Archive of reports inferring most of UA93 was buried

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


EDIT....double post....GRRRR!

( Darn hotel computers.... )


[edit on 8 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


Phil.....you post a lot of opinions, and granted, you ARE in the minority holding those opinions....especially the "United 93 landed in Cleveland" opinion. It has been shown repeatedly to be based on distortions, and misunderstandings of the early confusion surrounding that day.

However, when you get facts wrong, I gotta feel for ya, at least a little:

Seth Macfarlane, maker of family guy and "Marky Mark" Wahlburg allegedly missed their flight on 93.

Nope. Seth MacFarlane was in Boston. He tied one on the night before, was hungover, and missed American 11.

Experience with September 11, 2001 attacks

On the morning of September 11, 2001, MacFarlane was scheduled to return to Los Angeles on American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston, Massachusetts. Suffering from a hangover from the previous night's celebrations, and with an incorrect departure time (8:15 a.m. instead of 7:45 a.m.) from his travel agent, he arrived at Logan International Airport sometime around 7:30 and was unable to board the flight as the gates had been closed.

en.wikipedia.org...

I want to ask the obvious, but will try to remain polite, instead...

...because, in deference to you, perhaps it is the sloppy reporting by OTHERS that has misled you:

Mark Wahlberg still dreams about stopping the terrorists who attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, because he should have been on one of the planes that crashed. The actor and some friends were booked on United Airlines flight 93 from his native Boston, Mass., to Los Angeles, which was hijacked by Al-Qaida terrorists.

See the problem? THIS source got it all wrong....lots of confusion about that day, hence 'urban legneds' abound.

But, after confusing flight numbers, and departure point, they go on:

Brave passengers forced the jet to crash into a field in Pennsylvania before it could reach it's intended target, and the thought that he could have been involved still haunts Wahlberg.

www.starpulse.com...

How could they have gotten that so wrong? AND, this story is dated 2006!














[edit on 8 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

My bad, I made a mistake. Get over it. Doesn't change a thing I said. And personally, I think Marky Mark is a liar. You trust what any of these low life celebrities say? I don't. All I ever read about Hollywood celebrities are they are drunken, extreme drug abusing, sexually perverse people who don't know what the word fidelity means, or self control. Marky Marks character itself is questionable, to say the least. The guy from all I have seen is an immoral garden slug.

I have rarely, if ever, seen anything good come from Hollywood, either in film or good character. So, feel free to trust the words of such people. I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with such lowlifes. But some people will do anything to touch the hem of the garment of fame. Poor souls.

Sorry for my mistake. Flight 11.

Cheers-
Phil

We just need to demand that Obama release the facts. But that requires getting the American public to hold the same opinions of 9/11. We'll just go in circles forever trying to nail down exactly what happened.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Cool man. you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want to based on the facts as I see them. You are correct in one thing though, there is an awful lot of confusion about the Cleveland Airport on 9/11.

Not only did Flight 93 land there AFTER BEING BOARDED TWICE IN NEWARK, but Delta 1989 also landed there and I believe it was carrying the 2 groups of passengers from flight 11 & 175 from Boston. I believe the 2 planes which were diverted to Cleveland, 93 & 1989 were carrying the 4 groups of people from the 3 respective airports. Boston, Newark and Dulles.

Feel free to connect the dots the way you would like to, and I will connect them as I see fit. And careful with that weedwacker, sometimes they mow down a whole row of flowers before the operator even knows what happened.

Cheers-
Phil

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


Those are a lot of "beliefs", but unfortunately there is little (actually, zero) evidence to offer any support for those claims of "belief".

There are ample sources I can post, here, to show why there is no valid evidence to what you posted....but, really, this thread is NOT the place.

AND, this thread actually provides the information to refute the "divert to Cleveland" claims, anyway.

Since this thread shows that there is consensus on the finding of debris n Shanksville, of United 93. Main 'argument' of discussion is 'how much' was 'buried' --- and the corollary, "was it shot down?"


