The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

Please remain on topic - the last two pages have been nothing but arguing over Ultimas credentials.

There is this thing called Google (or Yahoo or Lycos or...) - please use it.

Don't make me report this thread.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

From the link at the top of every 9/11 topic:

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Where are you Mods?

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


How many people have actually been interviewed on camera as saying they knew the guy directly? You will find it is a very small number (if any?) outside of his immediate family. Anyone can set up a charity - that doesn't prove a thing.

mirage? do you actually read posts? Do you go to links provided?

I listed the college where one person graduated from. He was the president of his fraternity. You can't make that stuff up. Don't you think someone from the graduating class of 1993 may have been a little upset if the government made up a fake president of their leading fraternity?

I also posted a quote of a friend of his that saw him a year prior.

Lots of people turn up for funerals of other people. Not everyone is going to know who a particular person was - it happens.

yeah there is a new movie coming out called "Funeral Crashers." Come on now mirage.

He is also only one person out of all those on the flight. Set up one big personality and the others disappear into the background. It's rather convenient when you think about it.

Pick a person. I will do my best to get a background, list their parnets, siblings, friends... what ever. I picked him because you called him John Doe and i was showing you how real he is. If one of them are real....can some of them be fake?

One thing all this is failing to do is prove the existence of Flight 93.

We have:

* an FDR that could be made up (see Pentagon FDR for details). See also the FDR relating to the Paris crash of the Airbus A320 in the late 80s IIRC (the Paris Airshow) - the FDR disappeared for 10 days, and when it finally got into the correct hands, it had already been opened and the last 8 seconds of the tape were missing (they were tapes back then, not SSMDs). FDR tampering happens.

Key words:
"Could be "

The Paris crash is irrelevant to the discussion.

* Phone calls that haven't been substantiated

Yes they have. If you think the families are lying. YOU back it up with proof.

* Possibly fabricated personas to make Flight 93 seem real

No it isn't possible. In ten minutes I showed you just how real Mark Bingham was.

* Next to no physical evidence (where is the pile of 120,000 lbs of metal)?

What? DNA was found matching all the passengers and crew.
Thousands of pounds of scraps were found including seat cushions AND personal belongings of those on board. Seat belts from the plane. And the FDR and CVR that you say were possibly tampered with. I would say thats quite a bit of physical evidence.

* A very dodgy looking hole in the ground that looks very similiar to a scar near by

I tell you what, I will ask you what I asked Ivan. Show me ONE professional that has been involved in airplane crashes that states the impact crater is inappropriate for the type of crash that happened. (Ivan has failed so far)

* A fake photo of the smoke plume allegedly emanating from the Flight 93 crash site immediately afterwards (proven a hoax)

Can you show me a professional analysis of the photograph? Sorry if I can't go on the words of someone posting on a CT website.

* Vals own witness testimony is contradicting and full of holes

If you would like, start another thread with her holes listed. I would like to read them.

* Reports of bits of Flight 93 having been found over a mile away, when the aircraft allegedly buried itself completely under ground

There were small light weight debris found far away which is consistant with the wind that was blowing that day. The aircraft did not bury itself "completely" underground. As I mentioned, there was thousands of pieces of the aircraft scattered around the impact area.

* A strange fire in the woods (?!?!) when the aircraft and all its fuel went under ground complete with both engines and the APU (allegedly

)

Strange fire? The plane exploded. Several witnesses stated a fire balls. Fire balls can cause combustibles to catch on fire.

Need I go on?

With what? All you have is opinion with nothing to back it up. You are speculating on pretty much each of your points.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

Only to a few that are confused.

Where is the APU, BTW (in both the case of Flight 93 and the Pentagon)? The APU FYI is a small gas turbine, that provides back-up electrical and pneumatic generation (hydraulics are fed from electrically driven pumps when on APU power, and pneumatics are for engine starts and supplying cabin air-conditioning/pressurization).

A lot is made of at least one engine from Flight 93, but nothing of the APU, itself quite a large, solid device.

Here's an APU from a 757:

Maybe it's in that mountain? I have not heard anything about it actually.




