Shanksville Power and Phone Outage

Interesting post nick Do keep talking my friend, you've got my attention!

I feel that Shanksville is the one aspect of 9/11 we are ALL overlooking. I know people say the same about the Pentagon, and how if that could be solved we could prove it all, or even that it was even an attempt to add smoke and mirrors...but i think Shanksville is the more important of the two. I cant say why, thats just my gut feeling right now.

Ive always just accepted the "it was shot down". It seemed to fit at the time, but now im not so sure. I think there is something peculiar with the whole Shanksville incident, from the obvious fake crash site, to the fake photo provided by that "witness"..

I think Shanksville could be a deliberate smoke and mirrors operation, maybe not even part of the grander plan of 9/11, in order to confuse us/to confuse the people they knew would try to pick 9/11 apart? I don know what to think, all i know is that there is something weird about it.


EDIT: Now that i've read my own post, i know what that odd feeling is!! Its the whole "no planes theory! What better way to divide the truth seekers than to stage a completely fake "crash", where nothing actually happened in reality, but the public think was a crash, and the "truthers" think the plane was shot out of the air.

What if we are both wrong? What if there wasn't even a plane! That would be a great smoke and mirror operation!



[edit on 19-5-2007 by shrunkensimon]

As someone that was an Over The Road truck driver, please take my word that they use them all over the nation.

Private field grass runways (assuming that is a runway) are also very common. Check a pilot's map at a local small public airport where they give flying lessons to find out. It will be marked as private runway if it is one.

On the subject runways, ones that are unfit to land on are marked with a 'X' clearly visible from the air so pilots know not to try. Even in the case of an emergency.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
but the photo seems to show a bracket[if you will] designed to keep the wires from coming into contact with one another.

I agree with that.
I have seen these brackets in my part of the country, SE MIchigan.

A lady is selling a photo showing a plume of smoke in Shanksville, PA on 911, but the smoke is coming from a different location than the alleged crash site. The photo itself is, however, suspect. Here it is:

flight93photo.blogspot.com...

Here is "Killtown" surreptitiously interviewing the lady by phone:

media-nf.pumpitout.com...

When she was asked how she happened to have her camera at the ready, she made an interesting preface to her explanation: "Well, the official story is..."

She says she has lived there for twenty years and the alleged nearby crash site is still fenced in (2007) and has live security to prevent anyone from going to it and looking at it.

She said that her power and phone service immediately went out as soon as the plane allegedly crashed and made that alleged plume.






R

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

EDIT: Now that i've read my own post, i know what that odd feeling is!! Its the whole "no planes theory! What better way to divide the truth seekers than to stage a completely fake "crash", where nothing actually happened in reality, but the public think was a crash, and the "truthers" think the plane was shot out of the air.

What if we are both wrong? What if there wasn't even a plane! That would be a great smoke and mirror operation!

Shrunken, please tell me what your theroy is from Shankville?

1. Where is flight 93?
2. Where are the passengers?
3. Explain the numerous cell phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones.
4. What did the archologists that were hired to dig down 30 ft to find plane parts...what was it they were pulling out of that hole?
5. The coroner..he was there and removed an endless amount of body parts.
6. PROOF that the photgraph was faked.
7. Explain the debirs that was found around the crash site.
8. Prove that the several witnesses that saw a plane just prior to the crash...actually didn't.

These strawman arguments are pathetic without ANY proof at all.

Shrunkensimon -

The no plane and hologram and pod stuff is just disinfo bullcrap.

As for Fl 93, who the hell knows. My guess is it was scheduled to crash into Lucky Larry's WTC 7 but got shot down, but all I know for sure is that the official story is a goddamn lie from beginning to end and the Bush crime gang and their "neo con" handlers are in it right up to their treasonous necks! THAT I know with 100% certainty!





R

Originally posted by Ahabstar
As someone that was an Over The Road truck driver, please take my word that they use them all over the nation.

They may be all over the nation, but there are none that I've ever seen in SW Pennsylvania, except where I indicated on the previous map.

Private field grass runways (assuming that is a runway) are also very common. Check a pilot's map at a local small public airport where they give flying lessons to find out. It will be marked as private runway if it is one.

On the subject runways, ones that are unfit to land on are marked with a 'X' clearly visible from the air so pilots know not to try. Even in the case of an emergency.

