It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

page: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I have shown prove of the document


NO you havent.







Thats so funny coming from someone who has not posted any real evidence no matter how many times he has been asked, only repeating what the media has told him.

So you also have ZERO evidence to back up your claims or the official story.



Would you like the link to our debate? Do you recall that you lost that? Did you read the comments?

Did you post ANY evidence?

Thank you have a nice day.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NO you havent.


Yes, i have and you cannot debate the source. So please grow up get used to it and move on.


Would you like the link to our debate? Do you recall that you lost that?.


How did i lose to someone who can post no real evidence or debate the evidence i have posted, only post what the media has trold him?



[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Either post the document or drop it already.


I have shown prove of the document and have shown FOIA request for the document.

Please be adult enough to atleast admit to that much.


Sorry, I haven't seen the document. Where is it? The actual document? Could you link to it so I can read the doc?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry, I haven't seen the document. Where is it? The actual document? Could you link to it so I can read the doc?


Gee, you believers just keep showing how you cannot read.

I just stated that i have shown evidnece of the document and that i have shown evidence that i have filed a FOIA request to get a declassified copy of the document.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry, I haven't seen the document. Where is it? The actual document? Could you link to it so I can read the doc?


Gee, you believers just keep showing how you cannot read.

I just stated that i have shown evidnece of the document and that i have shown evidence that i have filed a FOIA request to get a declassified copy of the document.



So lets see the document then. Where is it? Why haven't you posted it?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

He never said there were no body parts. Everyone there said they saw body parts strewn through the crash site.

Here are some corrections
1. debris was not found 8 miles away from the flight 93 crash site. There was only a few papers found as far as Indian Lake which is approx. 1.5 miles away.

2. Wally Millers response to your above accusation is as follows:
"What I meant is that after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner and started being a funeral director. The coroners job is to determine the cause and manor of death. Well we knew what the cause of death was

Another witness:
Lt. Patrick Madigan PA State Police
"There were many parts of human remains that were located and recovered"

So yes there were body parts and no, there were not debris found 8 miles from the crash sight.






the debris field(s) is still pretty up for debate around here, much like the 'official' story. and if you pay attention, i addressed wally's last statement and his recanting of it in that manner. did not feel the need to post the quote since
1-i said he recanted the statement
2-did you read all the other quotes he was not able to so easily explain away?

larry clarified "pull it"
wally clarified "stopped being coroner"

amazing how these people can come back and clear it all up so it makes sense to you. too bad they cannot say it right the first time. or in wally's case, the first several times.

you also fail to explain then, what did he mean he stopped being coroner because the cause was clear? after 20 minutes he knew more than anyone else? why did he not run and tell the white house that he knew after 20 minutes of being at the crash site exactly what the crime was. be serious.

he knew from 20 minutes at the crash site that hijackers took over the plane and crashed it and that is why everyone is dead. interesing, so when he was called, they said
"wally, we got a plane crash, get down here and be coroner."
"ok im on my way."
20+ minutes later
"seems it was the plane crash that killed 'em. where is my paycheck?"

seems he could have figured that all out from hearing that he was ON HIS WAY TO A PLANE CRASH. but that is just me.

i like how you debunkers take a post full of evidence against you and then take the time to attack one single little point in it and sit back feeling victorious. if you are going to address the quote, i already clarified, then what about the many other statements he made about no bodies, no blood, no victims, no pilots, no passenger, NO BODIES ANYWHERE. did you even read all of the quotes. let me try give them to you again.


Wallace Miller is the coroner of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. He was among the first people to arrive at the alleged Flight 93 crash site on the morning of 9/11.

He later recounted to the Washington Post what he'd seen when he first got there: "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)

Since there were 44 people on board Flight 93, a crash site with "no bodies" makes no sense. Where were the victims? Something appears to have been seriously wrong.