[edit on 20-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

I'm going to need time to respond to the rest of your post, but:

The Paris crash is irrelevant to the discussion.

No it isn't - it shows that even back then data was being tampered with when they didn't like what it showed, so think how easy it is now with solid state memory devices, to fabricate an entire flight!

Key words:
"Could be "

I didn't say that. It DID happen then, and could very likely happen now (note: again, I raise the point of the Pentagon crash and the 80-odd videos - all it takes is some solid proof - are you with me on this yet? WHERE IS THIS PROOF? All we have is circumstantial evidence, but nothing that categorically proves beyond a reasonable doubt the flight existed).

Yes they have. If you think the families are lying. YOU back it up with proof.

I would, but unfortunately phone records don't exist.

No it isn't possible. In ten minutes I showed you just how real Mark Bingham was.

I'm already aware of Mark Bingham and his background. The John Doe I used earlier was a place-holder.

Thousands of pounds of scraps were found including seat cushions AND personal belongings of those on board. Seat belts from the plane. And the FDR and CVR that you say were possibly tampered with. I would say thats quite a bit of physical evidence.

Show me the photos. There are plenty allegedly taken on-site of the FDR/CVR when they were found - let's see the rest! Oh... there aren't any...

I tell you what, I will ask you what I asked Ivan. Show me ONE professional that has been involved in airplane crashes that states the impact crater is inappropriate for the type of crash that happened. (Ivan has failed so far)

EDIT: Pilots For 9/11 Truth might be dealing with this - I'm not sure.

Can you show me a professional analysis of the photograph? Sorry if I can't go on the words of someone posting on a CT website.

Did you find the thread I was on about? Forget forging photos - the smoke itself is the problem. PLEASE for gods sake find that thread and READ it. I'm sick of you spinning this around and around now.

YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW ONE PIECE OF **DIRECT** EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS THAT FLIGHT 93 EXISTED.

If you would like, start another thread with her holes listed. I would like to read them.

Seek out the thread. (I'm getting tired of writing that). I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

The aircraft did not bury itself "completely" underground.

Great - then there should be recognizable pieces of tail lying around.

PROBLEM: The official report says that it buried itself completely underground.

Strange fire? The plane exploded.

Really? So it wouldn't be able to bury itself underground then.

See the hole you're digging here?

Several witnesses stated a fire balls. Fire balls can cause combustibles to catch on fire.

A little physics experiment for ya: throw an intact glass bottle at a frangible window.

Now throw pieces of the glass bottle at a similar window (throw all the pieces at the same time). They bounce off. Same thing with Flight 93. It couldn't possible have been fragmented in any way prior to impact, if it was going to have any chance of completely disappearing underground as alleged by the official story.

Result? The OS is BS.

All you have is opinion with nothing to back it up. You are speculating on pretty much each of your points.

INCORRECT. Pentagon videos. If I had proof it existed, I wouldn't be here.

Only to a few that are confused.

No confusion at all. Seismic records. Now that's confusing!

Maybe it's in that mountain? I have not heard anything about it actually.

Maybe it is, but there is no *proof* of its existence.

A little note for you regarding crime scenes: everything is meticulously recorded.

Not on 9/11...

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Mirage,

I will concede that there is a possibility in tampering almost anything. But again, you are only speculating about a possibility. There is no evidence to back it up.

Remember the flight was tracked on radar until it crashed.

There is no evidence to back it up.

There's no evidence.

As of now, I'm considering you to be running me around in circles wasting my time. Prove (using DIRECT evidence) that Flight 93 crashed there, and I'll be quite happy.

I'm no longer responding to further posts by you until you show me something concrete that I've requested in my last post.

The other stuff I've covered is in this forum. Search for it. I know it exists - I've participated in discussing it at the time and have no desire to do so again.

I only deal in hard facts, not circumstantial evidence.

Mark Bingham doesn't put Flight 93 in that hole.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Fair enough.

you ignore the fact that the phone calls were real.

you ignore the fact that the people were real.

you state there is a possibility that the FDR was tampered with, yet there would be no way to back this up.

you ignore the witnesses that saw a plane going down

you ignore the witnesses that saw a fire ball.

you ignore the CVR as evidence

you also ignore the DNA evidence that was recovered at the scene that places all the passengers and crew in the area around the impact zone.

