My new idea on Shanksville

a reply to: ARM1968

The plane crashed inverted at about a 40 deg angle

The forward 1/3 broke off and continued into the woods scattering debris The larger pieces of debris including pieces of fuselage and part of landing gear were found here

The remainder plowed into the ground burying itself in the crater, where it was dug out

The fan section (part before the engine which sucks in large amount of air for the engine ) broke off and rolled downhill
landing in a catch basin

Over 50 tons of debris was recovered from crash site, enough to fill 10 large dumpsters

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Depends on what you mean by "Bodies" ……..

If talking about intact bodies - then no

What were found were bits and pieces of bodies - literally "human hamburger" to be descriptive

Miller said recovered only 8 % of the bodies that we on the plane - including in one a tooth lodged in tree

I been to a crash scene and saw this up close - we walked the crash with little sticks with flags to outline body parts
for coroner to recover

Largest piece seen was 1/2 of chest, a hand minus fingers and some amputated fingers Rest was pieces of flesh
scattered around

So if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't say something stupid...….

originally posted by: ARM1968

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

No, the large debris field was light objects, such as seat cushions and paper. There weren't any aircraft pieces that were scattered over a large area.

I just found this image online. I don't remember there being an identifiable tail section though.

Does anyone else remember what the Flight 93 crash site looked like at the time?

That isn’t it. The hole in the ground was deeper, scattered light debris. As if the plane had it the ground in a literally vertical orientation and more or less vanished. A bit like the Pentagon plane that more or less vanished. Still find it odd that there was CCTV of that event from multiple sources and just one of those released would halt much of the conspiracy talk. Yet nothing but the utterly inconclusive car park camera view has ever been seen by the public.

Thanks.

I thought that didn't look right.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If that were true, why were there no airplane parts at all visible from the overhead news helicopters? Why did the guy in the back seat of the news helo remark to his studio words to the effect of "as you can see, there is nothing here resembling an airliner"?

If that were true, why did Wallace Miller the county coroner tell the media they found nothing suggesting an airliner had crashed there? No bodies, no baggage, no airline parts? Miller's statements corroborated what the news helo guy said, and I watched the news helo coverage in real time, and came away with the very same conclusion: there was no airliner in that field.

Why would Miller then years later tell Christopher Bollyn what actually happened that day, why Miller had done a 180 with his testimony?

a reply to: Salander

If that were true, why did Wallace Miller the county coroner tell the media they found nothing suggesting an airliner had crashed there? No bodies, no baggage, no airline parts?

If you speak truth, by all means provide the quote and cite the source?

a reply to: Salander

If that were true, why were there no airplane parts at all visible from the overhead news helicopters? Why did the guy in the back seat of the news helo remark to his studio words to the effect of "as you can see, there is nothing here resembling an airliner"?

Are you that deluded …..?

Much of the debris was too small to be seen from the air - the aircraft was pulverized with only a few large pieces

Here is what much of the debris looked like

(From National Park Service Exhibit )

media-cdn.tripadvisor.com...

Other small debris

2.bp.blogspot.com/_kQebupmL43g/S0T5rWh6e1I/AAAAAAAAAJ4/XT0iH5WN4P4/s320/0262ce10.jpg

The larger pieces were buried deep in to impact crater

911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/crater2.jpg

Or in the woods concealed by the foliage

www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/united93/debris1.jpg

originally posted by: Salander

If that were true, why did Wallace Miller the county coroner tell the media they found nothing suggesting an airliner had crashed there? No bodies, no baggage, no airline parts? Miller's statements corroborated what the news helo guy said, and I watched the news helo coverage in real time, and came away with the very same conclusion: there was no airliner in that field.

Why would Miller then years later tell Christopher Bollyn what actually happened that day, why Miller had done a 180 with his testimony?

Wallace Miller didn't do a 180 with his testimony. Wallace explains it in the following video interview.

