Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

reply to post by Lillydale


And you seem to be getting your posters confused. The flight manifests, printed off by the gate agent, a few minutes prior to the plane backing out of the gate...had the terrorist's names on them. Those were not the lists originally aired on CNN, the CNN lists were the victims.

Now, the last minute changes, several people not originally scheduled on Flight 93 made it onto the flight, with the exception of Mark Bingham...who showed up as they were closing out the aircraft, all of those people were on the manifest. What was being argued (granted, im not going to page back through all of it right now) was that because of their last minute additions to the flight, it would have been impossible for someone to get enough samples of their voices to fake phone calls.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please substantiate this allegation.

You are the one who posted about the body being found outside the cockpit.

Here is a quote from your own post.

"For some reason she had the impression (from FBI and sources) that the passengers had breached the cockpit (which we know is incorrect) and that here husband's body was out of the cockpit, on the floor either in the forward galley, or at door 1L."



[edit on 18-1-2010 by REMISNE]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

And you seem to be getting your posters confused. The flight manifests, printed off by the gate agent, a few minutes prior to the plane backing out of the gate...had the terrorist's names on them. Those were not the lists originally aired on CNN, the CNN lists were the victims.

You seem to be getting confused because you jumped in where you did not belong. That has nothing to do with what I was responding to.

Now, the last minute changes, several people not originally scheduled on Flight 93 made it onto the flight, with the exception of Mark Bingham...who showed up as they were closing out the aircraft, all of those people were on the manifest. What was being argued (granted, im not going to page back through all of it right now) was that because of their last minute additions to the flight, it would have been impossible for someone to get enough samples of their voices to fake phone calls.

...and allllllll I said was that it was not impossible to find out about last minute changes. THAT IS ALL I SAID.

reply to post by Lillydale


PDF files? I posted pdf files? When? Where? I am not aware that I posted pdf files for anything. Maybe you can repost my comment to you where I had a .pdf of the eyewitness accounts. Until then, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Are you sure this is a .pdf file?

911review.org...



I gave you the names, a link to a few of the accounts. Ah wait, I get it, you want me to do all the work for you so you can go and ignore it later. Is that it? You are unable to click on the one link I provided for you to see a few of the accounts that stated the people saw a plane going down and crashing. What is your exact definition of seeing a plane crash? The actual visual confirmation of the plane going down and making direct contact into the ground, or seeing a plane in a nose-dive heading towards the ground and seeing a mushroom cloud go up and a loud explosion? Or to you the person who sees a plane inverted heading towards the ground and then immediately after seeing a fireball and hearing a loud explosion rock the area is not a credible eyewitness to a crash?

Well lets go with this line of "thinking": The following is a plane crash of an Airbus. It is of a similar nature to the event as said by eyewitnesses in their description of the Flight 93 crash (obviously this video does not have a nosedive, but it does have a plane obviously in trouble and then we see a huge fireball going up. ):



now is the video and the person recording an eyewitness to the plane crash, or not? And if so, does this count as an actual credible eyewitness to the crash?

Oh no, I wasnt making a quote direct from you, it was more of your attitude I was putting in context. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess........

[edit on 1/19/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by REMISNE




What is the point of this post? Did you not fully read and comprehend what was meant, and described, in context?

Because, either you honestly misinterpreted and the mistake was unintentional, or else this is an intentional tactic of confuse, deflect and misdirect.

(But since apparently TWO others had the same comprehension skills, at least long enough to star this post, I'm afraid I am going to have to go with option 'B' above, and call 'foul' on this).

Wondering, also, how many username more socks may exist with the tag-team crew....

(Sorry, this had to be said..)

[edit on 20 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What is the point of this post? Did you not fully read and comprehend what was meant, and described, in context?

Let me try to explain as simple as i can.

How could the pilot have done anything in the cockpit if in fact his body was found outside the cockpit?




[edit on 20-1-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


OK, fair dinkum question.