This is called HARD evidence. You chose to ignore it. I also chose not to go post to post if you are to ignore such crucial evidence.

you ignore the fact that the phone calls were real.

There is no verifiable proof for this. There are no records for example, and there are oddities in the records that do exist (e.g. calls terminating hours later - doesn't happen on sat phones).

you ignore the fact that the people were real.

Again, nothing verifiable about this.

you state there is a possibility that the FDR was tampered with, yet there would be no way to back this up.

You can't use the apparent lack of tampering as evidence it didn't occur. There are photos showing an FDR and CVR allegedly taken from the Flight 93 crash site, but therre is no way to verify this.

you ignore the witnesses that saw a plane going down

The witness testimony is inconsistent and contradictory to even the official report.

you ignore the witnesses that saw a fire ball.

Because if there was a fireball, the FDR couldn't record all systems "as all normal" (your words I believe a few posts up). Additionally - if the hijackers crashed the aircraft (your claim) then why did the fireball occur? What caused it?

EDIT: A fireball at ground level is also inconsistent with the physical evidence at the crash site.

YOUR OWN POSTS ARE INCONSISTENT!

you ignore the CVR as evidence

What CVR? It was never released.

you also ignore the DNA evidence that was recovered at the scene that places all the passengers and crew in the area around the impact zone.

There were no bodies around the impact zone!! It was all buried in that hole! Have you even read the official report, or are you just pulling ideas out of your a%%? I'm getting very annoyed now - you're being inconsistent not only in your own position, but relative to the official story, too!

This is called HARD evidence. You chose to ignore it. I also chose not to go post to post if you are to ignore such crucial evidence.

It's only "hard" evidence if I can actually see it. Show me.

EDIT: For security. i167.photobucket.com...

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

mirageofdeceit, just read your U2U, here's the seismic data for flight 93 you asked me for :

Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack :
www.mgs.md.gov...

However, we positively identified seismic signals associated with United
Airlines Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The time of the plane crash was 10:06:05+/-5 (EDT).

This is their report on the flight 93 impact :

Analysis of Seismic Records for United Airlines Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pa.
Figure 5 shows seismic record section of vertical-component records from four stations around the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The location of the site is taken from the web site for the Flight 93 Memorial, URL:
www.shanksvillememorial.com...
The four closest stations range in distance from 92 to 218 km (Table 1).
Two minutes of vertical-component seismic records starting from estimated origin time of 14:06:05 (10:06:05 EDT) are plotted.
The seismic signals are relatively weak compared with the background noise level. For instance, at stations MCWV and SDMD, the signal (portion of signals just after Sg) to noise (portion of records just before Pg arrivals) ratios are about 1:1, whereas, at station SSPA the ratio is about 2.5:1 and at MVL it is about 2:1 (Figure 5).
Although, seismic signals across the network are not as strong and clear as the WTC case (see Kim et al., 2001), three component records at station SSPA (delta=107.6 km) shown in Figure 6 are quite clear.
The three-component records at SSPA are dominated by strong Lg arrivals, whereas the Pg waves are difficult to discern and have amplitudes comparable to the noise level. This is typical for seismic waves generated by airplane impacts and crashes. The seismic signals marked as Sg in Figure 5 propagated from the Shanksville crash site to the stations with approximately
3.5 km/s.
Hence, we infer that the Flight 93 crashed around 14:06:05+/-5 UTC) (10:06:05 EDT).
The uncertainty is only due to seismic velocity at the uppermost crust near the surface in which the Lg waves propagated.

See also their 2 Flight 93 impact seismograms in figures 5 and 6 on page 10 and 11.


