Where was all that 95% of UA93 wreckage?

Originally posted by impressme


Only you would have access to the crash scene in Shanskville, PA are you now working for the FBI? They did not allow your military at ground zero in Shanskville Pa, stop making up stories.

Impress me impressme! Read these 10 points regarding flight 93. Tell me what is in error.

Then you too can come back with YOUR alternative theory as to what happened to flight 93.

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the plane's seatback Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

Umm, the CIA says it was flight 98. OS'ers says it was flight 93. Don Rumsfeld the SecDef at the time gave us the answer as to HOW it was brought down.

Too many "typos" and slip 'o the tongues for me to come to arrive at any other conclusion...

I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon..." - Don Rumsfeld, SecDef

George W. Bush said he first heard about the 1st plane crashing into the WTC while he was sitting in front of school kids. Then, he admitted publically that he heard about the 1st plane that crashed into the WTC BEFORE he went into the classroom full of kids.

One AP report stated a plane that was indentified as UAL flight 93 landed at Cleveland initially but later that story was recanted as an "error"...months later rather than right away as it should have been. Only after many emails and telephone calls to the reporter did they change the story.

Flight 93/98 remains as the only flight that is/has been disputed to either have existed at all, was shot down, never crashed or existed on 911. Regardless of what story anyone believes, the story of this flight is full of holes.

One thing stands out to me...The photos in the link below shed different angles on the crash site I do not think have been posted on ATS before.

PA crash site photos

Originally posted by mikelee
Umm, the CIA says it was flight 98. OS'ers says it was flight 93. .............

Evasion and goal post moving noted.

Please come back with your alternative theory and / or refutation of the 10 facts I posted above.

Thank you!

Dr. P

The aircraft that spotted the "black smoke" was an unarmed Air National Guard cargo plane that also had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon 26 minutes earlier. After being diverted to track American 77, the cargo plane had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went down.

source: NPR Radio

Just happened to be the SAME plane that was watching the aircraft strike the WTC? Monitoring sounds more like it. Ensuring that all went as planned.

Oh Oh oH, wait! They said it was a lear jet though right? Or was it a military transport plane? See the OS (optional Scenario) playing into effect here?

Is this a crash site or a burn pit? Link Here

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You only do a reconstruction if you are not sure why the aircraft crashed. That is not the case with Flight 93.

You also do a reconstruction for a crime scene.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Why are you placing "only you" in quotes? Are you suggesting I made the claim (when I did not)? Now, what does ATS rules say about that....

You are making claims, and you never said the word “ WE ” so I assume it is only you.

Besides, I am not the only one with the information. Its public information for anyone who can set their hatred of the government aside long enough to listen to the facts.

The information that you talk about is not available for the public.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

Radar tracks, airfone calls, witnesses and data recorders. Oh yeah, a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well.

My question was WHY DID IT CRASH? and how did they know? This answers neither.

This information below?

Radar tracks, airfone calls, witnesses and data recorders. Oh yeah, a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well.

Who did testing on United 93 to a lack of explosive residue on the wreckage as well????

I just love how you make up lies to fit your OS fairytales lies with no creditable sources, nothing.
Here is PROOF that you are lying about flight United 93 being tested.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

www.911blogger.com...

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

pilotsfor911truth.org...

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

pilotsfor911truth.org...

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS


1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

You made the Evel Kinevel style jump in logic to decide I was speaking specificallly about Flight 93....and like Evel..all too often....you crashed.

You where talking about FLIGHT 93…. You need to stop playing deceitful games on ATS.

Oh, I said this, uh no, I was really saying that, uh, not really you don’t know what I was saying, twisting your information around because you are proven wrong over and over…. No it looks like you crashed and any casual reader can see that, good day to you.





[edit on 2-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by ImAPepper

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

pilotsfor911truth.org...

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS


1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.
5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

This alone just destroyed everything you just posted to me, without the proper information you have nothing.

I am not talking about "theories" Iam talking about facts so lets stick to the facts here not unproven opinions.





[edit on 2-1-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Seems truthers have a hard time with that one.

Like you skeptics are having with the OP?

reply to post by impressme


I wouldn't be placing all of my eggs in that P4T basket, if I were you, unless you want to appear as stupid as they already do.

EVERY ONE of their assertions, to date, have been shown to be incorrect.

Their latest imbroglio was the "Flight Deck (that means "Cockpit") Door Closed Entire Flight" baloney.

Gee...jumping the gun when they thought they had found one smoking, only to have their basket of eggs smashed soundly in their faces here at ATS, and also by the work of Warren Stutt in his better AA 77 FDR decode...the track record of that fiasco shows how poor their ability to interpret actual data is.

If you wish, I could refute each and every one of your linky-links up there, but that would keep veering into the ditch....

Now, Topic:

@@Lillydale....you asked HOW they knew that the airplane (UA 93) was intentionally flown into the ground.

BECAUSE we are able to read the FDR from that airplane, that's how...THAT, and the supporting evidence from the CVR.

It isn't difficult to understand the causality of an event, when you look at the big picture.

Of course, truly rabidly obsessed conspiracy theorists refuse to accept facts in toto, and instead wish to constantly cherry pick and argue over arcane minutiae....

Shall I link the NTSB report showing the FDR data for UA 93 AGAIN???

Would you like help understanding it???

Doesn't everyone realize that NEVER before in the history of aviation has this been seen --- a full-power intentional dive into exactly similar terrain in exactly the same way. (Well, I take that back....PSA 1771 might qualify as similar).

