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

Wait, what??? You have created HOW MANY THREADS talking about the crash scene for flight 93???

And what exactly is the problem with this? Oh, I get it. You prefer that the information about the Shanksville debacle remains buried (like the alleged non existent plane). Is it just me, or are there an awful lot of people using conspiracy sites for damage control purposes? Naaah...I must be imagining things.

Makes perfect sense to join a conspiracy site (even though you don't believe in conspiracies) and reiterate the same mainstream media/Government coverup crap over and over again. Not being too obvious there with our little agenda, are we?

Yeah, it's ten years later, nobody believes your looney conspiracies, but I have to waste my time being on this site everyday refuting every word these crazies say.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Wait, what??? You have created HOW MANY THREADS talking about the crash scene for flight 93???

And what exactly is the problem with this?

I don't have a problem with anyone starting any threads. Ath911 has started close to 30 threads discussing the crash scene and or debris at the crash scene. He has yet to offer ANY evidence of a cover up or that 911 was in inside job.

Oh, I get it.

No, you really don't.

You prefer that the information about the Shanksville debacle remains buried

I have researched the information. I know what happened to Flight 93. Why don't you?

(like the alleged non existent plane).

Smartest thing you said! (re-read what you posted)

Is it just me, or are there an awful lot of people using conspiracy sites for damage control purposes?

It' you.

Naaah...I must be imagining things.

Ah, see I was right!

Makes perfect sense to join a conspiracy site (even though you don't believe in conspiracies) and reiterate the same mainstream media/Government coverup crap over and over again. Not being too obvious there with our little agenda, are we?

I was a truther for a while... about 3 hours. It took the passengers on Flight 93 less than an hour to figure out 9/11. What's taking you so long?

Yeah, it's ten years later, nobody believes your looney conspiracies, but I have to waste my time being on this site everyday refuting every word these crazies say.

I like to debate facts! Something truthers are afraid of.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Ath911 has started close to 30 threads discussing the crash scene and or debris at the crash scene. He has yet to offer ANY evidence of a cover up or that 911 was in inside job.

Are you blind, or just a big fat liar? ALL my threads offer evidence of an inside job.

Btw, who do you think told Wally that explanation of the crash details he mentioned?

.

reply to post by ATH911

ALL my threads offer evidence of an inside job.

Btw, who do you think told Wally that explanation of the crash details he mentioned?

Huh? Really? Where exactly have you ever offered direct evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

Simply repeating your statements of incredulity does not evidence any theory.

Give us a theory or a narrative and a fact that directly supports that theory. That is the definition of evidence.

Originally posted by ATH911

Are you blind,

20/20 vision actually.

or just a big fat liar?

Aww sweet. ATH911... if I ask if you ever posted on this site under a different name that rhymes with ChillClown, would you answer me honestly?

ALL my threads offer evidence of an inside job.

Really? Then why are you here? Go get a Pulitzer! You will be a hero, the next deep throat! What are you waiting for?

Btw, who do you think told Wally that explanation of the crash details he mentioned?

I would be only guessing. Was it the NTSB? United Airlines? If you know for certain, please post the proof you have here!

Thanks :-)

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Really? Then why are you here?

Why are you here?

I would be only guessing. Was it the NTSB? United Airlines? If you know for certain, please post the proof you have here!

You wouldn't guess the FBI, the people who were in charge of the scene and Wally was working for there? Btw, if it came from the NTSB, that would be considered the "official story."

Originally posted by ATH911

Why are you here?

Answering questions with a question? I'm here for a healthy discussion and to assist those that may still be "on the fence" or to persuade younger truth seekers to look at the facts and not to waste time on wack job sites like Killtowns Blogspot ... or Judy Woods, etc.

You wouldn't guess the FBI, the people who were in charge of the scene and Wally was working for there? Btw, if it came from the NTSB, that would be considered the "official story."

See what guessing leads to? Why don't you have Dom come on here and post with evidence where Wally got his info. As of now, it is just hearsay.

Originally posted by Rocky Black
reply to post by hooper

 

Hey smart guy look at the video look at the hole in the ground. Do I really need to go on.

The plane was shot down one shot when the missle hit the craft broke apart and fell like a rock not cart wheeling fell like a rock.

Look at the hole.

I know it was shot down period no matter what you say I will never be swayed from the facts.