Please allow me to explain what the general consensus is, regarding the events that unfolded on UA 93. These impressions have ben pieced together from the passenger's phone calls, and what they described, along with the CVR recordings, as interpreted by many different people, after the fact.

Hence, different interpretations, different opinions, since there were no videos or any other way to determine all the facts, in terms of what happened to the two pilots.

Mrs. Dahl (Captain's wife) said that, prior to her actually hearing the CVR for herself, she had been led to believe that BOTH pilots had been dragged out of their seats, and lain down on the floor in the cabin.

She, however, after hearing the CVR thinks that it's possible her husband, seriously wounded, maybe cut in the throat, bleeding but not unconscious, was still in his seat. She bases this on some words spoken by one of the hijackers, heard on the tape. He said soething like "Sit, sit, sit down" (in English), in between his other words (to the other hijacker) to "Show them the axe" (this would be a reference to the onboard crash axe, which was thought to be intimidating to the passengers mounting the assault on hte other side of the cockpit door). Those words were spoken in Arabic.

See?

WHO would he have been speaking to, and telling to "Sit, sit", in English???

IF Captain Dahl was indeed still in his seat, and in and out of consciousness, then it would greatly explain a mystery brought up by those dudes at "Pilots for 9/11 Truth". The transponder, briefly being 'ON' and squawking Mode C, but just for a moment before the crash.

This was, really, just moments before the crash, when ATC radar recorded a 'hit' from the transponder, with an altitude reading of 8,200 feet. We see from the FDR that the airplane had leveled at 5,000 feet prior, as they were on a heading towards DC, and probably thinking that down that low they'd be harder to find and intercept. (Remember, please, that in that area the ground is between 1,000 and 2,000 feet MSL, so that put the aitplane at just about 3,000 to 4,000 feet AGL).

WHY did the transponder begin to briefly squawk again? It HAD to have been turned on, and I wonder if the Captain was there, and if he did that.

Anyway, the passengers are mounting their attack, and the hijacker begins to fly erratically, turning off the autopilot, and racking the airplane around in an attempt to use the g forces to disorient the passengers, to knock them off their feet. (When we began flying again, after the nationwide grounding was ended, we contemplarted the wisdom of doing just such a thing, as a tactic to thwart another hijack attempt, but it was discarded as potentially too dangerous, and likely not effective anyway).

Of course, the actual distribution and locations of the passengers, crew, vicitms onboard can never be determined exactly, as could be the case in certain other more typical airplane accidents, due to the severe nature of the impact forces.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by REMISNE

 

WHO would he have been speaking to, and telling to "Sit, sit", in English???

The 911 commission determined that there was a female in the cockpit (on page 12 of their report):

"The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her."

I have a pdf of the transcript with additional notes by the translator, but I can't find the original link but you can see it here: www.scribd.com...

When ever you see cam-4 or hot-4 in the source columns means it's the woman's voice. It seems they were telling her to sit down.

And, I always thought they removed the pilots from the cockpit because at one time in the transcript (page 5 of 10 in the link) it says:

"Should we let the guys in?"

"Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back."

reply to post by NIcon



Thanks for that transcript link, I was trying to find it, using someone else's computer currently, so going a lot from memory.

I can tell you, from my experience and perspective, a lot more than the average layperson will glean from that.

Firstly, the 'CAM' (Cockpit Area Microphone) that is referred to is simply the one located on the overhead panel, where the CVR controls are (really, just the mic, test and erase buttons, headphone jack AND meter --- in some installations, it varies).

(One reprentative panel installation, at this particular airline):


Another, at Delta/Northwest Airlines:



See the differences? (Look for the green and red buttons, that's the CVR panel there...)

Typical United B-757 (with the lights test switch 'ON'):



...and a better one...



Now, from the CVR transcript, the 'HOT' mic channel...it isn't my experience to have a HOT mic needed on a jet airliner, unlike the ones you see used on the turboprops, where the ambient cockpit noiseis greater, and the pilots where the headsets the entire time, using the HOT mics for communication between themselves.