Even the two instances (still controversial, as Boeing wished to shirk any legal liability) of Boeing 737s rolling over from what appeared to be normal flight, and diving nearly straight in are different. Because the initial airspeeds when the rolls began, and the final speeds at impact were much lower than seen with UA 93.

Finally, the reason that so much of the wreckage was found in the limited area of the crash site shows that it had NOT been shot down. Further, IF a shoot down, there would have been many, many much larger pieces, and the debris field much longer and possibly wider.

Following on that, it bears mentioning that the United States was fully ready, and had authorized to shoot it down, if located, so it would not reach its intended target. There is NO doubt about this fact.

Therefore, it is ludicrous to claim, now, that the Government is "covering up" a shoot down!!!

Oh, and as to Rummy or anyone, when first hearing FROM THE MEDIA about UA 93 being down, likely assumed the military were responsible, since it's reasonable to assume that HE was in the chain of command who authorized the strike. SO, when first hearing of it, he would have ASSUMED it was the military.

How hard is this to understand??? Or, is it just arguing for argument's sake, nowadays???



In fact, it is probably not too much of a stretch to say that NO two airplane accidents are identical...always something different, each and every time.






[edit on 2 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by mikelee

Just happened to be the SAME plane that was watching the aircraft strike the WTC? Monitoring sounds more like it. Ensuring that all went as planned.

Oh Oh oH, wait! They said it was a lear jet though right?

Sorry, mike, but you see what you just did here?

Commonly seen coming more often than not from the conspiracy theorists...

Look at the first sentence of yours that is quoted above: The airplane that you THINK you're referring to is, in fact, the C-130 that had just departed Andrews AFB (you know, the one near DC??) and was in the vicinity to be able to SEE American 77, and SEE the airplane enroute towards the Pentagon and SEE the fireball and cloud of smoke from the impact.

The C-130 was told by ATC to circle a few times, they confirmed that the Pentagon had been hit, then being able to do nothing else, they continued on course to their destination...in Minneapolis.

Why did YOU mention the WTC???


AS TO the C-130 with O'Brien onboard (afaik he's the only one of the crew who's come forward, or at least he gets most publicity) I am not sure I've heard about that SAME airplane also being in the vicinity of Shanksville, too.


There IS a report of a private airplane, a guy in a Piper Cherokee, who was about to land at a small airport near Shanksville (I forget which one, will look it up) and he was able, after being asked by ATC, to actually SEE United 93, well enough to recognize the paint scheme.

AFTER the UA 93 impact, ATC requested a business jet (A Falcon, I believe...definitely NOT a 'LearJet') to orbit, and describe what they saw.

Remember, ALL civilian airplanes were being directed to land ASAP by this time. Of course, the controllers would use any assets in the sky that would be near enough to have visuals on the traffic (UA 93) in order to ascertain what was happening.

Look at the first sentence of yours that is quoted above: The airplane that you THINK you're referring to is, in fact, the C-130 that had just departed Andrews AFB (you know, the one near DC??) and was in the vicinity to be able to SEE American 77, and SEE the airplane enroute towards the Pentagon and SEE the fireball and cloud of smoke from the impact.

That WAS the airplane I'm referring to. Don't you think it's a little strange that the SAME plane saw it all? Oh wait, no.

You wouldn't now would you?

[edit on 2-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by mikelee

One AP report stated a plane that was indentified as UAL flight 93 landed at Cleveland initially but later that story was recanted as an "error"...months later rather than right away as it should have been.

No, the AP corrected their story within ONE hour. The Ohio TV station that posted the link to the first story, merely removed the link when the AP corrected themselves instead of deleting it completely.

reply to post by REMISNE


Except this was an act of war. Not sure why that is so difficult a concept for some to grasp......

reply to post by mikelee

Just happened to be the SAME plane that was watching the aircraft strike the WTC? Monitoring sounds more like it. Ensuring that all went as planned.

Where DO you get your info? The Minnesota Air Guard C-130 observed flight 77 and flight 93. It was nowhere near the WTC that day.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by impressme


Using "we" would create the idea that I am speaking for someone else. I am not, I speak for myself and myself only.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



Too many "corrected storys", claimed typos, etc etc. The OS remains one of the most sloppy put together explanations for the magnitude of events that were seen on 911.

One time its "this is how it was" then the next its "oh wait, we got it wrong, now its this" and again its "that witness has no clue what he saw" etc etc.

Call me what any of you want to, I do not care. The Official Story regarding the events on September 11, 2001 is a joke. Its a half assed organized sloppy attempt to come off as having all of the answers while there are still too many unanswered questions that many of the same people who developed the official story-tale CANNOT ANSWER to any degree of certainity.

All of this Laurel & Hardy antics trying to come up with a reasonable explanation based in accountability, honesty by the 911 Commission is a disgrace to not only the country, but to each of you who keep trying to defend it.

OS = Optional Scenario

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


From friends & former collegues who still work in the gov as well as sources that are NOT based in the same BS like "loose change" etc, etc.

And, why do you say that the C130 WAS both flights? Are you implying that the military plane was actually the two other aircrafts?

I'd advise you to find another one to pick on with your superflous bull # though, just a suggestion.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


If you actually READ the post, follow the links and the like. You would see where that came from. I will not entertain you as Impressme does.

reply to post by mikelee


I made a typo. It is now corrected. Feel better?

reply to post by mikelee

From friends & former collegues who still work in the gov as well as sources that are NOT based in the same BS like "loose change" etc, etc.

So, your source told you that the C-130 saw it all huh? That pretty much tells me how inaccurate your source is.