FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

From Flight 93 Morgue Protocols:

Tissue with the potential for further identification is placed in a bag and the Victim Processing Record is checked in the left margin to indicate the stations where the specimen should be routed. All specimens go to Photography, Radiography, and DNA.

Note that there should be photos. I would like to see them myself, but would accept the word of a trusted independant investigator.

Record next sequential morgue number available and provenience (or other identifying information from the scene) on the flip chart.

These documents would be helpful without violating victim privacy. We could know what piece was found where, without being named personally.

Reading through the document, it seems clear that there should be ample evidence able to prove the existence of relatively large body fragments recovered from the scene. We can see security footage of the Colombine massacre on the internet, but we can't see the evidence of wether or not there were human remains recovered at the Flight 93 scene?

Of course it is true, that a pile of documents and close-up photos will not prove that they were actually recovered at the scene.

Team sorts through materials to separate tissue from other material.

What about this other material. If 95% of the plane was recovered, wasn't it all piled up at the scene. Where is the big pile of airplane parts? Why has there never been a picture of it released?

There is a discrepency in the evidence brought forth for the burning in the woods. Initial photos showed no such burning.

Depends on which vantage point was used in taking the pictures, because the people first on the scene DID describe the burning in the woods.

Why did "pools of jet fuel" not ignite? Where is a single photo showing such residue? Why was there only one puff of smoke, instead of the continuous black greasy smoke plume common in airline disasters?

Well I would have to guess that the breakup on impact spewed fuel that didnt have an ignition source. Why is there not a single photo that shows the residue? Have you seen every last image taken of the crash site? I havent, only the ones Ive been able to find online or see in reports. As for the puff of smoke...unless you have a continuous video that runs from just before impact until the firefighters put out the fires, you have no clue as to how much of what kind of smoke there was.

Although it may have been impossible to determine if stab wounds were indeed cause of death, there were fragments large enough to display the wounds. Why are no such fragments apparent in the photos? This quote would lend support to my statement that if there were indeed body fragments present at the scene,

And why on earth do you continue to think that you should be privy to every last photo taken of the crash site? Out of respect for the families, we do not need to see what was left of their loved ones. Just like we dont need to know what was found of Columbia's crew, or Challenger's crew or the USS Cole etc.....

If they could not be positively identified, then how do we know they were al-Qaeda?

You must really think that we are completely inept in this country. We have ticketing agents, gate agents, flight attendant calls...ALL that identified the names and descriptions of the hijackers. The hijackers used credit cards to buy stuff, which led to even MORE people who were able to identify who they were. THEN we start asking intelligence services around the world for their help....not really all that hard to figure it out in the end.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

After reading some of your posts, I dont think so.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion - right or wrong.

Since when are multiple facilities needed to determine identification of human remains? Oh, only when it is the GOVERNMENT (thanks for once again validating statements I have posted). The AFIP remains as the premier facility for identifying human remains. As for being studied in the sciences, I again look back to some of your posts and suggest you should ask for your money back. Unless you are self-taught....thats something else entirely.

Please do not attribute meaning and intent I did not make in any of my words. Since science dictates it when necessary. Concerning 9/11, science certainly dictated it.

Except its not an argument. It is a statement from a career member of the United States military who is tired of being accused of all sorts of heinous actions by people like you. You are unwilling to believe the emergency response teams, the coroner, the law enforcement personnel, the volunteers, the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence and finally the local, state and federal government when it comes to flight 93. So the question remains, if you do not like it here...why are you still here?

In debate, your ad hominem comment was your point of argument. Ad hominem or red herring strawman is always logical fallacy in any debate.

Except this isnt "science validation", its the identification of human remains, no other time is "testing by well more than one source" required for this.

Actually, science validation involves anyone running the same test by same methodology achieves the same result ss someone else. When they do not, therein lies serious problem. Obviously, someone is wrong and someone is right. It cannot be left that way until something conclusive is agreed on by science peers.

When independent testing is not done, there is no comparison available. That is not scientific. That is someone with an agenda who will not allow peers to test their work, to make discovery if the conclusion is correct or invalid.

And again, you lump ALL of us government employees into the "Bush administration". The only reason why the "Bush Administration" is "highly suspect" is because too many people are so willing to believe everything they read on the internet.

The Bush administration is "ALL of us government employees"? How so? When elected officials leave offices, the balance of federal employees are not replaced at the same time as well. Since they are not, that does not equate to all federal government employees are part of any presidential adminstration.

From source:

Working largely at Dover Air Force Base (AFB), Dover, DE, the teams brought together all the armed services to identify their fallen comrades...Military personnel were identified largely through
dental and DNA (deoxyribo nucleic acid) records kept on file.

