Wally Miller on UA93: wingtip hit, 757 cartwheeled, cockpit broke off, rest buried

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by ATH911

 

So, Mr. Miller did the work for the FBI, NTSB, and UA investigating the crash?

No. Go back and read the 3 words he says before saying what he said. It will clue you in to where he got this story from.

Have you contacted anyone from the FBI for the official story?

I keep getting voicemails with no return calls. Maybe you can have better luck than I.

Where in FDR data does it show the plane cartwheeling?
When did UA say their aircraft cartwheeled?

Go back and look how Miller explains it. He motions not a full or multiple cartwheels, but went into a cartwheel motion.

When, ATH, will you be coming back to the Flight 93 Phone call thread... you were pretty much schooled in there.

Well if I was getting schooled in that thread, then there's no reason for me to come back, right?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by ATH911

 

So, Mr. Miller did the work for the FBI, NTSB, and UA investigating the crash?

No. Go back and read the 3 words he says before saying what he said. It will clue you in to where he got this story from.

"The explanation was" Those three words? WHO explained that to him?

I keep getting voicemails with no return calls. Maybe you can have better luck than I.

Voicemail? Really? Who are the agents you left voicemails with? Have you e-mailed anyone? Please post any of them here.

Go back and look how Miller explains it. He motions not a full or multiple cartwheels, but went into a cartwheel motion.

No, you go back and tell me WHO told Miller this.

Well if I was getting schooled in that thread, then there's no reason for me to come back, right?

RIGHT! This is your best point EVER at ATS. You finally admit that the phone calls were real and you have no evidence to show otherwise.

reply to post by Six Sigma

FORENSICS 101

Matey, you just got your metaphorical @ss kicked, I love your rhetoric and lack of evidence. As they say "turn the other cheek" so we can slap that as well.

For every action there is a reaction including a transition point. in this case the transition point was the ground.

I call you out as a PsiOps DisInfo agent. You said the flight recorders were recovered, provide evidence of what was recorded. You only evidence so far is to "shoot down" LOL others comments with no comeback. But the FIO won't let you know that either so use your brain instead. We all look at facts, no comments. Please reseach forensics, physics and basic logic.

EG; it the Space shuttle can blow up on re-entry at 26,000mph but still we find a helmet lying within the debri field then surely we can find more than atomised particles using the same manufacturing processes and materials at an exponentially slower speed.

I applaud your lack of knowledge of physics, but then again you are american, the land of fast food and low IQ's. Must be the high flouride intake. How about you provide some forensic knowledge instead please, put that information up on the board and be prepared to debate instead of insideous comments.

I however think that you won't be able to, the front of the plane does not disintegrate when it hits trees into a million pieces.because of ONE fact;

Show us the trees that were hit and therefore burnt at the point of impact, there should have been photos of aluminium and glass embedded in the tree debri plus flesh fromthe pilots. Also that there should have been a fireball trail of the fuel at the impact point LOL that were indicate a spray pattern and speed.

Happy Hunting

HADES

Originally posted by Six Sigma

"The explanation was" Those three words? WHO explained that to him?

Um, who do you think?

Voicemail? Really? Who are the agents you left voicemails with? Have you e-mailed anyone? Please post any of them here.

I don't remember their names. Yes, but never received any emails back. Perhaps you can have better luck than I did. Let us know how successful you are.

You finally admit that the phone calls were real and you have no evidence to show otherwise.

Um, no. But as I said earlier, I don't care. Doesn't prove/disprove a crash/non-crash either way.

reply to post by maxwellsdemon

I call you out as a PsiOps DisInfo agent.

No, no. 6S is a Political Operations - Misinformation Specialist. Shows you how much you know.

Well, back to my Big Mac and comic books. Better get ready, though. Sure you'll be here any minute to start up that new investigation.

The hole in shanksville said to have been caused by a boeing 757 has been measured to be too small to have been caused by said craft.