So if it was a shoot down, how do you know it was flight 93? because the govmint and media told you?

reply to post by truthseekr1111


I dont know what was shot down. I know a plane was shot down that is all. That is what down in penn

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I don't have a problem with anyone starting any threads. Ath911 has started close to 30 threads discussing the crash scene and or debris at the crash scene. He has yet to offer ANY evidence of a cover up or that 911 was in inside job.

and only a LIAR or someone attempting to be disingenuous would claim there's "no" evidence.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I have researched the information. I know what happened to Flight 93. Why don't you?

then please post a source detailing facts about what happened to flight 93 that differ or are more detailed than what wally says.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I was a truther for a while... about 3 hours.

well that explains why you're clueless about 9/11 and appear to be in such denial.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It took the passengers on Flight 93 less than an hour to figure out 9/11. What's taking you so long?

how does that make any sense or have any relevance to anything? are you drunk?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I like to debate facts! Something truthers are afraid of.

so in other words, you're saying wally was lying when he said he was relaying the story he was told by the FBI?

I'm curious what your definition of facts are and what source you claim is factual about what happened in shanksville.

im sure many will be waiting to hear your factually-based response.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

....so in other words, you're saying wally was lying when he said he was relaying the story he was told by the FBI?

Just an observation, there are many different reasons why someone may be saying something that is not true. Lying is just one of them, however, its the first alternative most conspiracist consider.

Just an observation.

I find it interesting none of the skeptics here answered or even addressed these two posts below.

Bump for skeptics... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and won't call it an evasion or dodge quite yet.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
So the ground was hard enough to cause the front third of the plane to snap off and bounce into the woods, but soft enough to allow the majority of the plane to bury itself into the ground. You can't make this stuff up...or could you?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911

 

How about a seat belt?

Look how beat up and weathered that one half of a seat belt looks.

Now look at the following that was supposedly on the plane too:

They should make those seat belts out of that bandana material!

Btw, if there were 200 seats on the plane, there would be a total of 400 left and right seatbelt belts. You showed a photo of one. Shouldn't be too hard to show me another of the 399.

I have always been intrigued by what is said of this particular crash.


At the time it occurred, I was awoken by a phone call. I think it was around 1:00 AM Australian time. My budy told me to wake up, get out of bed and switch on the TV.

This I did.

I watched live coverage on Australian TV where the journo was interviewing people who witnessed that crash. What always ticks in my mind was the live interviews of people describing the plane as "tumbling". I recall one vividly. He was wearing a baseball cap, had an un-shaved face and recall him having a missing tooth on his upper jaw. In the interview...( live satellite feed ) he pointed in the direction where the plane came down and described 3 separate parts of the plane tumbling. Obviously, if his version of events were true, this means the plane was already in pieces before it hit the earth.

Since then, I have never seen that footage anywhere. A couple of my buddies also recall watching the same live TV as I just described. None of us has seen that live feed anywhere else since.

In our day light hours, I recall the US president pointing at the camera (reminiscent of Bill Clinton) and said... "We did not shoot down that plane". Interesting thing was that allegation of US Air Force shooting it down did not come til days later.

One of my towns locals said... "why would any human go on a campaign to deny what they have never been accused of , unless they had done it?"

For me personally, I don't know, don't care, but can not avoid what I heard and saw.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

I find it interesting none of the skeptics here answered or even addressed these two posts below.

You find it interesting that no one wants to repeat themselves 10000 times? Seems rather normal to me.

Bump for skeptics... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and won't call it an evasion or dodge quite yet.

God bless you for your infinite patience. I shiver to think that someone would think I am shirking my duty by not responding promptly to the same question over and over and over again.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
So the ground was hard enough to cause the front third of the plane to snap off and bounce into the woods, but soft enough to allow the majority of the plane to bury itself into the ground. You can't make this stuff up...or could you?

Well, don't know about the front third of plane thing - that comes from a video made by a couple of amateur truthers that were "interviewing" the county coroner who in turn was actually relaying what he was told by someone else. Be that as it may, I don't understand what the problem is here. Maybe a basic understanding of how things work on our planet? So is there only one rule for all plane crashes - they either must embed or break apart, they can't do both?

Look how beat up and weathered that one half of a seat belt looks.

Weathered? I don't think it looks like that because its been sitting out in the rain for a couple of months, do you? I think it may look like that because it was in a plane crash.

Now look at the following that was supposedly on the plane too:
They should make those seat belts out of that bandana material!