Frankly, some very wild 'theories' are perfectly within one's right to suggest, but when presented with evidence to the contrary, most serious investigators will choose to adapt, and learn, from the information in order to grow in their overall understanding.


Perhaps you are stubborn...I am. There are, for instance, certain (seemingly) compelling 'arguments' for a UAL 93 shoot-down in the area around Shanksville....however, one glaring missing key, for me, to the puzzle remains the FDR. I have yet to be convnced, because of the integrity of the airplane's systems, as registered by the FDR, right up until impact.

SO...I am open, IF and WHEN there is undeniable evidence presented. I can change, just so far, when weighing it, the evidence speaks a certain language, to me. (Mixed metaphors...oh, well).


I DO find it troubling, however, when a person's (unsubstantiated, and unproven) "belief" is presented so boisterously, despite overwhelming to contrary evidence, because others who may only be first encountering it, could be distracted, confused and possibly swayed, unnecessarily.....

It continues to trouble me.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Since this thread shows that there is consensus on the finding of debris n Shanksville, of United 93. Main 'argument' of discussion is 'how much' was 'buried'

Which you skeptics are at great odds with each other. Skeptics like you weedwhacker think most of the 757 had buried, but some skeptics like hooper think most was not.

You would agree that you skeptics can't have it both ways, right weedwhacker?

reply to post by ATH911


I am not speaking for hooper.

I actually don't know his/her exact position on that. AND, I really don't see why it matters.

The word "most" is vague enough, isn't it? What does the word "most" conjure up in people's minds? Is it more than half? That certainly fits the definition of 'most'. Even as little as 50.0000009% is still "most", compared to the other 49.9999991%

Is that a silly comparison? YES, because this whole discussion us silly.

What is the difference how much exactly was buried, compared to how much wasn't?


The ONLY reason that a certain individual (or two) even care, at all, is because of ONE off-the-cuff statement, waaaaay back in the early days, early aftermath of September 11th. An FBI agent, when pressed by a reporter, threw out the line of "about 95%" was recovered....it really was a WAG, on his part. It was not any sort of 'official' calculation.

Now, he mentioned the word 'recovered', not 'buried'.

It is completely irrelevant, and an argumentative red-herring (just one of very, very many, in 9/11 discussions) that serves no useful purpose. It adds NOTHING to any debates, whatsoever.

It has no more relevance ,than, say, asking how much of Pan Am 103 was buried, at impact. Or USAir 427. Or United 585. Or, PSA 1771. Pick a crash, any crash.....

The ONLY reason that a certain individual (or two) even care, at all, is because of ONE off-the-cuff statement, waaaaay back in the early days, early aftermath of September 11th. An FBI agent, when pressed by a reporter, threw out the line of "about 95%" was recovered....it really was a WAG, on his part. It was not any sort of 'official' calculation.

In all fairness to OS'ers, Truthers and others, this is true and was spoken out of haste rather than from the standpoint of fact. I have only once (or twice at the most) questioned that "95%" statement in a thread but later discovered why he stated that. In order to get at the truth we ALL need to be realistic instead of trying to find conspiracy in every little aspect.

Is there any proof that would suggest this plane was deliberately crashed here? It seems like this patch of really soft soil was chosen to make it easier to hide the evidence. The white house was never "Flight 93"'s final destination, it was this spot in Pennsylvania.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Seems like it uh? But looking at the flight path after it turned one can easily lay a ruler on that path and it points to DC. Regardless now though, if it crashed the way they stated the debris would either be forward of the crash site or all over it. The lie of the "hole swallowed it up" is an obvious lie designed to cover up what really happened.



The only "evidence" is the recorder played at the ZM trail and it was touchy if it really did prove that the hi jackers crashed in the ground. Digital recordings are very easily manipulated and if we buy the OS along with what it says happened in Shanksville, then we might as well believe this crock as well.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by kiwasabi


There is a great deal of discussion and specualtion about the possible 'target' destination in the DC area....White House is most obvious, in some ways, because of symbolism.

