FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

reply to post by MikeVet


Idid not forget about the plane swallowed by the water of the Everglades full of alligators and poisonous snakes. Do you think they had to abandon searching for that plane due to highly hazardous conditions? If they cannot search, they can locate planes and contents, can they? Not exactly the same as Shanksville at all, is it?

reply to post by MikeVet


Asserting 95%, of alleged plane component parts were found, is disinformation. Therefore, the one promoting disinformation is you.

USGS scar does not line up with Flight 93 scar.

AHEM

Please cease the personal sniping back and forth. They are adding nothing to the thread.

Further attempts to derail the thread or personal attacks will result in more than a note.

Now please back to the topic at hand.

Thank you for your attention to this matter
FredT, Moderator

Originally posted by Boone 870


Thanks for the post Boone870. This is pure baloney.

The Diamond T portals were backfilled between 1999 and 2000.

Reports of investigators and emergency response personnel indicate during the crash, the plane impacted the relatively soft strip-mine backfill,
plowed to a depth of 30 ft., then collided with the remaining strip excavation high wall, causing the plane to explode.

page 111-23



Could you please post a copy or reference to the bond that was posted for the reclamation of the Diamond T Portals?

The reason I ask is that there shold be a record of the BLM inspection of the reclamation work and return of the bond.

I also want to mention that to back fill to a 30 foot depth would take a disturbance requiring another permit and another bond. You don't just scrape dirt over to fill a hole which is 30 feet deep. Particularly when it is that big.

Also, is there any chance that you have any paperwork that is dated BEFORE 9/11/2001. All you have posted could have been fabricatrd after 9/11/2001.

For your information a highwall is just the edge of the strip mine and is composed of the same dirt as the excavation. There is no such thing as "relatively soft strip mine backfill". From where? The ground? That is total nonsense.

But hey! Soft dirt that an airplane disappeared into? Nice try.

reply to post by johnlear

Thanks for the post Boone870. This is pure baloney.

[Homer Simpson] Mmmmmmmmm... Baloney [Homer Simpson]

I can try to find some pre-9/11 documents, I have no clue as to where I would find them.

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone... why bother? It will all be a goverment plant all doctored evidence.

911 Truthers.. Ask Questions / Ignore Answers

reply to post by johnlear


Is this it?

56773028. Permit Renewal, PBS Coals, Inc. (P. O. Box 260, 1576 Stoystown Road, Friedens, PA 15541), commencement, operation and restoration of bituminous strip mine in Stonycreek and Somerset Townships, Somerset County, affecting 1,055.2 acres, receiving stream unnamed tributary to/and Kimberly Run; unnamed tributaries to/and Schrock Run; unnamed tributary to Glades Creek. Application received October 1, 1998.



Source

Tom Spinelli, 28, was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said.

"It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."

India Lake also contributes to the view there was an explosion on board before the Newark-San Francisco flight came down. Debris rained down on the lake - a curious feat if, as the US government insists, there was no mid-air explosion and the plane was intact until it hit the ground.

"It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth," Tom said. "The authorities say it was blown here by the wind." But there was only a 10mph breeze and you were a mile and a half away? Tom raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: "Yeah, that's what they reckon."

www.agitprop.org.au...

This could be the plane that did the Operation Northwoods type evidence drop to add to the missile crater.

Do i get a prize yet?

(edited to add the link)

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by IvanZana
Do i get a prize yet?

Yes you do get a prize........ You get to provide alink for your external source you quoted..... Please

Thanks
FredT, moderator

The mystery "white plane" has long been explained - except that "truthers"
refuse to believe it.

White Plane was Falcon 20 business jet owned by VF Corp which makes
Wrangler jeans and North Face clothing. It was on trip from North Carolina
to Johnstown Pa. Plane was descending and controllers at Johnstown
asked it to verfiy crash scene . Made one pass over crash scene before
going on to Johnstown.

Here is link to interview with pilot of the plane

www.post-gazette.com...

I am not familiar with PA colloquialisms when they speak about the weather. When Pennsylvanians say "winds blew northerly", what exactly do they mean?

1. North to south?
2. South to north?
3. Southwest to northeast?
4. Northwest to southeast?

Was it blowing from some northern direction into some southern direction, or from some southern direction into some northern direction?

www.popularmechanics.com...

