KT Challenge@Shanksville

reply to post by CameronFox

Can you please list the evidence you have that supports whatever your theory is?

So far, you have come up with the serial numbers not being recorded. This was conceded by me many pages ago. I will kindly ask that you take this opportunity to post what evidence you have. Not your opinion, not what you "think".. I would like to see the facts you have.

Ok CF here is a lot of reading for you to show you that the government has not been on honest with us about 911.
If you disagree with the articals below please state why you disagree with supporting facts, and soures thank you. By the way these are not my opinions. However they do prove the OS is not true.

Flight 93:
Proof of 9/11 Lies by the US Government and Media
An article detailing Flight 93's last minutes was briefly available at dailynews.yahoo.com on 9/11/2001. It not fit the official story of the last moments of Flight 93 and rapidly disappeared from news websites, but it can still be found at the web archive:

whatreallyhappened.com...

The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77

Copyright Joe Vialls, 27 March 2002

www.geocities.com...

Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11

www.villagevoice.com...

Some of the outrageous lies about 9/11

www.tehrantimes.com...

Let Us Sound The Midnight
Cry Of Paul Revere

www.rense.com...

The Lies and Crimes of 911:

A Canadian View of the War on Terror's Origins

www.globalresearch.ca...

Bush Lies About 911: A Primer

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com...

An “Invisible Army” Fights the Media Lies About 9/11
www.prisonplanet.com...

Big Lies About 9/11
Clinton vs. Bush: Neocons lie and lie again

www.romm.org...

reply to post by impressme


It is truly amazing that the sites you listed are still fooling people. Each one of those sites, has been analyzed and shown to be lacking in completeness (i.e. Ed Felt's phone call, the actual operator who talked to Mr Felt came out and said that "white smoke" was never once mentioned during the phone call) Yet, people continue to buy into the lies found on those sites.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

It is truly amazing that the sites you listed are still fooling people. Each one of those sites, has been analyzed and shown to be lacking in completeness (i.e. Ed Felt's phone call, the actual operator who talked to Mr Felt came out and said that "white smoke" was never once mentioned during the phone call) Yet, people continue to buy into the lies found on those sites.

This is only your opinion. Where is your sources to back up your statement for this ridiculous statement eh?

Originally posted by CameronFox
I have conceded that the serial numbers were not recorded.

Originally posted by CameronFox
what it proves is that airplane parts were there from flight 93. You are the one making the extraordinary claims..you are the one that has to prove they did NOT come from flight 93.

Your two quotes above, mutually cancel each other out, CameronFox.

You can not claim that any alleged scrap wreckage allegedly found at the Shanksville crater was from the alleged Flight 93, when you concede that serial numbers were not recorded to prove it.

You can start with your serial number rant again.

Yep, I sure will. It's an annoying thorn in the side for the official story.

Keep in mind that flight 93 was tracked on radar until it's crash.

Keep in mind that an alleged blip representing the alleged Flight 93 was allegedly tracked until the alleged crash.

Keep in mind that other real, videotaped eyewitnesses have been found who contradict many of the official flight parameters of the official story.

Edit to fix quote tags.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by impressme
This is only your opinion. Where is your sources to back up your statement for this ridiculous statement eh?

Here is the transcript of Ed Felts call to the 911 operator. This is a PDF file that was released to Mike Williams of 911Myths per a FOIA request. As you will read, there is no mention of smoke and or an explosion. The only discrepancy is that the operator's supervisor picked up the "spy phone" and states that he recalls hearing him mention smoke and an explosion.

Ed Felt


Gordon Felt, Ed's brother said that when he listen to the tape, he never mentioned a bomb or white smoke.

"There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." - Gordon Felt

“A male passenger, Edward Felt, did call from the bathroom of the plane, but never mentioned an explosion or puff of smoke, said John Shaw, the dispatcher who took the call. “Didn't happen,” he said. Felt's wife, who heard a tape of the call, corroborated Shaw's story.”

(Among the Heroes, p. 369) (New York Times, 3/27/02)

John Shaw: Received a call from Flight 93
www.post-gazette.com...


[edit on 4-4-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by impressme
Ok CF here is a lot of reading for you to show you that the government has not been on honest with us about 911.
If you disagree with the articals below please state why you disagree with supporting facts, and soures thank you. By the way these are not my opinions. However they do prove the OS is not true

I asked for evidence from you. (or a source) What makes YOU think you were lied to. I also asked that you list the lies I told.

Flight 93:
Proof of 9/11 Lies by the US Government and Media
An article detailing Flight 93's last minutes was briefly available at dailynews.yahoo.com on 9/11/2001.
whatreallyhappened.com...

There were many stories that appeared on 911 that were reported without verification. So many media outlets trying to get the stories out as fast as they could. Remember the chaos that day? Remember all the different reports that were false that day? Fogs of war.