What the bloggers have latched onto was the innocent statement that I made to a reporter of the New York Times ..... I said the remains the human remains that were recovered when you were actually out walking around that area - encompassing an area of over 100 acres that you actually had to look hard to find human remains. That was 15, 20, 40 minutes after I got there. This was before we started any searches. This was the first interview that I gave which was about 4 o'clock that afternoon. I innocently and stupidly said that it almost looked liked that someone had taken the passengers off and dumped them somewhere .... Now these bloggers think that this is true now. Now they think that the government somehow took the people off an airplane or ... I've seen all kinds .....

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Salander

If that were true, why did Wallace Miller the county coroner tell the media they found nothing suggesting an airliner had crashed there? No bodies, no baggage, no airline parts? Miller's statements corroborated what the news helo guy said, and I watched the news helo coverage in real time, and came away with the very same conclusion: there was no airliner in that field.

Why would Miller then years later tell Christopher Bollyn what actually happened that day, why Miller had done a 180 with his testimony?

Wallace Miller didn't do a 180 with his testimony. Wallace explains it in the following video interview.

What the bloggers have latched onto was the innocent statement that I made to a reporter of the New York Times ..... I said the remains the human remains that were recovered when you were actually out walking around that area - encompassing an area of over 100 acres that you actually had to look hard to find human remains. That was 15, 20, 40 minutes after I got there. This was before we started any searches. This was the first interview that I gave which was about 4 o'clock that afternoon. I innocently and stupidly said that it almost looked liked that someone had taken the passengers off and dumped them somewhere .... Now these bloggers think that this is true now. Now they think that the government somehow took the people off an airplane or ... I've seen all kinds .....

But yet, he did say it.

Don't blame people for actually believing him.

a reply to: Riffrafter

No. I blame truth movement talking heads using statements out of context for personal gain by targeting a biased audience that have no discernment for truth.

originally posted by: penroc3
...
it would explane the ground and what the people said they saw as far as what came out of the sky and the lack of wreckage

Ha !
Saw what you did there.

Ex-plane !

Good one !

We're just supposed to be good consumers, and not ask too many questions...

Didn't read through the thread yet, but probably some very helpful members have already been here, to set you straight on the Official Story™ .

Just teasing by the way.
Keep asking questions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: network dude

No. There was part of an engine found in a catchment basin, but it was a few hundred yards away, in the direction the aircraft was traveling.

Was not the last direction the plane was travelling: down ?
Was not the reason given for the small debris field in the Official Story™ , was that the plane was in a near vertical dive ?
If so: then why would the engine have moved in any direction the plane was traveling, before the death-spiral ?

a reply to: Nothin

You

Didn't read through the thread yet, but probably some very helpful members have already been here, to set you straight on the Official Story™ .

Then, please by all means quote the post with the most supporting evidence?

a reply to: Nothin

You

Was not the reason given for the small debris field in the Official Story™

Please, by all means cite and link to the size of the debris field.

originally posted by: penroc3
We ALL have questions as to where the bodies and parts and aircraft parts in Shanksville PA is.

No, we sure don't. This has long been settled. Only you can force yourself to remain ignorant. The information is all publicly available.

Lack of wreckage and bodies?? A simple google search will provide picture of the planes parts! Furthermore, you can read first hand accounts of first responders. One details seeing a jaw and teeth in a tree nearby. Other more grisly details also. That type of impact doesn’t leave much sadly. It’s not a conspiracy is facts and science!

originally posted by: EngineerGuY
Lack of wreckage and bodies?? A simple google search will provide picture of the planes parts! Furthermore, you can read first hand accounts of first responders. One details seeing a jaw and teeth in a tree nearby. Other more grisly details also. That type of impact doesn’t leave much sadly. It’s not a conspiracy is facts and science!

The amount of forceful ignorance displayed by Truthers is incredible. "But someone said x." Okay, someone said Trump looks like an orangutan. Does that mean they literally think there's a non-human sitting in the Oval Office, or was it not to be taken literally? It's like they sit around and try to think how they can force themselves to look dumber.

a reply to: Nothin

Near vertical. That means that it wasn't completely vertical. That means that there was a horizontal component. Debris is going to continue to travel in that horizontal direction after impact.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Riffrafter

No. I blame truth movement talking heads using statements out of context for personal gain by targeting a biased audience that have no discernment for truth.

Ah...the great "unwashed" as it were.

Meh...