Yet Miller now seems to dispute his earlier claim. In the recent BBC documentary 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, he explained: "I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the cause and manner of death was gonna be. It was a plane crash but yet it was a homicide because the terrorists hijacked the plane and killed the people, and the terrorists committed suicide. So from that point, yes it was a misquote, because the point that I was trying to make was, after that it more or less became a large funeral service." The BBC documentary's producer Guy Smith endorsed this claim, telling Loose Change creator Dylan Avery that Miller meant his earlier statement only as "a simile. ... It looked as if that had happened. ... But he didn't mean that literally." (9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC 2, 2/18/2007)

Was the Washington Post mistaken? Did they "misquote" Wallace Miller? Other reports suggest differently. In the 12 months following 9/11, Miller in fact described the surprising lack of human remains at the Flight 93 crash site, repeatedly and unequivocally:


He told author David McCall: "I got to the actual crash site and could not believe what I saw. ... Usually you see much debris, wreckage, and much noise and commotion. This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise. ... It appeared as though there were no passengers or crew on this plane." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 86-87)


He told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It was as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed." (Tom Gibb, "Newsmaker: Coroner's quiet unflappability helps him take charge of Somerset tragedy," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/15/2001)


He told CNN: "It was a really a very unusual site. You almost would've thought the passengers had been dropped off somewhere. ... Even by the standard model of an airplane crash, there was very little, even by those standards." (CNN, 3/11/2002)


Author Jere Longman wrote: "Wallace Miller, the Somerset County coroner, arrived and walked around the [crash] site with [assistant volunteer fire chief Rick] King. ... They walked around for an hour and found almost no human remains. 'If you didn't know, you would have thought no one was on the plane,' Miller said. 'You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.'" (Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, 2002, p. 217)


Recalling the crash scene, Miller told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "This is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop." (Robb Frederick, "The day that changed America," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002)


Australian newspaper The Age reported: "Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'" ("On Hallowed Ground," The Age, 9/9/2002)

It would be ridiculous to claim that these accounts were all 'misquotes.' Furthermore, several other witnesses also made the same observation, and later said they saw virtually no human remains at the Flight 93 crash site:


According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, when former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' he says." (Robb Frederick, "The day that changed America," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002)


Local FBI agent Wells Morrison told author Glenn Kashurba what he saw when he arrived at the crash site: "We arrived in the immediate area and walked up to the crater and the burning woods. My first thought was, 'Where is the plane?' Because most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that. I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris." (Glenn Kashurba, Courage After the Crash, 2002, p. 110)





posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

After hearing a plane was down nearby, Jeff Phillips, who worked at Stoystown Auto Wreckers, "left work to locate the crash site," along with a colleague. "But when we arrived," he says, "Almost nothing was recognizable. The only thing we saw that was even remotely human was half a shoe that was probably ten feet from the impact area." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 29-30)


Jon Meyer, a reporter with WJAC-TV, says: "We were so early that they hadn't had a chance to set up a barrier for the press. ... I was able to get right up to the edge of the crater. ... All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. ... There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts."(Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 148)


Faye Hahn, an EMT, responded to the first reports of the crash. She says: "Several trees were burned badly and there were papers everywhere. We searched. ... I was told that there were 224 passengers, but later found out that there were actually forty. I was stunned. There was nothing there." (David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, 2002, pp. 31-32)

Despite this absence of human remains at the Flight 93 crash scene, the Washington Post reported: "[T]he 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. ... Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks [after 9/11] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)

By December 19, 2001, "the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers" had all been identified. (Steve Levin, "Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/30/2001)

How was this possible?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by jfj123

He never said there were no body parts. Everyone there said they saw body parts strewn through the crash site.

Here are some corrections
1. debris was not found 8 miles away from the flight 93 crash site. There was only a few papers found as far as Indian Lake which is approx. 1.5 miles away.