The Ed Felt story is linked in my previous post. You chose to believe what you want.

You have Rumsfield the retard misspeak and this is an admission? Same for Guillani. I am not a fan of either one of them. You believe this is a Freudian slip? Well have at it. We can both only give our opinions here in regards to what they said.

The Mother of All Lies About 9/11
Barbara Olson's "Phone Call" From Flight 77

Take this to another thread. This is a flight 93 topic.

Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11

www.villagevoice.com...

I went through ALL 8 pages of that article. I did not read ONE lie regarding flight 93. Perhaps I missed it? Can you please quote what he lied about regarding flight 93?

] Some of the outrageous lies about 9/11
www.tehrantimes.com...

Tehran Time:
"IRAN'S LEADING INTERNATIONAL DAILY"

Ok, I went through this mess. I will address only parts pertaining to flight 93:

1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage?

The news crews were not "on the scene" like this person suggests they were. We all know know that there were debris. Personal belongings were found, and ALL victims were identified through dental records, or DNA.

7. How was it that four commercial airliners were able to roam at will the northeastern sector of the United States without being intercepted? Of course, Flight 93 was intercepted and shot down by the U.S. military.

A bit of a contradiction, but anyway he does not offer anything but an opinion without presenting any facts.

Let Us Sound The Midnight
Cry Of Paul Revere
www.rense.com...

This anti war rant by Roz Hill offers nothing in the way of evidence. Flight 93 is not mentioned once.

The Lies and Crimes of 911:
A Canadian View of the War on Terror's Origins
www.globalresearch.ca...

Canadian "Professor" Anthony Hall gets down and dirty regarding the war on terrorism and attempts to "connect the dots" in this long winded article. I read through all of it. Heck, I even read the end notes hoping to find something... ANYTHING regarding Flight 93.

Once again I am disappointed. Not one mention of flight 93

Bush Lies About 911: A Primer
existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com...

This article again...fails to mention one lie or one piece of evidence regarding flight 93. Even the endless links and videos on this page do nothing to show evidence and or lies pertaining to 911.

An “Invisible Army” Fights the Media Lies About 9/11
www.prisonplanet.com...

Christopher Bollyn wrote this letter that is filled with nothing but opinion and lies. Nothing however is mentioned regarding flight 93. Not once was in mentioned. Again.

Big Lies About 9/11
Clinton vs. Bush: Neocons lie and lie again

www.romm.org...

What a waste of time. This final link sent me to a Dave Romm page. Many links supporting why Bush was an idiot and Clinton was not.

I didn't have to read all the to draw that conclusion. But once again. NOTHING about flight 93.

I gave you the opportunity to present evidence supporting your claims regarding flight 93. You didn't.

I asked that you to post one lie that I told on this thread. You haven't.

You sent me on a wild goose chase around the WWW reading the same old garbage that has been out there for 7 years. Only two links that mentions Flight 93. I hope that you will be able to see the truth regarding Ed Felt.

edit- quote tags

[edit on 4-4-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by tezzajw
You can not claim that any alleged scrap wreckage allegedly found at the Shanksville crater was from the alleged Flight 93, when you concede that serial numbers were not recorded to prove it.

FDR - Found

CVR- Found

DNA- Found and identified

Personal Belongings- Found,identified, and returned to families

Radar - tracked from take off to impact

Keep in mind that other real, videotaped eyewitnesses have been found who contradict many of the official flight parameters of the official story.

Any of those witnesses see a fighter jet with a missile shooting the plane?
I don't know what you think happened at 93.. So, why don't you step up and tell us what you think.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox
FDR - Found

FDR never formally proven to be from Flight 93.

CVR- Found

CVR never formally proven to be from Flight 93.

DNA- Found and identified

Again with the illogical science? Alleged human DNA does not identify the serial numbered parts of an alleged jet.

Personal Belongings- Found,identified, and returned to families

Again with the illogical science? Alleged personal belongings do not identify the serial numbered parts of an alleged jet.

Radar - tracked from take off to impact

Allegedly. Radar does not confirm that the alleged scrap wreckage belongs to the alleged plane that allegedly crashed.

Any of those witnesses see a fighter jet with a missile shooting the plane?
I don't know what you think happened at 93.. So, why don't you step up and tell us what you think.

It's always the same with bebunkers. After not being able to defend the official story, they always then ask truthers to construct a theory about what happened. It's a common tactic, when painted in a corner.

No, CameronFox, I will not construct an alterate theory. I don't need to. I don't know what happened to the alleged Flight 93 at Shanksville. Like many others, I'm waiting for definitive proof that the official story is true.