It's a runway. I walked it. But if you weren't looking for it, you would never be able to tell it's there. It's hidden by weeds and bushes, and there are "Keep Out" signs with what looks like bullet holes in them about 50 yards from the runway. I must admit the bullet holes are a nice touch.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Shrunken, please tell me what your theroy is from Shankville?

1. Where is flight 93?
2. Where are the passengers?
3. Explain the numerous cell phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones.
4. What did the archologists that were hired to dig down 30 ft to find plane parts...what was it they were pulling out of that hole?
5. The coroner..he was there and removed an endless amount of body parts.
6. PROOF that the photgraph was faked.
7. Explain the debirs that was found around the crash site.
8. Prove that the several witnesses that saw a plane just prior to the crash...actually didn't.

These strawman arguments are pathetic without ANY proof at all.

1. Flight 93 never existed.
2. Good question, but their remains certainly weren't at Shanksville. No body parts in the photos.
3. Voice manipulation technology, from Los Alamos. The ability to make entirely fake conversations from small sample clips of the peoples voices.
4. huh?
5. evidence please
6. what photo?
7. what debirs? show me evidence of plane parts and bodies.
8. im not saying they didn't see a plane...but it definatly wasn't flight 93

Originally posted by CameronFox


1. Where is flight 93?
2. Where are the passengers?
3. Explain the numerous cell phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones.
4. What did the archologists that were hired to dig down 30 ft to find plane parts...what was it they were pulling out of that hole?
5. The coroner..he was there and removed an endless amount of body parts.
6. PROOF that the photgraph was faked.
7. Explain the debirs that was found around the crash site.
8. Prove that the several witnesses that saw a plane just prior to the crash...actually didn't.

I'll try to take a shot at your questions based on the evidence as I understand it. I'm not saying this is what happened -just that there is evidence that might support an alternative to the official story.

1. Flight 93 took off from Newark and landed at Cleveland. A replacement aircraft took off from Cleveland and headed towards Shanksville. Lack of transponder signal and reports of FL 93 landing at Cleveland could support this theory. Lack of wreckage at crater also supports this theory.





2. The passengers were government agents with created identities, the same type of passengers described in Operation Northwoods. I don't claim to know how the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned on pulling something like this off, but apparently they believed it was possible in 1962.

3. Cell phone calls were part of the operation to make it seem like passengers were "real" people. I mean no disrespect to any families that might have lost loved ones on FL 93 if this theory is NOT true. This is just a theory based on the Northwoods template.

4. I'm not sure I've ever seen a detailed inventory of what was pulled out of the hole, except for the FDR and CVR, which interestingly were located at a depth difference of 13 feet even though they were beside each other in the plane. In any event, the site was sealed from public VIEW by over 100 state police who prevented anybody from watching what was going on. Residents close to the site were not even permitted to leave their house for two weeks without checking in with the police. Anything could have been planted in the hole.

Also, the pristine red bandana supposedly pulled out of the crater is inconsistent with the official story.



5. The coroner claimed he saw no body parts when he first arrived at the scene. I believe he was then removed from the scene and stationed at the airport which served as a make-shift morgue. Human remains were then allegedly delivered to him. I'm not sure that there is any record of a chain of evidence in relation to the body parts.

6. The Val McClatchey photo of the smoke plume does not line up with the crater. According to a neighbor I spoke with at the site, the wind was blowing due east at the crash site. That's why the FBI searched the field east of the crater right away, and why there was very little debris beyond the impact zone south of the crater passed the wooded area. I.e., the smoke plume could not have drifted several hundred yards south to line up with the McClatchey photo. Further, the size of the smoke plume in the photo is disproportionately large compared to the smoke plumes at the Pentagon and WTCs.












7. There was very little debris at the crash site. Every first responder at the scene said they wouldn't have known a plane crashed there unless somebody told them a plane crashed there. The debris that was there could have been dropped by the C-130 that flew over the site. This would also explain the debris 8 miles away at New Baltimore.

8. Only 1 witness that I know of said he saw the plane crash. Only 1 or 2 others said they saw the plane flip upside down. If there was a government cover-up, of either a fake hijacking or a shoot-down, these witnesses could have been planted. The plane others saw could have landed at the hidden airstrip about 1 mile from the crater, and on the direct line of the flight path reported by other witnesses.



Of course this is just a theory, and the evidence is not *PROOF*, whatever proof is defined as. But I would suggest that there is just as much *verified* and *documented* proof of this theory as there is for the official story.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by nick7261]

"But I would suggest that there is just as much *verified* and *documented* proof of this theory as there is for the official story. "


Infinitely more, actually. I have not seen any of the points you raised being rationally challenged, whereas the official story bears no scrutiny whatsoever and i have never seen it being rationally defended.

