Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

It didn't crash. it burnt up upon re-entry after explosion. Please do not compare two very different circumstances.

No, the Space Shuttle caught fire then it exploded because of the tile coming off but that's not the point, you have spun it to your favor as is typical with OS'ers. The environment was much harsher for the shuttle YET they found bodies and parts of the air/spacecraft nonetheless.

BUT...

In a "less harsher" (meaning it didn't explode prior to crashing) environment that allowed the aircraft to remain intact until impact, the aircraft that crashed in PA just vanished into vaporized pieces. While the space shuttle even though it endured MUCH harsher conditions, left behind pieces of both craft and human. While the aircraft known in the OS as flight 93 somehow fared far less "better".

Originally posted by RipCurl

However, thanks for neglecting that they did find body parts (not big parts, small parts). They did find partial skulls, fingers, bones and the like.

So they found partial skulls, fingers, bones and the like, but none of you skeptics can find where all that 95% wreckage was?

Originally posted by mikelee

It didn't crash. it burnt up upon re-entry after explosion. Please do not compare two very different circumstances.

No, the Space Shuttle caught fire then it exploded because of the tile coming off but that's not the point, you have spun it to your favor as is typical with OS'ers. The environment was much harsher for the shuttle YET they found bodies and parts of the air/spacecraft nonetheless.

I simplified it so sue me (i didn't spin it). the point is, that it broke up in the air. it didn't crash into the ground and explode with the equivalent force of a few tons of TNT. Crashing is into the ground with an explosion is far more destructive than something that broke up in the air while reentering the earth.

In a "less harsher" (meaning it didn't explode prior to crashing) environment that allowed the aircraft to remain intact until impact, the aircraft that crashed in PA just vanished into vaporized pieces.

this is a gross misrepresntation of what was found. Investigators on scene found a debris field of almost 500 yards total. The biggest piece they found were a couple of fueselage pieces, a wheel hub and part of an engine. MOST of the parts were smaller than a person's hand. The plane did not "vaporize" . it broke up into THOUSANDS of small pieces when it impacted the ground.

300 volunteers combed the area for nearly 2 1/2 weeks collecting the debris. Are you saying that all 300 workers that they did not handle pieces of a plane?

While the space shuttle even though it endured MUCH harsher conditions, left behind pieces of both craft and human. While the aircraft known in the OS as flight 93 somehow fared far less "better".

did you miss the part where they DID find body parts? That Wally Miller identified the passengers through DNA, Fingerpints and DENTAL records? You have to have body parts in order to do that.

Go educate yourself, every item will be photographed one way or another during the initial on site investigation.


Page 14 NTSB photographic procedure during investigation


Taking the Pictures
What pictures should I take?
1. The cardinal rule - photograph the wreckage in
reference to the eight points of the compass
2. Work in from the perimeter - get the overall view
first and then take any close-ups
3. Take pictures of evidence first - the nice-to know
stuff can wait
4. Take pictures of the overall wreckages (the pictures
should tell a story)
5. Take pictures of the surrounding terrain, objects
6. Ground scars, propeller marks
7. Major aircraft structures (nose, wings, tail, fuselage,
gear, etc.)
8. Cockpit / cabin / instrument panel
9. Evident damage
10. Separated parts
11. Fire evidence (i.e. soot)
How many pictures should be taken?
As many as possible; film is cheap - the subject is perishable
Other sources of photos
• Police, fire, EMS
• Witnesses
• News media
Follow-up photography
• Removal of the aircraft wreckage
• Relocation after the wreckage is clear
• Tear-down analysis
• Autopsy
Other information
When taking photographs, include a form of label next
to the object you are photographing. It may be difficult
identifying certain parts in the photograph when reviewing
the photos at a later time.
Videography
Video recordings are becoming increasingly popular as
they often show a dynamic process.
Advantages:
• On-going narrative
• Can illustrate a process
• Record of investigation
• Real-time illustration
• Results good for training aid
• Easily edited

so i believe the most professional of the professoinal working that site would get as much evidential photography as possible, and due to the lack of major remaining pieces they would have photographed everything in situ to provide a memory aide.
This method would also provide the ability to keep a record of where every single piece of debris was, which in this particular accident would have been neccesary due to the nature of the debris.
Videography would have provided a better medium for maintaining integrity within this investigation as the crash story could be better recorded and studied afterweards.
All evidence is photographed before and after removal to storage facilities.

Also with referance to any components under investigation.
Component Examinations
The following methods are commonly used when examining
aircraft systems components
• Photograph it – get pictures of what the part looked
like before examining it.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by The X]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by The X]

Now that we know how a REAL airline crash investigation should be done, here is a picture of the result of a phony one

www.911myths.com...