I have a feeling that the Capitol Building wasmore likely, only because IT TOO has a great deal of symbolism, AND it is much larger, and far easier to spot from the air....remember, it also is situated on a hill (that's why it's called Capitol Hill, right??) and, BTW, the very top of the 'lady' on the cupola dome is also the highest point within the District of Columbia, and no building is allowed to be any higher, per tradition.


NO, the area near Shanksville wasn't 'pre-planned'.

I happen to find the evidence from the CVR and FDR compelling enough to say it was intentionally put in, by the terrorist flying. They certainly didn't want the passengers to gain access to the cockpit, for they knew that, given enough time (and there was enough fuel to keep flying for about 5, or more hours still) ... given enough time the non-pilot passengers could have been talked down. The airplane is capable of autolanding, when certain controls in the cockpit are set up properly, in a certain order.

Of course, there is a small contingent of folks who believe the F-16s managed to intercept in time (at about the same time as, unbeknownst to anyone in the military, the passengers were mounting their uprising) and those folks think that it was actually shot down.

Either way (just not to argue that), it ended up there, in Pennsylvania, but not because that was the original intention.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Who says there were hijackers and/or passengers? It was all staged, it was just a big special effect with lots of fake phone calls and stories placed to make it "real".

The recorder played at the trail also recorded the sounds of wind rushing through the aircraft...fact not theory. However no one has been able to explian this and there are only two possible explanations:

1- It was breeched by a training missile as well confirmed that one fighter jet had mounted because it was taking part in a training excersise.

2- There was a bomb that exploded and that was recorded as the case with the phone call from one passenger. It was later refuted but, given all of the other possible scenarios it seems like they covered this up more than anything else.

The recording don't lie, however prople do. No one so far has been able to explian the rushing wind sounds heard on the recorder.

spelling

[edit on 4/9/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee


How do we know the government didn't take away the biggest pieces of the aircraft before pictures were allowed to be taken?

reply to post by mikelee


The recorder with the rushing wind sound was all faked like the rest of the audio heard from the incident. It wouldn't be that hard to fake, just put a big fan up against the microphone.

reply to post by kiwasabi


I do not know that but given the fact that the majority of pics are close up, isolated parts that the ground underneath them shows no signs of damage...

reply to post by kiwasabi


I agree. It wouldn't be hard to fake as I stated above. But thats only true if one believes the "no plane" theorys. Which I don't.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

I agree. It wouldn't be hard to fake as I stated above. But thats only true if one believes the "no plane" theorys. Which I don't.

I believe there were planes, just planes they didn't want us to see close-up...

I do not know that but given the fact that the majority of pics are close up, isolated parts that the ground underneath them shows no signs of damage...

It looks like a disintegrated, although fairly small, aircraft to me.

reply to post by kiwasabi

The recorder with the rushing wind sound was all faked like the rest of the audio heard from the incident. It wouldn't be that hard to fake, just put a big fan up against the microphone.

I'd suggest you do some research into how CVRs work. AND how the sounds, ON the CVR are time-checked. There is a time reference on the tape, as well.

All is designed so that the data from the FDR can be matched to the sounds. This is for 'normal' accident investigations, when the cause is still to be determined.

Forgot to mention, for "kiwasabi"....you can look at NTSB reports of many, many other aviation accidents, to see how detailed they get, when analyzing the CVR and FDR data. This technology has been in use for a long time, and it is an exact science.

I think most laypersons just don't realize this....AND, the labs that analyze these things are independent, and have a great deal of integrity.

~~~~~~~~

"mikelee"....I forget....where is the transcript of UAL 93's CVR that has the sound of wind noise referenced on it?

(Obviously the actual recording is not available to the general public).

Since the true recording will only be heard be selected, necessary people, how credible is this report of "wind noise"?


[edit on 9 April 2010 by weedwhacker]