What I mean is, when we wear a Plantronics, or Telex or similar headset the boom mic doesn't normally sound "HOT" in our earpieces.

It isn't necessary, as we can talk in normal tones to each other without benefit of a mic.

What IS happening, though, is a requirement that the FAA added some years ago --- a requlation that a boom mic headset be used for all operations below 18,000 feet on US carriers, in order to get better CVR recordings, in the event of an accident, for later investigations.

So, although typically we remove the headsets for longer flights, above 18,000 feet and use the hand mics, as long as the headset mic jack is plugged in, then it is routed to the CVR's HOT channel, and will pick up extraneous sounds, depending on proximity tothe various mics.

The CVR also records a lot more, as shown....VHF radios (usually three), HF (if installed), the Interphone and PA, etc.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would like to add, here, based on that transcript link...

I have some questions about its accuracy, in certain portions, where the source is assigned...

For instance, in most NTSB-released transcripts is more exact.

At 09:39:11.5, the hijacker thinks he's on the PA, but is actually transmitting on VHF-1. The ATC Center (Cleveland) hears it. Yet, the sound is attributed to 'CAM', not to the 'RDO-1', as it should be. (It would of corse be heard on the CAM as well, but to be exact it should be better referenced).

I see that as simply due to, possibly, the preliminary nature of rushing out that transcript without full vetting.







[edit on 20 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by GenRadek


Here is another video of a plane crash, Lilly. We see a plane whose wings just came off and it's crashing, but we dont actually see the impact with the ground. Is the person (eyewitness) who recorded the event an actual eyewitness the crash of the C-130 or not? What if he didn't record the crash, and instead said to investigators/news people/crash scene responders that he watched the plane lose its wings and go into a nosedive and then heard a loud explosion? Is he still a credible eyewitness to the actual crash, or according to your twisted perception, not? Did he see the crash or not? Or did the crash never happen?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale

 

PDF files? I posted pdf files? When? Where? I am not aware that I posted pdf files for anything. Maybe you can repost my comment to you where I had a .pdf of the eyewitness accounts. Until then, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Are you sure this is a .pdf file?

911review.org...

I was responding to both of you. When I get ganged up on, I start to take the short road and address you both in one fell swoop. No, what you offered is a link to garbage, not witnesses to the crash. You have names in there just because their house was close by. Did they see it? No. Ok, next.

I gave you the names, a link to a few of the accounts. Ah wait, I get it, you want me to do all the work for you so you can go and ignore it later. Is that it? You are unable to click on the one link I provided for you to see a few of the accounts that stated the people saw a plane going down and crashing. What is your exact definition of seeing a plane crash? The actual visual confirmation of the plane going down and making direct contact into the ground, or seeing a plane in a nose-dive heading towards the ground and seeing a mushroom cloud go up and a loud explosion? Or to you the person who sees a plane inverted heading towards the ground and then immediately after seeing a fireball and hearing a loud explosion rock the area is not a credible eyewitness to a crash?

I have not ignored a damn thing. I look at your links. I see plenty of crap about when the coroner bought his funeral home and who lived near the crash site and blah blah blah. I want you to point to people that actually witnessed the crash, that is all.

Well lets go with this line of "thinking": The following is a plane crash of an Airbus. It is of a similar nature to the event as said by eyewitnesses in their description of the Flight 93 crash (obviously this video does not have a nosedive, but it does have a plane obviously in trouble and then we see a huge fireball going up. ):

now is the video and the person recording an eyewitness to the plane crash, or not? And if so, does this count as an actual credible eyewitness to the crash?

What? You have video. That would be pretty good evidence. Do you have video of AU93 crashing? What are you trying to get at?

Oh no, I wasnt making a quote direct from you, it was more of your attitude I was putting in context. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess........