Gotta love it! Let's collect all that evidence, throw it randomly into a dumpster, take a low resolution photo of it and ship it off to the nearest garbage dump. They don't need Government air crash investigators for this job, they need sanitation workers.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

NTSB officials said that about 2/3 of the pulverized wreckage was underground.

Something most people don't understand is the composition of the terrain at the crash site. It wasn't solid ground by any stretch of the imagination.

The plane came down on the edge of a land reclamation project on the property of a mining operation. The mining company had filled in much of its old open pit mining in this area with loose earth. This loose earth was about 30 feet deep at the site of the impact of Flight 93.

When the plane impacted at around 500 miles per hour in a vertical descent, it buried itself in the loose earth and instantly exploded straight back out, like a cannon, sending a fireball into the sky and igniting nearby trees.

The plane and its passengers were, essentially, atomized on impact. Very small fragments of human anatomy were found all over the site, the largest bit being about 8 inches of somebody's spine.

No blood was evident.

Amazingly, authorities claim that MOST of the plane was recovered, albeit in a million pieces, except for a couple of larger fragments and a landing gear.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/30/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Gotta love it! Let's collect all that evidence, throw it randomly into a dumpster, take a low resolution photo of it and ship it off to the nearest garbage dump. They don't need Government air crash investigators for this job, they need sanitation workers.

And never mind that the nearest business to the site is a metal scrap yard. Love those coincidences!

Doc Velocity,

Just want to make sure, are you a truther or skeptic?

Sincerely

Again skeptics,

Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Originally posted by ATH911
Doc Velocity, Just want to make sure, are you a truther or skeptic?

Well, I do not think Flight 93 was shot down. That's an absurd conjecture.

I've been writing on Flight 93 for years now, basing what I say on witness accounts and official documents. Right now I'm writing from memory, but I base everything I say on documented facts, not on assumptions and certainly not on conspiracy theory.

So, you can call me a rational observer.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ATH911
Again skeptics, Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Again, authorities say most of UA93 was recovered, and 2/3 of the obliterated wreckage was underground.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Again, authorities say most of UA93 was recovered, and 2/3 of the obliterated wreckage was underground.

Is that what you believed happened?

Originally posted by ATH911
Is that what you believed happened?

Judging from the various witness accounts, which described the descent and impact of UA93, and knowing what I know about the dynamics of demolition, yes, I do think that UA93 plunged straight into an area of loose earth, exploded on impact, embedding most of its shattered wreckage below ground and scattering a good portion of it, like confetti, over the surrounding area.

The information provided backs up the conclusion.

It was not a "staged" crash site, there was no gruesome conspiracy to scatter dead body parts all over the site (as I've seen some "truthers" suggest). The data supports the conclusion that UA93 snuffed it right there in Shanksville.

— Doc Velocity

I mean... What is the alternate conclusion?

That UA93 was escorted to a super-secret holding compound, where the passengers were imprisoned (along with the passengers of AA77), while these preposterous missile attacks took place in Washington, while a bunch of demolitions experts somehow miraculously rigged and detonated the WTC with military-grade explosives?

C'mon, people. Occam's Razor, okay?

Muslim nutcases train for 5 years to fly planes into American landmarks. Yep, that's the most likely scenario. Everything else is pure hysterical fantasy.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/31/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Why were the plane 'wing scars' visible in pre 2001 landstat sat photos? If so then where is the wing scar then? Why only a crater?

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Why were the plane 'wing scars' visible in pre 2001 landstat sat photos? If so then where is the wing scar then? Why only a crater?

Are you saying that later photos don't show wing scars? Is the implication that somebody is tampering with photos?

I doubt it.

In this crazy-ass Communications Age, you are liable to see forty different perspectives on a given event when, in reality, there was only one observer and one camera on the ground, okay. People take a seed of fact and build fantasies around them.

Perhaps the thrill of cranking out bullshît causes some people to achieve orgasm.
I don't know.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 12/30/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by ATH911



I have to say, I have been a first responder to 3 small plane crashes. There is always wreckage. I had a plane crash in the ocean and what we couldn't recover washed up on shore for a month after. I completely agree, something fishy is going on here..

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I mean... What is the alternate conclusion?

That UA93 was escorted to a super-secret holding compound, where the passengers were imprisoned (along with the passengers of Flight 77), while these preposterous missile attacks took place in Washington, while a bunch of demolitions experts somehow miraculously rigged and detonated the WTC with military-grade explosives?

You forgot the bit where the passengers were all killed, their bodies dismembered, burnt, smashed up then carefully scattered around the crash sites

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Why were the plane 'wing scars' visible in pre 2001 landstat sat photos?

Please show us these photo's...

If so then where is the wing scar then? Why only a crater?

perhaps the recovery procedure covered them up

this post brings up some great point on both sides, i have never seen some of these pictures. THANKS!!

[edit on 30-12-2009 by lookingup4it]