I was not aware of any military personnel. Does anyone have any stats on that?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

I have seen enough evidence and talked to enough of my friends who were THERE that day.

Please state their names, and reasons for being at the scene.

You want to discuss evidence, there is a hell of a lot more evidence that muslim extremists hijacked flight 93 and crashed it when the passengers attempted to retake the plane than there is that its some American born conspiracy.

This is a statement of opinion and I disagree with it. If you have evidence, post it.

I question your need to believe that the US Government is evil.....not very objective is it?

I have no such need, nor such belief. I have already accepted the fact that the US government does not operate as one coherent entity.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

You must really think that we are completely inept in this country. We have ticketing agents, gate agents, flight attendant calls...ALL that identified the names and descriptions of the hijackers. The hijackers used credit cards to buy stuff, which led to even MORE people who were able to identify who they were. THEN we start asking intelligence services around the world for their help....not really all that hard to figure it out in the end.

"We couldn't possibly have known this. We didn't know that airliners are subject to this kind of attack." Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld

"Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!" Peter Tiradera 9-11 Coup Against American! The Pentagon Analysis

Either Donald Rumsfeld is admittedly inept or lying. Particularly, and I have placed validation in this forum in one of these discussions, the NASA testing facilities were successfully running UAV commercial jetliner flying and contolled impact testing, as far back as 1984. They were also successfully tested as drones, i.e. KC-767.

Note that there should be photos. I would like to see them myself, but would accept the word of a trusted independant investigator.

And there are photos, hopefully they will stay under lock and key. So, you will accept the word of an "independant" investigator, but not the word of people who have devoted their careers to the subject...nice....

These documents would be helpful without violating victim privacy. We could know what piece was found where,

The majority of the remains were found in what was the forward section of the jet (first class/cockpit area).

We can see security footage of the Colombine massacre on the internet, but we can't see the evidence of wether or not there were human remains recovered at the Flight 93 scene?

If you've checked every link that has been posted on this thread, then you have seen the evidence. Unless you are talking photographic....which again, we DONT need to see.

What about this other material. If 95% of the plane was recovered, wasn't it all piled up at the scene. Where is the big pile of airplane parts? Why has there never been a picture of it released?

I did post links that showed pictures of the parts, including one of a roll away dumpster full of wreckage.

In debate, your ad hominem comment was your point of argument. Ad hominem or red herring strawman is always logical fallacy in any debate.

Again, it was a statement, not an argument.

Actually, science validation involves anyone running the same test by same methodology achieves the same result ss someone else. When they do not, therein lies serious problem. Obviously, someone is wrong and someone is right. It cannot be left that way until something conclusive is agreed on by science peers.

And again, you demand something that normally does not happen when it comes to DNA identification of human remains.

The Bush administration is "ALL of us government employees"? How so? When elected officials leave offices, the balance of federal employees are not replaced at the same time as well. Since they are not, that does not equate to all federal government employees are part of any presidential adminstration.

And yet, you expect career government employees to fail to do their jobs because of who the President may or may not be.....

I was not aware of any military personnel. Does anyone have any stats on that?

Plenty of military personnel at the Pentagon. Read the whole thing, it discussed the identification efforts for all of the victims that day.

Please state their names, and reasons for being at the scene.

My friends have dealt with enough lunatics in the last six years. No way in hell im posting their names.

This is a statement of opinion and I disagree with it. If you have evidence, post it.

I have.

"Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!" Peter Tiradera 9-11 Coup Against American! The Pentagon Analysis

And have you bothered to look for reasons why they might hold such an exercise?

Research these:
Ronald Reagan National Airport
Air Florida Flight 90

They were also successfully tested as drones, i.e. KC-767.

Umm no, no one has tested a "drone" KC-767.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Depends on which vantage point was used in taking the pictures, because the people first on the scene DID describe the burning in the woods.

Photographic evidence has already been posted to counter any such witness statement. Review thread.

Well I would have to guess that the breakup on impact spewed fuel that didnt have an ignition source. Why is there not a single photo that shows the residue? Have you seen every last image taken of the crash site? I havent, only the ones Ive been able to find online or see in reports. As for the puff of smoke...unless you have a continuous video that runs from just before impact until the firefighters put out the fires, you have no clue as to how much of what kind of smoke there was.

I believe the myth of fuel being present at the scene has already been debunked only to be reinterpreted as a new theory that the fuel must have atomized on impact. No witnesses saw this sort of smoke, nor does it appear in any image. If there was any open flame at the scene, then this would have been the ignition source. Keep in mind that it is the fuel vapors which burn, fed by the liquid state of the fuel. The vapors would have permeated the entire scene more than the liquid fuel even.

If you choose to argue that there was indeed the traditional plume, post evidence.