Yeah, Anyone can read about the OS fantasy just pick up the sciences fiction NIST story or read about a fantasy in the 911 commission report, a book about he said, she said.
We have not been told anything yet, the government refuses to answer any of our questions. (Just one big snake pit of lies!)
We really do not know what really happened at Shanksville however, what the FBI has told us has been proven as a lie. Too many eyewitness saw something different in Shanksville PA. and it doesn’t stand up to the FBI reports, and good common sense. The visual evidence does not stand up to the FBI reports nothing does. Its all (hogwash) ether no plane crashed or flight 93 was shot down by NORAD.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by CameronFoxHe didn't show ANY evidence. What he presented was an opinion. Just like you are in the above paragraph.

That could be said for all yours too. If you want to call it opinion, then do you agree SPreston's opinion that the engine piece is not embedded in the ground and is small enough to fit the scooper? If you don't, give us your opinion why that photo of the engine does not look it was planted.

I have "got it" since I did my research. When did you say you will be presenting evidence?

You're just going to dismiss it be calling it opinion, so why should we bother? It's obvious nothing will change your mind.

I showed with math, the kinetic energy involved in the crash. The estimate of the equivalent in TNT. I also showed a similar high speed air crash with very similar results.

Most of those planes didn't get swallowed up by the ground. How do you explain that when officials said Flight 93 did?

I showed phone calls, FDR, CVR, interviews, photographs. .... it just goes on.

Not sure how reported phone calls from a plane proves it crashed. Please explain.

You believe (and Killtown) that the absence of photographic evidence is proof of a cover up.

Evidence of a cover up, or in your closed minded way of thinking, opinion of a cover up.

Answer me this though, if the scene was staged, wouldn't an absence of photographic evidence be expected?

Originally posted by CameronFoxwhat it proves is that airplane parts were there from flight 93. You are the one making the extraordinary claims..you are the one that has to prove they did NOT come from flight 93. You can start with your serial number rant again

I must of missed that. How was that proven?

Keep in mind that flight 93 was tracked on radar until it's crash.

If it had its transponder, it would just be a blip. Other aircraft were in the area. The blip could have been one of those diversion aircraft. Can you prove that blip was from Flight 93, or using your logic, is it just your opinion that blip was 93?

Allow me to post an opinion here. I have yet to find the audio or video of the press conference where Bill Crowley states that 95% was recovered. From what I read, he states that 95% of what was recovered was given to United Airline. The other 5% was the FDR and the CVR which the FBI is in possession of.

My OPINION is that 95% was not recovered.

That would be an awfully big set of black boxes if those added up to be 5% of the plane. Wasn't it discovered those black boxes where from different brands?

Please source that.

The video sourced that. I thought you watched it.

You are speculating. Please provide us with your thoughts on what the crash scene should of looked like. Then, please provide a professional crash scene investigator that agrees with you.

The crash you pointed out had tons of plane scrap littered all over the ground. I don't see that at the Shanksville scene. The video showed that officials said most of the plane went underground as a way to explain why so few pieces of plane debris was observed on the field. You do have to watch the video though to know this.

Originally posted by CameronFox
FDR - Found

CVR- Found

DNA- Found and identified

Personal Belongings- Found,identified, and returned to families

Radar - tracked from take off to impact

All the things you would expect to find with a staged plane crash, along with the absence of photographs showing a plane in the ground, most of the debris being small you could plant by hand, and few pieces of debris scattered around. We can also add in the shallow crater when they say a 155 feet plane caused it.

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

CameronFox: "" LaBTop... you have yet to offer once reasonable explanation as to how this was done with the passengers that changed their flights at the last minute.""

You have to reconsider the notion that the day of 9/11 was planned meticulously, far in advance, for the next explanations.

1. Most reasonable: All plane calls and last minute calls to recipients were real.

Note that of course they planned to let it look as real as can be, even under close scrutiny afterwards.
Where they always had the advantage of withholding or falsifying evidence, using the old excuse of the ongoing or eventual later trials of terrorists, or as usual, if that wasn't enough, the Nation's security.

It however still leaves the discrepancies between the officially reported heights of the plane above Viola's house and the actual height Viola and her neighbors reported; the scrapyard witnesses reported different heights; and the white drone hopping over trees in front of the crash site, reported by Susan McElwain in Domenick DiMaggio team's interviews. The presence of that drone at that moment means its owners knew exactly where the crater would be and was planned to be.

And that's why we strongly suspect a military involvement, since they are the main owners of such drones.
The CIA and colleagues do own them too, but the line between the CIA and the military is invisible at most times.

Thus that leaves us with the question, why the officials needed to fake the plane's heights over Viola's house, and towards the scrapyard. The answer is of course that they needed a nose dive from considerable height at considerable speed, to be able to sell that soft landfill nose-dive to 30 meters deep until it hit solid rock.

