16th anniversary of the biggest conspiracy to date

Like flies on s***.

Lapdogs will get put down sooner rather then later by their masters...hope it's worth it.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


And I saw Miller's comments to the cameras as he walked out of that field. Neither did he see anything consistent with a wrecked airliner. No passengers, no airplane, no landing gear, no engines, nothing.

I cannot find the claimed comments made in the field by Miller caught on a TV broadcast?


Here is a video putting in context what he said to a New York Times Reporter.

9/11 Flight 93 Shanksville : Wally Miller & Human Remains
m.youtube.com...

Don't like the article because it takes many quotes out of context, but it doesn't present any comments Miller made on camera in the field.

Shoestring 9/11
Investigating 9/11 and Other Acts of the Secret State.
shoestring911.blogspot.com...

Sooooo,

One, cannot find a record of quotes on what Miller said during an infield broadcast interview.

Two, cannot even verify miller made an appearance on camera while in the field at Shanksville. Much less comments caught on video while in the field.

Three, linked to a video where Miller tells how a comment he made to New York Times reporter was taken out of context. Newspaper, not camera crew?

Four, you have never produced a quote where Miller said there was no human remains.

Five, you have never produced a quote where miller claims there was no crashed jet at shanksville.

Six, you did not give a time frame after the crash of flight 93 when all those supposed areal broadcasts took place. Especially in the context around 10am on 9/11 the call went out to ground civilian aircraft until 9/13.

Seven, I cannot find references to inflight broadcasts where it was said there was no wreckage.

a reply to: Salander

I did find this...

U.S. News
Wallace Miller: Somerset County Coroner
Wednesday, September 11, 2002

Miller said he doesn't have much of a taste for the celebrity thrust on him after the crash, when he sat shoulder-to-shoulder before television cameras with other investigators.

Found this too?

TLC - Coroner describes Flight 93 crashsite
Nevermind 4,521 views
m.youtube.com...

But not the comments you refere too

a reply to: neutronflux


I cannot find the broadcasts of Miller making the comments you claim? Cannot find a broadcast of Miller being videotaped while making comments walking in a field on the crash site?

a reply to: Salander

Your premise for Miller?

He made on TV comments that claim no jet and no bodies while walking out of a field at shanksville. Then later changed his story.

However, you cannot link to the broadcast or a transcript of the broadcast? And you have never produced a quote from miller where he said no crashed flight 93? Or no human remains?

My research has Miller saying the comments he made which are taken out of context were to a New York Times Reporter. The comments about the wreckage being dumped. I could not find truth movement material that cite the on field comments supposedly made. Could not find the broadcast of miller making comments walking out of the field. And all the on crash site tv comments I have found by Miller was on the difficulty of recovering human remains of 44 individuals spread in a debris field over a hundred acres plus? And the jet was broken into small pieces of wreckage.

Your narrative that Miller said there was no bodies as in no human remainsis, and no jet as in no wreckage, is false.

Unless you can link to the actual TV comments or transcript?

a reply to: neutronflux


If you snooze NF, you lose. Maybe you were away from the TV that fateful day? I was not.

And in the meantime, perhaps unbeknownst to you, certain information has been taken down from the internet, including many of Kurt Sonnenfeld's FEMA photos. They were there, but you missed them.

Also taken down, probably 6 or 7 years ago, was the footage taken from the news helicopters at Shanksville. It was there for review for a number of years, and then it was gone. So it goes, the victors in a conflict get to write the history and show what pictures they like.

a reply to: Salander

Sorry, your premise is false. There is no record of the statements you are referring to by miller in a filed.

The is no reference by truth movement sources that miller denied the wreckage and remains while at the shanksville crash site.

Miller has never taken a stance there was no wreckage, no human remains, no crashed flight 93.

The truth movement items I have found that state miller change his stance are based on quotes out of context, and from interviews after Shanksville. The material never referenced statesments by miller made in the field.

You have been caught pushing a false narrative unless you can prove otherwise.

My theory? People got burnt by a truth movement website that falsely stated miller made comments about no jet while standing at the shanksville crash site. That website was shamed into closing shop.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


If you snooze NF, you lose. Maybe you were away from the TV that fateful day? I was not.

I don't like sharing my personal life with delusional useful idiots that enable the con of the truth movement, but......

Hard to sit around the TV when 9/11 caused increased watches and security.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Also taken down, probably 6 or 7 years ago, was the footage taken from the news helicopters at Shanksville. It was there for review for a number of years, and then it was gone. So it goes, the victors in a conflict get to write the history and show what pictures they like.

I did not ask for excuses. I asked for the time frame of the broadcasts in relation to the call to ground all civilian aircraft before 10am on 9/11 that lasted until 9/13.

Then the shanksville areal photos and footage I have seen, vechiles and people at the site are not very clear, or recognizable. So, how was phone book sized wreckage going to be clearly visible?

You have been caught in falsehood after falsehood, unless you can produce some credible explanations.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Honest research

Wally Miller?

What about these guys?

Honest research Proves you wrong.

Again

www.post-gazette.com... rsion=pgevoke

After United Flight 93 went down in a field in Stonycreek, Pa., on Sept. 11, 2001, arborist Mark Trautman spent four days high up in the surrounding hemlock trees, picking human remains and airplane debris out of the branches.

www.post-gazette.com...

Michael Shepley, then 22, not only watched and smelled the catastrophe, he felt the heat from the conflagration and saw debris flying through the air.

That's just the first two links in a rather simple search.

Your claim that fl93 didn't crash there cuz there wasn't any debris is 100% proven to be delusional.