[edit on 1/19/2010 by GenRadek]

Oh no, punctuation has a specific role and quotation marks are used to denote quotes. If you were not trying to quote me, you should not have referenced me and then used quotes. I hope you will look into that.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Here is another video of a plane crash, Lilly. We see a plane whose wings just came off and it's crashing, but we dont actually see the impact with the ground. Is the person (eyewitness) who recorded the event an actual eyewitness the crash of the C-130 or not? What if he didn't record the crash, and instead said to investigators/news people/crash scene responders that he watched the plane lose its wings and go into a nosedive and then heard a loud explosion? Is he still a credible eyewitness to the actual crash, or according to your twisted perception, not? Did he see the crash or not? Or did the crash never happen?

I really do not get what you are trying to ask or get at or whatever. You have video and you are asking me if the video did not exist if the person would still be credible? Huh? What the hell does that have to do with flight 93 where there was NO video and after all this time, you still cannot just name some witnesses. Just some names. You cannot even do that.

Sorry if I do not get your little quiz here but I fail to even see how it applies.

Originally posted by ProRipp
This whole charade is insulting our intelligence ! There needs to be an inquest by an Independant International Panel, experts from various nations other than the U.S. because this is such an emotive and controversial subject ! I don't believe an unbiased and proper investigation/inquiry can be carried out by U.S. nationals ! I'm British and personally i would dearly love to see the OS believers and the 'Truthers' finally reunited by the TRUTH ! I have a view which i keep to myself for the most part there are arguments for both sides, but when something stirs me i need to say something ! I may not be an expert but i can not believe using my common sense that an aircraft of that size can break up into 'phone-book' size pieces ! No other 'crash' has looked like that in my own lifetime (46yrs) ! That is just my opinion from past experience ! All i want is a FINALLITY to all the bad blood between the two sides ! We need closure so god knows you guys in the states do !

Respects to You All ProRipp

I too am not from the US I'm from London but with respect the one thing that you have failed to take into consideration is that when you get a plane crash in the USA they have special planes that can both disintegrate at the wings leaving virtually nothing but the long tube bit then can (Pentagon) act like some sort of missile and penetrate for dozens of feet and then disintegrate. Not dissimilar to a cruise missile? Oh and the other thing is that when their ABC news channels and their FBI/CIA type limited companies say something. Its the truth! I know what you’re getting at with say, the Lockerbie crash in Scotland or well, every other plan crash that we've ever seen around the world? Oh, and they have a really crap building collapse rate in NY I think it was 3 in one day????

what i don't get about all these debunkers on this site supporting the OS. what are you guys afraid of? a new investigation? possibility of being wrong? possibility of not being able to handle the real truth? Afraid of hurting your inner belief that your government has possibly done a monstrous act?

bush has lied,

his administration has lied,

almost everything related to the OS has been deemed a lie.

the buildings fell at free-fall speed following the path of greatest resistance, not once, not twice, but three times.

What are these debunkers afraid of? really, whats your fear guys? WHY do you support the OS so much when there were flaws, huge flaws in the initial reports.

wouldnt that be enough to open a new investigation when the leaders of this country at that time were found to be half truths?

yet, we support them, because you guys think they are out for our own good. which is wrong, the founders of this country would be disgusted with you guys. they always wanted us to have small government, so corruption like post 9/11 wouldn't happen. think military industrial complex, think 2 illegal wars with false intelligence.

What are you afraid of?

wait, i can see their replies now. (i wouldn't want to support truthers with a new investigation because i wouldn't want them to have subpoena power)

Uh... how else, would we get a real investigation done without that subpoena power? hell the commission report was even refused subpoena power, and anything that would refute the OS, was left out of the report. not to mention they didn't even mention the molten iron found in the rubble of each collapsed building. FIRE DOES NOT DO THAT. show me where a fire MELTS steel, show me a fire where it obliterates steel re-enforced concrete. then and only then will i ever take you guys seriously.

all debunkers are the same on this site, except a select few who actually refute politely, and share their experience, and input.

oh the others, are just rude, obnoxious, detached, etc. i am not attacking anyone, its only what i have seen and read, and its quite sad really, because its the same ones, over and over, and over.

the majority of the USA thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

WAKE UP!