Again, as above, Ms McClatchey, made this "slip of the tongue" during her telephone interview: When she was asked how she happened to have her camera at the ready, she made an interesting preface to her explanation: "Well, the official story is..."




R

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
"But I would suggest that there is just as much *verified* and *documented* proof of this theory as there is for the official story. "


Infinitely more, actually. I have not seen any of the points you raised being rationally challenged, whereas the official story bears no scrutiny whatsoever and i have never seen it being rationally defended.

Again, as above, Ms McClatchey, made this "slip of the tongue" during her telephone interview: When she was asked how she happened to have her camera at the ready, she made an interesting preface to her explanation: "Well, the official story is..."




R

I just spoke with one of the "ambassadors" who lives near the crash site. I was told the McClatchey claimed to have her camera ready by her front door because she was expecting a friend who was a stunt pilot to fly over her house to do some tricks on 9/11. Honest. I couldn't make this up.

Telephone interview with Ms. McClatchey:

media-nf.pumpitout.com...

Interviewer: You were expecting somebody to fly by in a helicopter that day or something that day, that's why you were ready to take a picture?

Ms. M: The official, the official story is I had a Camero club, OK, very active in Cameros...





The official story is The official story is The official story is






R.

An EC-130 has some VERY noticeable differences from a C-130. I would think that people would have noticed them when they saw the C-130 flying around.

C-130H (the current model of C-130s used by the USAF)


EC-130


As for the difference in the explosions at the WTC, the fuel levels would have been different in the two planes. One had more passengers, could have had more cargo, etc. Also the second impact was more outside the building than inside which could also account for the difference between the two.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
An EC-130 has some VERY noticeable differences from a C-130. I would think that people would have noticed them when they saw the C-130 flying around.

C-130H (the current model of C-130s used by the USAF)


EC-130

I don't think people on the ground in Shanksville would notice the difference between a C-130 and an EC-130, especially as it was flying off after the crash. Second, it wasn't the people on the ground who IDed the plane -it was the military.

As for the difference in the explosions at the WTC, the fuel levels would have been different in the two planes. One had more passengers, could have had more cargo, etc. Also the second impact was more outside the building than inside which could also account for the difference between the two.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by Zaphod58]

The minor possible differences you suggest would not account for the MAJOR difference in the size of the smoke plume, especially since the official story is that FL 93 buried itself in the soft ground.

How does a buried plane make a smoke plume that dwarfs the smoke plumes at the other crash sites?

How does a buried plane make a smoke plume that dwarfs the smoke plumes at the other crash sites?

IT DOESN'T!

(That answer is more serious than you think ).

Did a plane crash in Shanksville? Was a plane shot out of the air?..

Or, maybe, just maybe, there was no plane to begin with

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

How does a buried plane make a smoke plume that dwarfs the smoke plumes at the other crash sites?

IT DOESN'T!

(That answer is more serious than you think

).

MID... I appreciate the seriousness of your point! You're absolutely right, imo. A plane that buried itself under 30 feet of earth, leaving no scorch marks on blades of grass 6" from the crater, could not create a 2000 foot wide, 2000 foot high mushroom cloud. The fireball would have had to come from the fuel in the wings exploading, and yet there are no burn marks on the ground near the crater.

If people think the video of FL 175 disappearing into WTC2 is odd, imagine what a video of FL 93 vanishing into the ground would look like.

Originally posted by nick7261


They may be all over the nation, but there are none that I've ever seen in SW Pennsylvania, except where I indicated on the previous map.

Have to take to take your word for it as I no longer drive OTR. Irreguardless to the use or lack of use in SW PA, focusing on them would be a distraction to your theory of no plane unless you want to say it is plane wreckage that somehow got up there.

It's a runway. I walked it. But if you weren't looking for it, you would never be able to tell it's there. It's hidden by weeds and bushes, and there are "Keep Out" signs with what looks like bullet holes in them about 50 yards from the runway. I must admit the bullet holes are a nice touch.

In a different picture that you posted I saw that it is an actual paved runway. Bullet holes in rural signs are common in Ohio too. As for the shrubs and weeds, they let them grow to cut down on the unsightliness of a runway. Unfortunately birds find it to be a nice home. Seen many wing patches from birds being hit.