Yeah sure, UA 93 both buried itself in the ground so it could not be photographed, AND it exploded in such a manner that human remains in tiny pieces were left in the trees that were not impacted by the crash. LOL

Rather like at WTC, where no black boxes for the airplanes could be found, but NYPD's Bernie Kerick found in pristine condition on the sidewalk the personal paper's of the HNIC Hijacker Atta.

Comical.

a reply to: Salander

Sad you cannot come to grips with what happens to an aircraft that noses at high speed into the earth.

Sad you laugh and are amused by the total devastation. Sad you find it comical the crash was so devastating it sprayed human remains into the surrounding vegitation.

It's been explained to you in multiple threads what happens during a high speed crash. Examples provided for you in multiple threads.
NEW AMAZING VIDEO OF RENO PLAN CRASH ** CLOSE VIEW **
m.youtube.com...

Do you see a recognizable P-51 after the crash.

If one could launch a one pound dart made of aluminum
and kerosene at a 50,000 lb steel cored tower
wrapped in concrete marble and unimaginably thick
glass and then as the piece de resistance
make it crumble to the ground ?

I'd buy the Official Story.

a reply to: Salander

Trying to change the subject I see.

Back to your false narrative concerning Miller.

I have linked to news reports from shanksville that showed the charded trees. Linked to news clips that showed people walking among small pieces of debris in the crater. Linked to Miller talking about the difficulty of finding human remains spread over a hundred acres.

The truth movement uses quotes miller made in interviews after shanksville. Quotes taken out of context. Miller never claimed no crashed flight 93. Miller never claimed no human remains. Miller never claimed no victims.

You claim miller said to the effect no crashed jet to TV cameras while walking out of the field at the crash cite during the shanksville recovery? A statement so damning that you cannot reproduce evidence of that statement? A statement so damning, it is not used or cited by articles on miller from the truth movement?

And it gets worse for your case. You cannot produce a link to your supposed claims, a transcript, and not even state who broadcasted the statement.

Worse yet, Miller on a video interview states the original statements taken out of context where given to a newspaper reporter. And not statements on no wreckage. Statements around the crash was so devastating, it looked like wreckage was dumped.


Until you can produce the video, cite from a source, or the transcript that shows miller walked out of a field and reported to the cameras no wreckage during the shanksville recovery, your narrative concerning miller is discredited.

a reply to: Salander

Why do spend so much time changing the subject, when you could spend the time researching, linking, and citing sources to back your claims?

originally posted by: Salander
Yeah sure, UA 93 both buried itself in the ground so it could not be photographed, AND it exploded in such a manner that human remains in tiny pieces were left in the trees that were not impacted by the crash. LOL
.

Why do you discount an eyewitness to the crash?

Why do you discount testimony of plane parts and body parts?

a reply to: MrBig2430


Because the stories some "witnesses" tell are impossible.

Using 93 as an example, one of your witnesses says the plane was going straight down and vanished inside the earth, rendering it impossible for Miller and the cameras to see it.

Yet another of your witnesses claim that he was picking human remains from the trees.

So that means your story wants to have it both ways: the airplane penetrated the earth obscuring large engines and landing gear, yet at the same time splattered somehow as to create splattered human remains and plant them in the branches of trees, leaving the trees intact and whole when viewed from above as the cameras overhead did.

Do you see the impossibility of your story, or are you just that desperate?

a reply to: Salander

So that means your story wants to have it both ways: the airplane penetrated the earth obscuring large engines and landing gear, yet at the same time splattered somehow as to create splattered human remains and plant them in the branches of trees, leaving the trees intact and whole when viewed from above as the cameras overhead did.

You seem to have a problem with real world crash physics.
The Reno p51 crash shows plane and likely body parts flying back into the air after impact.
If there were trees by the stands I am confident there would have been parts in them.

a reply to: samkent


This was not Reno, Sam, and it wasn't a P-51.

Indeed, it wasn't even a 757, LOL

They've been flogging these stories for so long it's become downright comical.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Because the stories some "witnesses" tell are impossible.

Using 93 as an example, one of your witnesses says the plane was going straight down and vanished inside the earth, rendering it impossible for Miller and the cameras to see it.

You lie.

He never said that it went wholely into the ground, making it impossible for Miller to see anything. He said that he saw it go into the ground AND debris go flying.

Yet another of your witnesses claim that he was picking human remains from the trees.

Yes.

And since it's proven that you are lying about the eyewitness statement regarding him seeing debris flying, which would include body parts, HIS statement is also proven true.

So that means your story wants to have it both ways:

It's not MY story, bro.

It's theirs.

I'm merely pointing out to others that you are obviously poorly informed and have reached a conclusion based on poor information.

And that when faced with conclusive proof that you are wrong, that you dig in your heels, choosing to remain ignorant.

the airplane penetrated the earth obscuring large engines and landing gear, yet at the same time splattered somehow as to create splattered human remains and plant them in the branches of trees,

Yes, that's what their combined testimony proves.

leaving the trees intact and whole when viewed from above as the cameras overhead did.

I see a lot of burned trees. I wouldn't call them whole nor intact.

Do you see the impossibility of your story, or are you just that desperate?

Your false dichotomy characterization Indeed presents an impossible story. In your desperate bid to avoid admitting you're wrong about no plane in Shanksville, you have to concoct a lie about what the eyewitness said, irregardless that others can go to that link and also see for themselves that you're lying.

But once one corrects your lie about what the eyewitness said it all gels together, and the rational ones can now write you off as not a serious researcher on the events of 9/11.