2. Wally Millers response to your above accusation is as follows:
"What I meant is that after 20 minutes I stopped being a coroner and started being a funeral director. The coroners job is to determine the cause and manor of death. Well we knew what the cause of death was

Another witness:
Lt. Patrick Madigan PA State Police
"There were many parts of human remains that were located and recovered"

So yes there were body parts and no, there were not debris found 8 miles from the crash sight.






the debris field(s) is still pretty up for debate around here,

No it's really not.


much like the 'official' story. and if you pay attention, i addressed wally's last statement and his recanting of it in that manner. did not feel the need to post the quote since
1-i said he recanted the statement
2-did you read all the other quotes he was not able to so easily explain away?

larry clarified "pull it"
wally clarified "stopped being coroner"

Gee what a surprise that a few people may have misspoke during one of the worst tragedies in American history.


amazing how these people can come back and clear it all up so it makes sense to you. too bad they cannot say it right the first time. or in wally's case, the first several times.

Yes and of course you've never misspoke, have you? You mean you've never had to clarify what you meant to anyone at any time, anywhere???


you also fail to explain then, what did he mean he stopped being coroner because the cause was clear? after 20 minutes he knew more than anyone else? why did he not run and tell the white house that he knew after 20 minutes of being at the crash site exactly what the crime was. be serious.

Well for one, the white house was a bit busy at the moment.
another reason is that I would assume there is a chain of command and he probably wouldn't have reported directly to the president, now would he?


he knew from 20 minutes at the crash site that hijackers took over the plane and crashed it and that is why everyone is dead. interesing, so when he was called, they said
"wally, we got a plane crash, get down here and be coroner."
"ok im on my way."
20+ minutes later
"seems it was the plane crash that killed 'em. where is my paycheck?"

I'm not sure where you're going with this rambling. Please clarify. Oops, it looks like I have misinterpreted what you've said...now where has that happened before??? hmmm.



i like how you debunkers take a post full of evidence against you and then take the time to attack one single little point in it and sit back feeling victorious

I like the way you "truthers" make up evidence and pretend it's fact.


. if you are going to address the quote, i already clarified, then what about the many other statements he made about no bodies, no blood, no victims, no pilots, no passenger, NO BODIES ANYWHERE. did you even read all of the quotes. let me try give them to you again.

He saw body PARTS, not complete bodies. DUH.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


i get it now. you are another one of them. first you say



Everyone there said they saw body parts strewn through the crash site


and i post many many many statemenst from people there that saw NO body parts.

then i ask you to explain why wally went on a tour telling everyone with an ear and a pen that he NEVER saw any body parts, any blood, any remains at all. and you go over the same statement that we already went over twice? how about the other statements he made. were those mispeaks? he sure does it alot. or was he still in shock for that whole year?

what about the quotes from investigators saying that the only way anyone would be identified was through trace dna evidence because there were NO BODY PARTS from which to collect anything.

just keep rebutting that one statement. i already gave it to you. then keep repeating that everyone their saw bodies even though i already showed you how untrue that is. just keep saying whatever fox news tells you. or you could address all those other statements that you seem so eager to pretend i have not posted TWICE.




"Wallace Miller, the Somerset County coroner, arrived and walked around the [crash] site with [assistant volunteer fire chief Rick] King. ... They walked around for an hour and found almost no human remains. 'If you didn't know, you would have thought no one was on the plane,' Miller said. 'You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.'"


does not sound like he was stepping over any body parts to me.

[edit on 8/22/2008 by re22666]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry, I haven't seen the document. Where is it? The actual document? Could you link to it so I can read the doc?


Gee, you believers just keep showing how you cannot read.

I just stated that i have shown evidnece of the document and that i have shown evidence that i have filed a FOIA request to get a declassified copy of the document.

1) You are actually backing down from a claim that you already possess the document.

2) The only evidence you have provided of any intent to obtain this document from the NSA is timestamped after you were asked to prove that you were in fact attempting to get a copy of it.

Don't keep forgetting this stuff, will ya?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So lets see the document then. Where is it? Why haven't you posted it?


Gee how immature can you be that you do not even know what a FOIA request is?