And why on earth do you continue to think that you should be privy to every last photo taken of the crash site? Out of respect for the families, we do not need to see what was left of their loved ones. Just like we dont need to know what was found of Columbia's crew, or Challenger's crew or the USS Cole etc.....

Someone should be allowed to see them and to confirm their existence. Furthermore, could you please provide witness statements of those who claim to have viewed and/or recovered the remains.

You must really think that we are completely inept in this country. We have ticketing agents, gate agents, flight attendant calls...ALL that identified the names and descriptions of the hijackers. The hijackers used credit cards to buy stuff, which led to even MORE people who were able to identify who they were. THEN we start asking intelligence services around the world for their help....not really all that hard to figure it out in the end.

None of this identifies the hijackers. Ticketing and gate agents only saw someone claiming to be someone. Description by flight attendants is not conclusive evidence either, unless able to pick a photo out of a lineup. Do you believe that the hijackers used credit cards in their own names? What about the hijackers who were found alive? Supposedly the real hijackers stole their identities. So who were they then? And more importantly, who did they work for?

Intelligence services are not conducive to cooperation. CIA and the FBI can't even help eachother, why would other services around the world want to "help" America? Are you kidding me here?

Someone should be allowed to see them and to confirm their existence. Furthermore, could you please provide witness statements of those who claim to have viewed and/or recovered the remains.

You mean someone that YOU have picked out. Ive posted quite a few links, try reading them.

None of this identifies the hijackers. Ticketing and gate agents only saw someone claiming to be someone. Description by flight attendants is not conclusive evidence either, unless able to pick a photo out of a lineup. Do you believe that the hijackers used credit cards in their own names? What about the hijackers who were found alive? Supposedly the real hijackers stole their identities. So who were they then? And more importantly, who did they work for?

Umm, no, none of the hijackers have been found alive. This has been discussed and debunked many times. Flight attendant relays a name, airline employees look at security video, passport/visa photos and says "yep those are men I checked onto that flight". Those names/pictures are run through a couple different systems....not that hard to figure out quite a bunch of information about them.

Intelligence services are not conducive to cooperation. CIA and the FBI can't even help eachother, why would other services around the world want to "help" America? Are you kidding me here?

You may or may not believe it, but it happens all the time. CIA helps MI-5, MI-5 helps the DGSE, DGSE helps the CIA, ....especially when it comes to Islamic lunatics

I believe the myth of fuel being present at the scene has already been debunked

That would be news to the people that were first on the scene that day.

The vapors would have permeated the entire scene more than the liquid fuel even.

Depending on the wind and which direction it was blowing in regards to a fire......strong enough wind, not going to be enough concentration of fuel vapors to catch fire.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

The majority of the remains were found in what was the forward section of the jet (first class/cockpit area).

No such section is evident.

Plenty of military personnel at the Pentagon. Read the whole thing, it discussed the identification efforts for all of the victims that day.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.

My friends have dealt with enough lunatics in the last six years. No way in hell im posting their names.

Then don't bother telling us about friends you may or may not have that may or may not have made statements to support your view.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


There are photos of the scene when the first-responders were arriving. Why was there no smoke plume?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

The majority of the remains were found in what was the forward section of the jet (first class/cockpit area).

Then could you provide evidence of the cockpit and first class section located in PA? I have seen no evidence of a cockpt and first class section. How does anyone find human remains in something has not been proved to be there?

I did post links that showed pictures of the parts, including one of a roll away dumpster full of wreckage.

PA crash was stated to involve a federal felony - hijacking.

Questions based on your contentions regarding evidence:

How did they handle that evidence?

Did they use gloves to prevent contamination of evidence?

Did they wrap every piece to avoid contamination of evidence before they placed it in a roll away dumpster?

Again, it was a statement, not an argument.

It was an argumentaive statement of personal attack inference directed at me. I do know the rules of proper debate. Therefore, I am required to know the guidelines of when logical fallacy occurs in my own points of argument and in my opponent's.

And again, you demand something that normally does not happen when it comes to DNA identification of human remains.

That is beside the point. As I said, the Bush administration is highly suspect. Officials in that administration control each department head of every agency and department, in how they will perform their duties, including testing human remains. That makes any federal agency testing, particularly pertaining to 9/11, highly suspect for not disclosing correct results.

I do trust you will not insult my intelligence by saying federal agencies and departments are not controlled by the presidential office of the US bureaucracy. I have relatives who worked for the federal government. If they were told it was a matter of national security, and not to tell the truth, they did what they were told or lost their jobs, plus, faced being discredited on their employement records.

And yet, you expect career government employees to fail to do their jobs because of who the President may or may not be.....