If any of you debunkers care to show sources and proof as to how big and deep that crater was, we would like to hear it.

Wally miller, Coroner, on scene said the hole was no deeper than 15 feet and no bigger than 30 feet round.. The scars on the side of the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 as you are aware of. So now your left with a almost round little 30 ft crater 15 feet deep.

So therefore the crater in Shanskville was not created by a Boeing 757 on September 11 2001.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Going by the description given by Miller in the OP it seems to me large enough. If it crashed with the wings vertical - as he suggests - you are not likely to see their imprints sidelong to the impact crater.

In some photos you can see a large section of trees damaged by the 1/3 that he says sheared off and flew into the wooded area. This all seems to fit.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

So therefore the crater in Shanskville was not created by a Boeing 757 on September 11 2001.

I take it you have some sort calculations to prove this point? We're not talking about opinions here, this is something that is calculable.

By the way, ever find that quote wherein I stated that the plane shrank?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

If any of you debunkers care to show sources and proof as to how big and deep that crater was, we would like to hear it.

If you have no confirmed information as to the size how can you post the first sentence?

The hole in shanksville said to have been caused by a boeing 757 has been measured to be too small to have been caused by said craft.

And

The scars on the side of the crater was not caused by a Boeing 757 as you are aware of.

Do you have confirmed proof of this or is it speculation from someone who was not there?

reply to post by hooper

Ho Hum, Forensics 101

Probably true it political disinfo, he is usually so quick with the comeback, but if the cockpit had sheared off and bounced into the trees, the is a debri trail of fire, burnt forest, and physical evidence that should be able to be shown as part of the investigation,and flesh for DNA analysis to confirm that the pilots weren't just "roboticised drones LOL", but the pictures don't show these either, must be like that amazing PentaLawn that doesn't catch fire either LMAO.

I would love to seem him come back with photos of the debri field with all the burnt trees and embedded plane particles.

Or any forensic comeback with logical arguments and photos to prove his illogical points.

I love a good debate, but when the weak get going, they walk away from the truth. Must be the flouride and polysacharides in the Cheese & Mac & soda he had for lunch. No offence, but shameful the way they dumb the US with poisons in food and of the mind by the PTB's.

Happy Hunting

HADES

Originally posted by maxwellsdemon


I would love to seem him come back with photos of the debri field with all the burnt trees and embedded plane particles.

There may be images of wreckage embedded in the trees. There may not be. but just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean an awful lot.

The image above conclusively shows damage to the trees. It doesn't really fit with your notions of a faked crash site.

reply to post by maxwellsdemon


So I take then that you are one of those brilliant investigators that considers Google Images to be the final and only test of reality? Good luck with that.

By the way, prefixing an insult with the phrase "no offence" does not eliminate the offence. Offense taken

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Going by the description given by Miller in the OP it seems to me large enough. If it crashed with the wings vertical - as he suggests - you are not likely to see their imprints sidelong to the impact crater.

Ok Confirmed, The scars on either side of the small crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. All that is left is a 10-15 foot deep 30 feet wide crater which is too small to have been caused by a 124 feet wide, fully fueled commercial passenger aircraft. Especially if it is coming down at less than a 50 degree angle at over 400mph.

Do you SamKent/Hooper thing that you are swaying anyone with your lack of knowledge, evidence, sources and common sense?

The crater in Shanskville was NOT caused by a Boeing 757/Flight93 on September 11th, 2001. One of the last people to see what caused the crater crash said it was "No bigger that her van". Which would explain the small 10 foot by 30 foot wide crater.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder




Ok Confirmed, The scars on either side of the small crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. All that is left is a 10-15 foot deep 30 feet wide crater which is too small to have been caused by a 124 feet wide, fully fueled commercial passenger aircraft. Especially if it is coming down at less than a 50 degree angle at over 400mph.