WAKE UP!


EDIT: wrong flipping911 thread, but the thoughts the same... MODS remove this if its off topic, its unrelated to the missing aircraft wreckage. MY fault!

[edit on 1/20/2010 by ugie1028]

reply to post by Lillydale


Lilly, I provided you names of people who saw the crash. If you were interested in getting to the facts, you can go and type the names and read the accounts yourself, rather than expecting me to have to post every single account. I gave you the best eyewitnesses with names. How about you type in the name to google, add flight 93 to it, and press search. You can then read their accounts of seeing the plane crash. Here are the names again of the eyewitnesses who SAW THE CRASH happen:

Tom Fritz, Rick King, Knoll and Nevin Lambert, Karl Landis, Anna McBride, Eric Peterson, Lee Purbaugh (300 yards away), John Walsh, Linda Shepley.

Now I can assume you know how to use google and you can do the rest. You asked for names, here they are. AGAIN.

reply to post by ugie1028


I fear nothing are you afraid of the truth? The proof provided showing some conspiracy is all well and good in its self but when it is applied to the actual events and timeline of the entire 9-11 events it holds no water the witnesses counter the demolition theory the plane definately crashed in PA if you dont beleive that your head is in the sand.(not my opinion proven fact)the aftermath of news coverage (LIVE REAL TIME) and people on the streets and nearby to the farm where the plane crashed are not government agents they are ordinary people like you or me. The conspiracy evidence is all abstract nonsense that could be applied to most disaster scenarios it has no real creedance.
i do beleive the bush admin is the biggest pile of human filth and did lie to us all. however the people who witnessed all the events of 9-11 are not apart of the admin they are citizens you/ me/ regular people there not apart of any government agencys. I am so sure i could start a thread to prove the sun is fake and i would get stars for it. or perhaps the earth is flat? why would you waste your obvious intelligence on breeding false conspiracys.

Long live the serious ATS.

be well

Let's try this one more time:

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Originally posted by ATH911
Let's try this one more time:

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

And one more time:

Somerset County Pennsylvania.

And your refrain is:

"I don't see it in this aerial photo"!!!

reply to post by ATH911


In the ntsb warehouse collected and reassembled to the best of their ability to verify the timeline of events of that planes last moments.
What do you fail to understand your whole conspiracy is based on a picture taken many days after the crash. Of course they had collected much of the wreckage now i ask you what about all the witnesses and ensueing fireball.(liars i guess? myself included? i saw the towers fall that morning saw the planes hit them i was seeing things?
One more thing why fake the crash there is no reason to?:@@

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Lilly, I provided you names of people who saw the crash. If you were interested in getting to the facts, you can go and type the names and read the accounts yourself, rather than expecting me to have to post every single account. I gave you the best eyewitnesses with names. How about you type in the name to google, add flight 93 to it, and press search. You can then read their accounts of seeing the plane crash. Here are the names again of the eyewitnesses who SAW THE CRASH happen:

Tom Fritz, Rick King, Knoll and Nevin Lambert, Karl Landis, Anna McBride, Eric Peterson, Lee Purbaugh (300 yards away), John Walsh, Linda Shepley.

Now I can assume you know how to use google and you can do the rest. You asked for names, here they are. AGAIN.

Awwwwwwwwwwwe. Now you are just taking the fun out of it. I have been asking for names for a few days now but I was really starting to enjoy that last link. I mean, reading about when the coroner bought his first funeral home and other little anecdotes about when people moved or bought things was FASCINATING.

Please be arrogant some more about what you claim you already offered up. Why don't you try reading your links and maybe you can see what the problem is. Thanks for the names though. I really appreciated it only taking 3 or 4 days of asking to get them. I know you have all this info right at your fingertips but in order to get the truth out, you find it more productive to play games and post false links for a while instead.

Now, should I get right onto these names but I am still reading your other link and all the wonderful off topic nonsense in it. You were quite insistent that I read it.