What possible relevance did your comment have to what I wrote, regarding all federal employess are not part of any presidential administration?

reply to post by OrionStars

"We couldn't possibly have known this. We didn't know that airliners are subject to this kind of attack." Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld

"Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!" Peter Tiradera 9-11 Coup Against American! The Pentagon Analysis

Ten months prior to 9/11 would have been December 11, 2000. Rumsfeld was not sworn in until January 20, 2001. So much for Rumsfeld holding an exercise of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

Maybe he's referring to this;

The Oct. 24-26, 2000 Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, part of an annual emergency response rehearsal, envisioned a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon, killing 341 victims. The Pentagon is less than a mile from Reagan National Airport and is daily in the flight path of small commuter planes. Larger airliners generally fly to the east of the massive building over the Potomac River.

Other scenarios rehearsed included a terrorist "incident" at the Pentagon subway stop and a construction accident Linked from 911myths.com

They were also successfully tested as drones, i.e. KC-767.

The first flight of the KC 767 was not until May of 2005. Source.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Ten months prior to 9/11 would have been December 11, 2000. Rumsfeld was not sworn in until January 20, 2001. So much for Rumsfeld holding an exercise of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

Presuming I was referring to his office of Secretary of Defense, which I was not. I was referring to his membership in CFR, when at least 6 rehersals prior to 9/11 were being done, at the behest of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and members of same.

Donald Rumsfeld was a member of CFR. He is now a member of the Trilateral Commission.

Bill Clinton was, and may well still be, a member of CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and Rhodes-Milner Round Table (due to his receipt of the Rhodes Scholarship).

To name only a couple of high profile members of same groups, among many other high profile members, keeping control of the US federal bureaucracy aka Establishment Shadow Government.

As for the KC-767, no one but those, of high security clearance, working on conversion of the KC-767 to a UAV, knows exactly when that was successfully done. However, the technology for conversion, of Boeing commercial passenger jets to UAVs, has been available since at least 1984. I have posted that substantiation in two different discussion on this forum.

reply to post by OrionStars

Presuming I was referring to his office of Secretary of Defense, which I was not.

You may not have been, but the person you were quoting was.

I was referring to his membership in CFR, when at least 6 rehersals prior to 9/11 were being done, at the behest of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and members of same.

I didn't see any mention of CFR, Trilateral Commission Bilderberg Group, Rhodes-Milner Round Table, or Establishment Shadow Government in your post about Rumsfeld. No need to move the goalposts.

Your source said, "Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!", I pointed out the fact that Rumsfeld was not part of the DOD until one month after the alleged exercise.

It's obvious to me that your source is wrong. Do you agree?

This is FLIGHT 93 Forum Topic.

This topic was to prove and i might add successfully that NO PLANE CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.


As far as the scrap metal found in the hole, keep in the mind the land in somerset county where the alleged crash site is said to of happened is owned by ROLLOCKER SCRAP METAL.
One of the eyewitnesses was a second day employee at the said scrap metal place before that he was in the army or the marines.


NO PLANE crashed in Shanksville.

I find what is presented at the website link highly puzzling. There is a list of alleged passengers on Flight 93, along with all the other alleged flights.

As I recall, the one name on Flight 93 I remember, above any other, is Mark Bingham. The alleged gentleman who was supposed to have cell phone called his mother and said, "Hello, this is your son, Mark Bingham." I know no one who indentifies him or herself to a parent by first and last name, and found that extremely odd at the time.

If people click on the passenger list for Flight 93 at the website, do they see a name conspiculously missing? Because I certainly did searching through it 4 times. If it was a mistake, it was a highly inexcusable mistake, because the list at the website is stated to have been used for this: "Moussaoui Trial Exhibits"

911research.wtc7.net...

Not only are there no passengers to be found. Now those alleged passengers have names dropping off passenger lists for trial exhibits.

Originally posted by Boone 870

You may not have been, but the person you were quoting was.

Your baseless assumption is incorrect. The author was merely referring to the title at the time 9/11 transpired. In order to understand completely what the author meant, you would have to buy and read his book.

Plus, do a thorough biographical study on Donald Rumsfeld. In order to know what the author meant, as opposed to merely giving appointed office title at the time of 9/11, based on one brief citation and nothing more.

reply to post by OrionStars


I was going off of what you gave me.

"Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!" Peter Tiradera 9-11 Coup Against American! The Pentagon Analysis

Your source put Rumsfeld's name in parentheses. Why would he do that if he was not trying to link the exercise to Rumsfeld?

Here's my resources on Donald Rumsfeld.
Link
Link

Does the author have any sources substantiating his claim that the aircraft accident exercise was done in December of 2000?

reply to post by Boone 870


Normally, clarifying information in parentheses are a publishing editor's insert, when the author mistakenly fails to be clear, regarding a specific name of reference, in this case, the title of an appointed office. Yes, the editor does indeed contact the author to validate before making those type of publishing corrections.