Ha, ha, ha, he is soooooo clever. Please advise what rule was violated, I don't understand. Is everything in a plane crash required to be affected the same?

Btw, if there were 200 seats on the plane, there would be a total of 400 left and right seatbelt belts. You showed a photo of one. Shouldn't be too hard to show me another of the 399.

So, your "evidence" that 9/11 was "inside job" is that they didn't photograph every seatbelt at the crash site and post those photos on the internet.

Originally posted by truthseekr1111


and only a LIAR or someone attempting to be disingenuous would claim there's "no" evidence.

Hmmm...have you compared the so called "evidence" loons like killtown presents against the documents presented in the Zacharia Moussaoui tiral, the FDR, the CVR, the phone calls, the witnesses. etc?

then please post a source detailing facts about what happened to flight 93 that differ or are more detailed than what wally says.

I have posted the FDR and witness statements COUNTLESS times. Do your OWN research, truther and show me what you have learned from the ATC, FDR, CVR....etc.

well that explains why you're clueless about 9/11 and appear to be in such denial.

ANYTIME you would like to go to the debate forum, sir. I would love to discuss Flight 93 in a moderated setting with you.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It took the passengers on Flight 93 less than an hour to figure out 9/11. What's taking you so long?

[by you]
how does that make any sense or have any relevance to anything? are you drunk?

Exactly what I expected, truther. Pay attention:

1. plane was hijacked
2. passengers made phone calls to loved ones.
3. loved ones informed them of their probable fate.
4. passengers figured out that they were next and were going to be part of a missile to destroy something.
5. passengers attempted to take over the plane
6. plane crashed in an abandoned strip mine

The passengers figured out what was going on in America soon after they were hijacked. Here we are almost a decade later and you are still "asking questions" ... and "avoiding the answers!"

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I like to debate facts! Something truthers are afraid of.

so in other words, you're saying wally was lying when he said he was relaying the story he was told by the FBI?

No, i asked where he got the information from.

I'm curious what your definition of facts are and what source you claim is factual about what happened in shanksville.

It's a collection of ALL the evidence and draw a conclusion from what you have. NOT cherry pick bits a pieces to mold a more sinister plot.

im sure many will be waiting to hear your factually-based response.

I'm honored

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I'm here for a healthy discussion

See what guessing leads to? Why don't you have Dom come on here and post with evidence where Wally got his info. As of now, it is just hearsay.

Videotapping an official, who worked at the site, is "hearsay"???

Dom told me that "the explanation was" that Miller said meant it was from the FBI, who were in CHARGE of the scene. I'm satisfied with that. If you're not, call Miller and verify, since you are so into people calling officials and you seem to have all their numbers. So what do you say, why don't you call Miller and see who the explanation came from?

Originally posted by ATH911
Videotapping an official, who worked at the site, is "hearsay"???

It depends on where they got their information. Do you know?

Dom told me that "the explanation was" that Miller said meant it was from the FBI, who were in CHARGE of the scene. I'm satisfied with that. If you're not, call Miller and verify, since you are so into people calling officials and you seem to have all their numbers. So what do you say, why don't you call Miller and see who the explanation came from?

This is a perfect example of hearsay. You(ATH911) are posting what you are told by someone(DOM) who was told by someone else (MILLER) who was told by someone else. (FBI?)

Just for the heck of it;

What was the date the FBI completed their investigation?

What were they investigating?

What was the date when the FDR data was completed?

Thank you.

Originally posted by hooper
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.

i find that comment quite odd imho...sarcasm or not,, since your presence here has been anything but objective and nothing but towing the OS line without ever questioning it. If you're an agent, at least don't make it so obvious.

reply to post by NTresident


Your story sounds like a plane that was shot down. This would explain why heavy parts of the plane were found 6 miles away. If you believe the official story you are illogical or a disinfo agent.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by NTresident

 

Your story sounds like a plane that was shot down. This would explain why heavy parts of the plane were found 6 miles away. If you believe the official story you are illogical or a disinfo agent.

Friend, the shoot down theory is a ruse just like the official story that a plane crashed.

If a plane was shot down, debris would have landed before where the bulk of the plane crashed. In the case of Shanksville, all that debris landed past the crater. Only way that could fit a shoot down is if the plane came from the other direction.

The "Flight 93" plane in the area just flew past the field and over the lake, where it was witnessed by multiple people. The white UAV aircraft circled the area before and after the "crash," then flew off.