NOTE: The uncertainty of plus or minus 5 seconds in the flight 93 seismic records, plus the plotting of no more than 2 minutes after 10:06:05 EDT ( so, until 10:08:05) don't include the much discussed in these and other forums, possible crash time of 10:10, based on the NTSB black box investigation of the flight recordings, and the miraculously missing last seconds of that black box cockpit recording (while 93 was still airborne!).
It strongly indicates a meticulous clean-up -before publicizing- of research articles, by Army propaganda teams, backed by the White House, to corroborate as much as possible all research to cover up all the lies.

I would like to see some American individual or organization, file a FOIA request for the seismic records of the not publicized 10 minutes before and after the Flight 93 seismograms, from all relevant seismic stations.

Just as I would like to see a FOIA request for a much broader seismic time-window for the Pentagon attack from all known seismic stations.


By the way, the following excerpt from this same seismic report,
which covers mainly the non-existence of discernible seismic signals for the Pentagon attack, strongly suggests that the CIT team's row of videoed eyewitnesses visualizing an airplane north of Citgo, and the CIT team's conclusion that that plane thus flew over the Pentagon instead of impacting it, as part of a sophisticated military deception,
is another strong collaborating piece of evidence that in fact the CIT theory is not so far-fetched at all, as many here think :

These waveform data indicate that we could not identify seismic signals associated with the plane impact into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

I would like to see some American individual or organization, file a FOIA request for the seismic records of the not publicized 10 minutes before and after the Flight 93 seismograms, from all relevant seismic stations.

Are non-US citizens located outside the USA permitted to file a FOIA request?

Many thanks indeed for the link - I doubt I would have found that one!! Most interesting. I'll sit and read it later!

EDIT: I'm unable to download the PDF!
EDIT2: I've got it now.

EDIT3:

I was so intrigued, I've read it anyway! As you quoted above:

The location of the site is taken from the web site for the Flight 93 Memorial

I find this very strange indeed. I know they use seismic equipment and satellites to plot the location of earthquakes (three-dimensionally), yet they have to go to a website after the fact to determine the crash location??

Why couldn't they use scientific method to determine the location?

Regarding the Pentagon:

We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal.

Yet they say for the WTC:

In case of the WTC attack, the impacts of the two planes could be determined with an accuracy of about +/-2 seconds. Although the impact times are inferred from oscillatory surface wave arrivals, the nearest station, PAL (Palisades, NY), was only about 34 km away from the WTC.

So in the case of the WTC, you get a high speed, small object hit a huge structure like the WTC, which registers good seismic signals, yet you get an allegedly very similar scenario at the Pentagon, hitting a much smaller structure, very low to the ground, and it doesn't register anything?

I'm no expert, but surely the Pentagon strike should have registered a *greater* reading than those of the WTC, as some energy would be dissipated throughout the WTC structure swaying, vibration in the structure etc.. whereas there is little to damp the forces in the Pentagon with it being a smaller, more solid structure (elastically), thus imparting more energy to the ground?

To look at this from another angle: any seismic records for above-ground explosions involving small amounts of HE?

The CIT case is certainly looking strong at this point, beyond mere conjecture.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Well, its settled then, the pentagon is either a hologram or it is not attached to the ground. Perhaps the time frame of the seismic data was shifted outside of the time frame when we see the explosion happen. Possibly like was done with the WTC data to conceal what really happened at the Pentagon.
I can already guess what is going to happen with the FOIA request, "denied for reasons of national security"

Or perhaps the Pentagon was too small of an event to regester. 93 went nose first into the ground. The towers collapsed but the Pentagon was a ground level attack with minor collapsing compaired to the towers. Being not too far from the airport the equipment may be tuned different. Lots of ground beating at the airport.

mikell

The towers collapsed but the Pentagon was a ground level attack with minor collapsing compaired to the towers. Being not too far from the airport the equipment may be tuned different. Lots of ground beating at the airport.

If you re-read the report, they explicitly mention recording the aircraft impacts at the WTC. The collapse recordings were a wholly separate event. See also LaBTops thesis.

They don't "tune" seismic monitoring devices to ignore certain areas. An earthquake could happen right under the airport! They're very good at knowing what certain events look like [aircraft crashes as mentioned above, building collapses, explosions, earthquakes, "sonic events" (e.g. an aircraft going supersonic)] etc.. It's all recorded.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


I believe the Pentagon was built on landfill.