Which type of nose-dive did not occur according to multiple witnesses.
That's why I believe that thus the logical conclusion should be, that also the phone calls were faked, which leads us to :


2. Reasonable: All plane calls, and all last minute calls to recipients were faked by using morphed voices.

To let this scenario be real, there were no real last minute passengers allowed on the plane.
If they were able to orchestrate those critical 1.5 hours on the morning of 9/11, then blocking real last minute passenger bookings in the involved computer network was a minor but necessary part of the plan.
An indication of such manipulation were the unusual low passenger loads on the planes involved.

Then most of the "proof" was constructed afterwards by using the morphed audio from "callers" which was mined from past Echelon data.
All booking calls from booking agencies or directly to the airport were quickly analyzed in the time between booking and actual flight, and voice prints made for the callers for the already typed in computer data. The text of plane calls were all typed out as computer data, and then their voice prints added to "speak" the print-outs.

The 8am United Airlines flight 93 was 42 minutes late in taking off from Newark, New Jersey, for the trip to San Francisco. Add to that the amount of minutes available from the moment a passenger booked, and actual take-off.

3. Less reasonable: There were no real calls at all, and no real recipients.


In this thread, where we discuss the opening post, I am not really concerned at this point if there were real calls involved, or even real passengers, or whatever other implication brought up by official sources.

I have a problem with the official explanations, and I gave my reasons for that in the other linked to thread, and in short in my above point nr. 1 explanation.

9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage :
www.youtube.com...



This above early video from CNN helicopter gives a wrong impression where the main official crater was situated.
They show a spot inside the wooded area, on the south bended dirt road towards the white wooden house.
That dark scar you see on or in that road near that house with the open garage door, is not the official impact crater.

www.geocities.com...

The air-phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.

This above quote is another possible indication that air-phone calls, especially the two far too long connected ones, even still connected long after the crash, were faked.







Let's help CameronFox and like-minded members a bit with determining where exactly the impact crater was situated, since they avoided to answer my question up till now.
Look at the above picture, which has some landmarks in it, like the telephone pole at the picture's right center border, along the road which is situated along the tree line there. And some foot paths in the foreground fields. And a few more.

Then look at the USGS still frame from 1994 that I posted and a USGS photo posted by someone else, where you could see quite clear where the boundaries from that landfill exactly were situated compared to that tree-line road.

Then you'll see that the crater was i.m.h.op. not situated within the freshly re-filled deep excavation, but in the untouched hard original side soil.

This was my still frame from a video :
Big picture: www.alsx.info...




And this next one is another 1994 picture, dated 4/20/1994, where it's even more obvious where the boundaries between hard and soft soil were situated :

Big picture: terraserver-usa.com...

Crucial tile from that big picture:


These are three tiles taken from the above big picture, with the later, 2001 crater spot visible in them :

Original tile sources:
terraserver-usa.com...
terraserver-usa.com...
terraserver-usa.com...






Note the bend of the tree-line road, southwards into the wood. Then look also at all photos provided by SPreston on page 10 of this thread, and then it is possible to pin-point the exact spot of the 2001 crater in the 1994 USGS photos.
Hint: the crater was very near that tree-line road.

[edit on 7/4/09 by LaBTop]

Since most official stories followers have a build-in aversive attitude against following links provided by opponents, here are the links to that crucial page from the Loose Change forum with tens of flight 93 photos, so kindly provided by SPreston again, and the crucial pictures from there :
s15.invisionfree.com...

Source: www.bartcop.com...




Source: img98.imageshack.us...




Do you see now how damn close that scar is to that dirt road along the tree line?
Which spot in this picture with text of mine is in your (the reader) mind, the 2001 crater scar of the alleged flight 93 impact ?



In my mind it's either the dark round shadow just beside the lower left boundary of my yellow colored box with the text under it ""two possible impact crater spots on 9/11/2001"", or one of those two possible spots outlined by me with a yellow circles.

It looks that the dark round shadow is the most logical candidate, in my opinion.
And that's definitely not situated in refilled, soft soil.

[edit on 7/4/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by impressme

But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated

Do yourself a favor and actually do some research on something other than a conspiracy site.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Link please?
Found 7 myself already, by inserting your whole quoted text in Google.
One of them :
www.conspiracyscience.com...

Can we now proceed by discussing the strange discrepancy between the government telling us that a plane ditched 30 meters deep in fresh filled earth, and the photos showing a scar in old, hard soil?



[edit on 7/4/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


Sure. Show me where a soil analysis was done prior to 9/11 that shows it was 'old, hard soil'

It was shot down, plain and simple.

read this thread to see how easy it was

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was debris for miles.....

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston

 

Exactly what is the "challenge"? A plane hits the earth dead on at 65% of the speed of sound and you expect the thing to be intact? What do you think planes are made of? Just look at the results of any high speed car crash, increase the kinetic energy by a factor of say 1000 and it would be more suprising to find anything bigger than a deck of cars.

Next challenge please.

Bless you.

Plane Crashes Can Often reduce Planes to Dust