You understand that something can present a smaller profile than its maximum width? Which is exactly what Wally Miller suggests.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder




Ok Confirmed, The scars on either side of the small crater was not caused by a Boeing 757. All that is left is a 10-15 foot deep 30 feet wide crater which is too small to have been caused by a 124 feet wide, fully fueled commercial passenger aircraft. Especially if it is coming down at less than a 50 degree angle at over 400mph.

You understand that something can present a smaller profile than its maximum width?

Exactly, you understand now how silly it is for you two to come here daily and try to convince people otherwise?

For example, you say the small 30 foot wide crater was caused boeing 757 nose diving at -50 degree, inverted at high speed yet the boeing width is over 120 feet unless you want to get into some inexplainable hocus pocus science the you invented the crater could not have been caused by Flight 93 a Boeing 757.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I think you're confused.

Imagine an object 100 feet wide and ten feet high. Say it strikes a surface while travelling "flat" then yes, it will create an impression a hundred feet wide.

Now imagine it moving at an oblique angle. Surely you can see that the mark it makes will be reduced?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Imagine an object 100 feet wide and ten feet high. Say it strikes a surface while travelling "flat" then yes, it will create an impression a hundred feet wide.

Now imagine it moving at an oblique angle. Surely you can see that the mark it makes will be reduced?

Of course you can 'reduce' the imprint it would make but not at the magnitude needed to have caused such a small crater in Shanksville Penn. on 911. A Boeing 757 is over 44 feet tall, 124 ft wide and over 140 feet long and the crater is only 10 feet deep and no more than 35 feet wide but it is in a 'V' shape.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

the crater is only 10 feet deep and no more than 35 feet wide

Wow, on this page alone you've described the crater as 10 to 15 feet deep, 15 feet deep, 10 feet deep, 30 feet wide, 35 feet wide and 30 feet around. So, basically, you don't have a clue about:
a) The actual dimensions of the crater
b) The physics that would demand a certain size crater for a given impact and impactor.

You think your kidding someone with this nonsense?

Ever find that quote where I stated that the plane shrank?

reply to post by hooper


So where is the coroners photos of the tree with the embedded plane/flesh particles, I don't use Google earth like you say, I use Forensics 101 & logic.

Terrible picture by the way.

The coroner would have had microscpic analysis, photos of the impact points for each piece of material to be submitted to the NTSB, also there would have been many points of reference to indicate the speed, angle of debri travel from point on impact in a similar manner as a homicide investigation (as it was??) to calculate speed of impact and trace of evidence.

I notice from the crappy photo that if the debri field as you have shown it is missing some very important evidence;

There is none, where's the photo of plane particles? It looks more like a fireball/above ground detonation of a small device and as you say at 50 degrees the tail would have sheared off and continued in the line of travel and bounced through the trees.

SLAM DUNK

Happy Hunting

HADES

reply to post by maxwellsdemon

So where is the coroners photos of the tree with the embedded plane/flesh particles, I don't use Google earth like you say, I use Forensics 101 & logic.

The coroner's photos - if there are any - are probably with the County Coroner's Office. Just show cause why they should be released to you.

The coroner would have had microscpic analysis, photos of the impact points for each piece of material to be submitted to the NTSB, also there would have been many points of reference to indicate the speed, angle of debri travel from point on impact in a similar manner as a homicide investigation (as it was??) to calculate speed of impact and trace of evidence.

Wow. Where do you get this crap? The NTSB? Angle of impact? Really? It was a plane crash. Unless you have some proof otherwise. Everyone on board died BECAUSE THEY WERE IN A PLANE CRASH.

I notice from the crappy photo that if the debri field as you have shown it is missing some very important evidence;

Huh?

There is none, where's the photo of plane particles? It looks more like a fireball/above ground detonation of a small device and as you say at 50 degrees the tail would have sheared off and continued in the line of travel and bounced through the trees.

Now you're just randomly combining words.