"Indian Lake
Claim: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it — winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

Why was it coming from the west when it was on a course of northwest to southeast?"

killtown.911review.org...

"Note that the official story says Flight 93 came in from the west towards Indian Lake, but it was first report that it was flying east:

► Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash

"He also said the National Transportation Safety Board has told investigators that the plane, which began its flight in Newark, N.J., was flying east when it crashed but could provide no other information about its path or intended target." -Pittsburg Post Gazette (09/13/01)"

The flight path on this website shows northwest to southeast, as reported by the media, when alleged Flight 93 was alleged to have crashed at Shanksville at some claimed location or other:

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by thedman


What was it doing still flying in the area, along with a C-130 the military admitted was there having flown in, after flying above the Pentagon, until that reported incident transpired?

Why didn't the "white plane" land at the nearest airport, as ordered to do, before getting as far as Shanksville? Any regional airport will do for landing.

Why was the military plane still flying around having been ordered to land before it took off, and before the "official" report Pentagon incident transpired?

Originally posted by MikeVet
1- your side of the aisle is the only side that's confused.

Really, then why are there so many discrepancies in the official story? Why then has so much evidence been left out of the official story? Why have events of the day been left out of the official story i.e. the collapse of WTC Building 7 ?(sorry to go off topic here, mods)

2-you're lying, there are no blades of grass growing from the wing strike scar.

Ahh yes, your "Liar, liar, pants on fire," retort. I never get tired of that one. Here is the picture as I see it. I have even pointed out the blades of grass for you:


(lettering on right should read weathered and un-weathered dirt)

3-you don't see the ground heaved up in Ivan's photo? How about you go to pg 30 - jackinthe box posted a wider view.

Yes, I see the ground heaved up into the shape of a round impact crater.

4- right, it would be near impossible for a plane to fly into an existing trench. And it didn't happen that way. My guess is that your info source is lying to you, and you're sucking up the koolaid.

I don't think it happened that way, that was my point. My info source is a map from the United States Geological Survey, how can a map "lie" to me? I don't think the USGS serves Kool-Aid.

5-irrelevant only cuz it hurts your case. how convenient for you. No , it's relevant. You DO have an idea why there's no grass there - cuz that's where the wings hit, and you know it.

I said that if the scar was formed before the crash on 9/11 then it's origin is irrelevant. Please do not take my posts out of context. I also never said that there "is no grass there," on the contrary I said that there was grass there in the indentation, just not as much as the areas to the right or left. Please refer to the picture above where I pointed them out for you.

6- you're taking YOUR beliefs - that the round crater was formed after the scars, and attributing them to someone else. Lie.

I'm not attributing my beliefs or opinions to anyone but myself. I simply gave my opinion of a picture that Boone posted. If it's my belief/opinion then how can it be a lie?

7- no, as i said, attributing your beliefs onto someone else is a lie. Disagreeing is fine.

I agree with you that disagreeing is fine. As stated above I gave my opinion on a picture Boone posted, I did not "attribute" that opinion "onto" anyone.

8- the ground isn't weathered. it's dry and freshly dug up. unlike you, i grew up on a farm and know the difference. same with the grass growing.

Please refer to the picture above with arrows pointing to blades of grass growing out of weathered dirt.

9- you're using the photo provided for you. ok, it's not YOUR photo, but if you use it as evidence, you now assume ownership of all its deficiencies.

I assume ownership of nothing, I am simply offering my opinion.

10- no, you still lie when you claim there's grass in the scar - there's no opinion in that, it's a binary situation. but you're blending in a little intellectual dishonesty to try and make yourself seem more reputable. If you don't know the difference..........Weak.

Your right, there is no opinion in that, the fact is that there is clearly grass in the weathered indentation. Whether the indentation was caused by the impact of a wing on 9/11 or something else years before is what is up for debate. Not sure exactly what a "binary situation" is, you'll have to explain. Still don't know what "intellectual dishonesty" is or how you blend it into things so you will have to explain that too.

As always, MikeVet, thanks for dodging all of my questions and then resorting to Ad homminum attacks. At least you are consistent in this regards.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by Boone 870
USGS scar does not line up with Flight 93 scar.

The post I have been waiting for, and it only took 34 pages and a little bit of belly-aching to get it.

