,fuel,fire meters into the feild and bush but it did not leave any imprint or displace any dirt where the fuselage, verticle/horizontal stablizers and wings allegedly hit.

So the evidence clearly states that a Boeing 757 did not crash in that small crater.

reply to post by IvanZana


Oh, indeed I saw your OP.....I just don't buy it. It is modified to fit YOUR pet theory.....again, you dodge my questions.....again, and again.

LOOK at the DFDR data...but, of course, you won't because it is to see some truths that conflict with your beliefs.......

BTW.....your OP 'trajectories'.....nonsense. Everything in them is made to comport to your view of events....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by IvanZana

 

LOOK at the DFDR data...but, of course, you won't because it is to see some truths that conflict with your beliefs.......

Who cares about FDR's when a plane never crashed in that small crater?

Here I will illustrate for you since your having a hard time with the words.

As you can see it is impossiblility for flight 93 to have crashed there.




[edit on 1-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by weedwhacker


The flight recorders were missing the last two minutes.

I look at that one actual photo of the crash site, showing a direct impact with the ground. The graphs show a debris field 8 miles long -- so they want it both ways, huh?

Which is kind of impossible since flight recorders record from outside to in .... meaning, that if anything gets damaged, it is the later data and not the last bits recorded. Either, chalk this up as another "coincidence" in a huge pile of steaming coincidence, or someone is withholding the last few minutes. Maybe conversations from the cock pit from some excited young heros who had just taken control of the plane. The identity of the hijackers might be a bit inconvenient-- or it was too late to stop the shoot-down order. But this is just conjecture. It isn't up to me to know what happened. If a mob boss handed me some flight recorders, hey, he might be telling the truth.

Anything the government has said to us, not corroborated by independent sources, is useless. I give ZERO weight to it. This is a conundrum that will make it impossible for a Democracy in the future. With billions spent on mis-information, and hiring people to blog, we live on sifting sands. Do I know for a fact that this is happening? There are a few good news reports on it -- but in the end, we all know what "we would do if we had no scruples and no respect of Democracy." Conspiracies grow when you find that your leadership has utter contempt for you.

All we need to know is what happened after Katrina, and that they took that opportunity to get rid of Democratic Governor, as they dragged their feet on aid. A lot more coincidence and excuses. This follows a pattern.

I don't know about the rest of "what is impossible for a flight recorder." Those flight recorders took a long time to show up -- much less any video from the Pentagon, or any of the video confiscated. The whole operation was a foot dragging exercise, with financial records not followed. So, as far as a crime scene, it was compromised.

We will always have conspiracy theories with leaders like BushCo, because it will either be incompetence or corruption. Nothing is ever simple. We never get all the evidence, and all the facts. I know that, down to a man, he and his underlings are crooks and betray the American people.

9/11 may or may not be an inside job. But with the incompetence and/or corruption, it doesn't really matter who BushCo is working for. Innocent people have died in Iraq, for them and their cronies profits. People who can do that could do anything. They should be charged for torture, war crimes, war profiteering, treason, and proliferation of WMDs (see; Siebel Edmunds). While the WTC and other disasters might seem like a big deal to most people, 9/11 would be the least of their crimes. So I really don't care that much.

9/11 truth to me is important because of three things;
1) Transparency in government -- if every thing is secret, then you should always believe the worst.
2) The NeoCons have created a situation where Truth, is relative, and everyone brings their own to the debate. Then we vote on who looked tougher. It's been a war on Reason -- not terrorism.
3) The psychology of the herd -- how people believe things based upon group think. They won't entertain the idea that the government engages in False Flags on a relatively frequent basis. We read about the Lusitania in the history books, and don't equate that the people then were told the same things; "The threat is dire, the enemy is ruthless and will not respond to reason. We must act before it is too late."

We hear that it might be too late to deal with Global Warming, and something that could effect all mankind can wait, because it might hurt profit margins. Yet, a defenseless country must be bombed into the stone age when all the inspectors say there is nothing