As stated i have proven that the docuemnt exist and i have proven that i sent an FOIA request to get a declassified copy. The original document is classified.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
1) You are actually backing down from a claim that you already possess the document.


WRONG, i never stated i had the document, more proof that believers like to put words in peoples mouth. I have seen the original clasiified version and am trying to get a declassified version.


2) The only evidence you have provided of any intent to obtain this document from the NSA is timestamped after you were asked to prove that you were in fact attempting to get a copy of it.


WRONG AGAIN, I had already sent an interanl FOAI request from work. I did the public request to prove to you believers that i did send the FOIA request and that the document exist.

Please try to read and understand my post before posting something that makes you look so immature.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
1) You are actually backing down from a claim that you already possess the document.


WRONG, i never stated i had the document, more proof that believers like to put words in peoples mouth. I have seen the original clasiified version and am trying to get a declassified version.

Everyone can check your post. Here, let me remind you what you said -

I have a document that proves reasonable doubt in the official story. Something that the court would have to agree with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many more times will you need to be reminded that you made this statement?



2) The only evidence you have provided of any intent to obtain this document from the NSA is timestamped after you were asked to prove that you were in fact attempting to get a copy of it.


WRONG AGAIN, I had already sent an interanl FOAI request from work. I did the public request to prove to you believers that i did send the FOIA request and that the document exist.

Please try to read and understand my post before posting something that makes you look so immature.

I couldn't help but laugh at the bolded part.

Why don't you read my post again and pay particular attention to the words "The only evidence you have produced" will you? Who looks "so immature" now, huh?

After initially promising to provide a scan of your request letter you have provided absolutely nothing at all to support your statement that your FOIA Request was "internal" and submitted before you were challenged on the subject.

Nothing at all!



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulatorI have a document that proves reasonable doubt in the official story. Something that the court would have to agree with.


Yes as a matter of fact i do have the classified version at work, i was talking about taking it to court. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.


After initially promising to provide a scan of your request letter you


Gee you really need to work on your reading comprehension, and go back and see that i did post a letter that i recieved from the NTSB about a FOIA request to porve that i do send FOIA requests.

How can 1 person be so wrong so many times?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Tell me Mr. Yogurt, the president of our country, someone who most people would expect to be honest and loyal, FLAT OUT LIES about why we were going to War with Iraq.

So what the hell is the difference between "some proffesional" who writes in text "some facts" and says he has "these qualifications" that make "his statement" legit and considered evidence, and our president who made false statements. There is no difference no matter how respected or well known a person is; there is always the possibility that they are lying.

STOP ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OR PROOF THAT FLIGHT 93 was SHOT DOWN.

You don't need "evidence" or any "official statements" all you need is common sense(which you obviously lack).

There is no single person IN THIS WORLD who's statements or writing can be considered factual. ALL EVIDENCE can be faked or forged, just because some person who claims they know the most about this subject says one thing does not make it true.

I WON'T give you any quotes or links to information that comes from some "airline crash investigator" or some other "proffesional" that claims to have knowledge in this field, not because I don't know any, but because it doesn't matter. If the president of the united states is capable of lying to the entire country, what makes you think that any of the information you have provided is actually "legit" just because some "official" or some "professional" said it was so ? What makes you think that any person you may talk to "face to face" is actually speaking the truth?

Motivation is a key factor in all of this, and I can safely say that 90% of the time people will lie in order to protect their job. Meaning, if you go and talk to the "most respected" airline crash investigator and ask him all sorts of questions, he may give you false answers simply because he knows he will lose his job if he contradicts his superiors statements. Or maybe he has been hand fed all the information he knows.