If that's right, it may have an impact on seis readings....

ETA: Not landfill as in garbage, etc. I believe they dredged the river there and dumped the silt to make new land, and that's where it was built. I think....



[edit on 21-7-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Then the Shanksville crash should not have registered either, afterall, you guys claim the plane burried deep in the ground leaving little evidence of a plane because the ground was so soft...
So how could the soft ground at shanksville be soft enough to completely burry a plane while at the same time hard enough to transfer the impact energy to the seismic equipment. But...The Pentagon ground is hard enough to hold up an entire building but not hard enough to transfer seismic energy?

reply to post by PplVSNWO



The dubunkers on this thread are not very intelligent and or consistant in their falacies.

All this yammerin' has not yet put flight 93 in the Shanksville hole. There was no plane that crashed in Shanksville. The jig is up.

You pseudo skeptics and government official story trolls that hang out in forums..... Get your stuff together. Your gameplan has been exposed and your falling all over the place.

p.s Does the official fairy tail story tellers know about you 2 or 3 Ats conspiracy haters , spewing wrong evidence, making up fantasies and failing in trying to uphold the offiicial fairy tail? ( which i might add has been proven here on ats to be riddled with holes and inconsistancies).

Flight 93 didnt crash in Shanksville. Tell you mom, dad, teachers, profs, anyone.

Show them these government provided pictures of the 'crash' crater.
Notice no plane crashed there?


Pictures say a thousands words. These only need to say 4.

" No Plane In Shanksville"

Thank you , thank you, ill be here all night.

(debunkers mental thought " Burry this post, burry burry, bring up cell phones, call Ivan an anti semite, call him out on his credentiala, bring up psedoskeptic strawman theories, derail,deflect deny,insult all users who read this")





[edit on 21-7-2008 by IvanZana]

Exactly, still put no plane in a hole. Here is a link which can be found at P4T: www.collectionscanada.gc.ca... It shows what the UA93 crash site should have looked like(A real hi speed, nearly vertical crash) Thread here: pilotsfor911truth.org...
Crash details: aviation-safety.net...

Edit: PS, the information tells they were able to drain the water after winter cleared to collect all the pieces and do a reconstruction. They found out what caused the crash with no FDR, eat that Shanksville crash scene investigators...

[edit on 21-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]

you also ignore the DNA evidence that was recovered at the scene that places all the passengers and crew in the area around the impact zone.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


you sound like a muppet! Its like your being fed bullcrap on a drip, and you have to repeat it like you figured it out for yourself!
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH INDEPENDENTLY!!!
USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Then the Shanksville crash should not have registered either, afterall, you guys claim the plane burried deep in the ground leaving little evidence of a plane because the ground was so soft...
So how could the soft ground at shanksville be soft enough to completely burry a plane while at the same time hard enough to transfer the impact energy to the seismic equipment. But...The Pentagon ground is hard enough to hold up an entire building but not hard enough to transfer seismic energy?

Good question.

I would guess that since the plane crashed into the ground, that 100% of the crash energy was transferred into the ground. Which is why we see the crater. Agree?

But at the Pentagon, the plane crashed into a building, which then must transfer energy into the ground. IOW, there's an extra step involved there that would result in a loss of energy. Also, I believe the Pentagon is held up by pilings, because the ground is unstable. So the claim that the ground is hard enough.... is factually incorrect.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Good question.

I would guess that since the plane crashed into the ground, that 100% of the crash energy was transferred into the ground. Which is why we see the crater. Agree?

No. Thats really silly. The official story claims the plane was at a 45-60 degree angle. At that trajectory and speed, anyone who has played billiards(pool) knows this logic of angle, speed and deflection.
Flight 93 should of ploughed its way for atleast one hundred meters displacing atleast 2 times as much dirt as the volume of the plane , deflecting debris, fire, gas, etc hundreds of meters in the direction of the plane. Grass would of been burnt etc and none of this was present on September 11th, 2001 in Shanksville, Penn.

The crater is similar to a bomb or missile.