Can you label your modifications to the map, i.e. the white and green lines etc?

thanks

[edit on 1-1-2008 by DrZERO]

Asserting 95%, of alleged plane component parts were found, is disinformation. Therefore, the one promoting disinformation is you.

Oh really???

At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.

www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

Was it not pitched at something like 40 degrees? That would mean these "heavier parts" would not strike the same piece of ground as the nose. Would this not form a more elliptical impact crater then?

No, because the heavier parts would have continued on the 40 degree line into the original hole.

And neither of you have addressed the simple fact that there is un-burnt, unbroken grass growing out of a weathered scar where the wings/engines/fuel tanks supposedly hit. Why are you avoiding this observation?

Not avoiding it, just hope common sense would break out and people would realize its a function of a telephoto lens and the distance from which the picture was taken.

So, there should have been plenty of plane parts to be found, plus, crew, passengers, and luggage

And there was plenty of plane wreckage, human remains and personal effects found. You choose to ignore these facts.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by DrZERO

And neither of you have addressed the simple fact that there is un-burnt, unbroken grass growing out of a weathered scar where the wings/engines/fuel tanks supposedly hit. Why are you avoiding this observation?

Not avoiding it, just hope common sense would break out and people would realize its a function of a telephoto lens and the distance from which the picture was taken.

Where did you find information on the type of lens used in the photo? How do you know the distance from which the picture was taken? Common sense would dictate that unbroken grass would not be growing out of a weathered scar which was the supposed impact site of an airliner wing/engine.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by DrZERO]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Not according to the people arriving first on the scene, immediately after an alleged jetliner crash, were there any plane part components or contents of an alleged plane.

Why should anyone take the word of an agency (FBI), whose employees publicly admitted they could not properly identify 19 people they adamantly alleged to be hijackers, and having to publicly admit that BBC was correct when they located 7 "dead hijackers" alive after 9/11/2001. No, that has not been debunked by anyone.

Nothing coming from the US bureaucracy has been proved. Certainly, not locating any proved "95% of plane and contents" anwhere from 1-8 miles away, with nothing even close to the alleged crash site or the building so close by, is unprecedented in the history of aviation aircraft crashes. Only on 9/11/2001 has every law and principle of sicence been suspended by some humans' "official" reports.

Why would anyone turn any alleged plane parts over to UA? Any evidence is supposed to be investigated by the FBI and FAA, particularly crime evidence, and all evidence kept after forensically being examined.

The bodies and body parts can only be turned over after forensic investigation and not before. The coroner/mortician was not in position to do the type of identification on body parts, to prove positive identification. Those have to be tested and compared by geneticists before being released to anyone.

I have yet seen any title of MD on the coroner/mortician, Mr. Miller. All qualified coroners are medical doctors additionally educated and trained in forensic science. They do not moonlight as coroners and keep their day and evening jobs as morticians.

Not according to the people arriving first on the scene, immediately after an alleged jetliner crash, were there any plane part components or contents of an alleged plane.

Then you havent been paying attention to the links posted in this thread...

Why should anyone take the word of an agency (FBI), whose employees publicly admitted they could not properly identify 19 people they adamantly alleged to be hijackers, and having to publicly admit that BBC was correct when they located 7 "dead hijackers" alive after 9/11/2001. No, that has not been debunked by anyone.

Then you havent been paying attention to the links posted in this thread. Because it has long since been pointed out that the BBC story was flawed because of differences in middle/surnames.

Nothing coming from the US bureaucracy has been proved. Certainly, not locating any proved "95% of plane and contents" anwhere from 1-8 miles away, with nothing even close to the alleged crash site or the building so close by, is unprecedented in the history of aviation aircraft crashes.

Then again, you havent been paying attention to the links.

Why would anyone turn any alleged plane parts over to UA? Any evidence is supposed to be investigated by the FBI and FAA, particularly crime evidence, and all evidence kept after forensically being examined.

Because UA owned the airplane? And because the investigators had everything relevant cataloged and photographed.

The bodies and body parts can only be turned over after forensic investigation and not before. The coroner/mortician was not in position to do the type of identification on body parts, to prove positive identification. Those have to be tested and compared by geneticists before being released to anyone.

Once again, you fail to pay attention to the links. Because the remains were examined and identified by forensic scientists. As I have pointed out numerous times, you will never accept ANY evidence because you werent there to see it firsthand.