Stop trolling your own thread, you said what you had to say now stop telling everyone that posts information about this subject that "their information is wrong and not evidence" or that they are "misguided and didn't do their research"

WTF makes your information that you provided any more legit than ours? NOTHING


POINT IS: I wouldn't TRUST the word of any person that was there that day at the actual crash site. There is no way to tell if what they say is true or not. In fact, no one is allowed to even speak about what they do on their job for cases like this, all information that is revealed must be approved and announced "officially" which means that it gets filtered through approval.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes as a matter of fact i do have the classified version at work, i was talking about taking it to court. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

And the circus keeps going on and on and on and on and...

Sorry, it must have been my immaturity that resulted in me failing to understand correctly that "I have a document" actually really means that one does and does not possess a document simultaneously.

This is starting to resemble a Douglas Adams novel. Anyone for no tea?



After initially promising to provide a scan of your request letter you


Gee you really need to work on your reading comprehension, and go back and see that i did post a letter that i recieved from the NTSB about a FOIA request to porve that i do send FOIA requests.

Sigh.

Let's go to the replay -


Well since i work at NSA the request was made internally, was it really that hard to figure out?

Please be mature enonugh to find out about things before posting. I have done many FOIA requests and have never had a request number.

I can scan a letter from the FOIA request i have done.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So let me get this straight. When you were challenged to provide evidence that you have placed an FOIA request for the CRITIC messages your response is to scan a letter from an unrelated request?

I don't doubt that you've sent in FOIA requests. In fact, I've gone as far as to tell others that your claim in that regard was true. But I don't care because it has nothing to do with this issue.

Get back to me when you can keep your stories straight, mmkay?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by discombobulator]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Sorry, it must have been my immaturity that resulted in me failing to understand correctly that "I have a document" actually really means that one does and does not possess a document simultaneously.


Its ok, maybe when you grow up you will know the difference between a classified and declassified document too.


So let me get this straight. When you were challenged to provide evidence that you have placed an FOIA request for the CRITIC messages your response is to scan a letter from an unrelated request?


NO, thats where the immature part comes into play. I was asked to post proof of filing FOIA request, so i did.

Let me explain this as simple as i can 1 more time.

1. I filed a FOIA at work (an internal request) for a declassified copy of the document.

2. Since you and most others on here do not have access to NSANET i posted a public e-mail for the document just to prove i did send the FOIA.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, thats where the immature part comes into play. I was asked to post proof of filing FOIA request, so i did.


You were asked to provide proof that you filed a FOIA request for the NSA CRITIC messages.

You responded by providing a scan of a letter that you received in 2007 after a FOIA request you made to the NTSB (at Rob Balsamo's urging) for the Flight 77 FDR data.

I've never seen someone lie and deceive on a public forum as much as you have here. You are truly a waste of my time.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
So lets see the document then. Where is it? Why haven't you posted it?

Gee how immature can you be that you do not even know what a FOIA request is?
Yes I know what a Freedom of Information Act request is.

As stated i have proven that the docuemnt exist and i have proven that i sent an FOIA request to get a declassified copy. The original document is classified.


We have no idea what is in the document and neither do you. If you have read the document, why have you not copied the document? If you haven't read the document, you don't know what's in the document.

Also, the only way to PROVE the document exists and it's contents IS TO POST THE DOCUMENT.

Obviously you can't do either or you would have posted it. And since you're still alive, there is no seriously incriminating material in the document


So are you honestly expecting us to believe you have evidence incriminating the United States government in the deaths of 3000 people? So they killed 3000+ of it's own citizens but they won't knock off one more? Namely you, to keep the truth from coming out???????
Why do you really need to go through this in every thread where you make wild claims, people call you on said claims, you insult people for not understanding your "proof", you never post your "proof", then you move on to a new thread and start all over again.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
You were asked to provide proof that you filed a FOIA request for the NSA CRITIC messages.


Which i did by posting the public FIOA request.


You responded by providing a scan of a letter that you received in 2007 after a FOIA request you made to the NTSB (at Rob Balsamo's urging) for the Flight 77 FDR data.


1. NO, i responded to a question about me filieing FOIA request.

2. I did not file the FOIA request to NTSB for anyone. Please make sure you read and understand posts before responding.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join