Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

page: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


More from Wally Miller....from 2002, when it was still fresh in his mind (not years later, when memories tend to alter, especially after traumatic events).


Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth...


!!!!!! 20 minutes after? Then, he did NOT witness the impact!


... and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle. He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.

The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater.

"When we got out there, we knew there weren't going to be any survivors. Debris was strewn about everywhere, with nothing bigger than a large coffee can," Miller said.

Miller is accustomed to dealing with death, handling about 250 cases each year as the county coroner and operating his own funeral homes in Somerset and Rockwood. But nothing prepared him for this.

"I just stood there and thought, 'My goodness, what are we going to do?'" Miller said. "The only thing that really shocked me was the amount of devastation and how small the fragmentation was. After the first 15 minutes, it was clear to me it would be very important that I was a funeral director."


Oh, forgot the link:www.pittsburghlive.com...


You see, by eight months later the FDR data had been read out, and the angle was known, rest of the "cockpit broke off" was supposition. I think that it might have been determined as the complete area was searched, and pieces recovered, flagged as to location (including body fragments) and the distribution pattern determined, or inferred.

Of course, most of this had to be kept under wraps, the details, because of the pending trial of Moussani.



[edit on 5 March 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


What photo is in question??


This photo, used by a 'debunker'


Complete fraud. Fabrication of evidence. No sources and not even a wheel from a flight 93 the Boeing 757.


This picture was posted by hooper, he claims it came from Flight 93. Proven to be faked and fraudulent evidence. Very poor tactic. Yuk. Shame shame.


I have never posted a photo on this forum. I may have quoted other post in response, but never posted a photo myself. Please show my where and when I posted this and you also need to show where I claimed in a post that the excavation at Shanksville went to 40'

That's two.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I have never posted a photo on this forum. I may have quoted other post in response, but never posted a photo myself.


Thats right you never do post evidence to support what you post.

I am still waiting for you to post evidence that you claim flight 93 remains are in Iron Mountain.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Watch these videos.... Wally Miller


"Look like someone gouged a 10foot deep 10 foot wide trough...."

The hole is much to small to have been caused by a crashing Boeing 757 coming down at 45 degress and at 500+mph.



2:00 min mark---"The actual crater that day was 6-8 feet deep......."



She said that what crashed was no bigger than her van.



As you can see by the crater, no wings or engines hit the ground. What hit the ground was smaller than the round crater. The round crater was NOT caused by a Boeing 757. What appears to be scars from the wings was not caused by wings and was present before 911.



Good video but the scar mentioned inst the exact scar the the crater was made on but shows you the a scar the is usually confused with being made by wings was actually there before 911. There is old, dry, unbroken unburnt grass there. This is soft soil.





This picture was taken with the photographer standing in the trench that is often confused as being caused by wings. As you can see, they were not caused by wings and looks to have been there for some time. Notice, no burnt grass, no broken grass, the ground hasnt been touched especially by 1000's gallons of fuel laden wings with massive engines.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I have never posted a photo on this forum. I may have quoted other post in response, but never posted a photo myself.


Thats right you never do post evidence to support what you post.

I am still waiting for you to post evidence that you claim flight 93 remains are in Iron Mountain.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by REMISNE]


So you are OK with the lying, the statement that I posted the photo. You seem to have quite flexible standards with lying.

I gave you what there was, in the public record, on the remains of Flight 93 being in storage. You obviously didn't even do the most basic level of research, otherwise you would not have made the error regarding the location of the remains of Flight 93.

Hint: the remains are not in Iron Mountain. That is the name of the company that owns and operates the storage facility.

Yeah, you're a real truth seeker alright.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


So, do you have those links yet were you claimed that I said the excavation was 40 feet deep and the other one where you claim I posted that photo or are you just willing to admit you're lying?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
This is what we should of seen in the Field an that other awful place!



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


DCDAVE....no.

No.

Very, very very different circumstances between PAA 103 and UAL 93!!!

Please read verfy carefully....

Pan Am Boeing 747 had a BOMB onboard, in a suitcase, in the forward cargo compartment. It EXPLODED while the airplane was at cruise altitude.

I shall repeat,and enhance: It exploded at its initial cruise altitude of 31,000 feet. Disintegrated. Up there.


At this point The Maid of the Seas was flying at 31,000 feet (9,400 m) on a heading of 316 degrees magnetic, and at a speed of 313 knots (580 km/h) calibrated airspeed, at 19:02:46.9.

en.wikipedia.org...

Please click on this link, and pay particular attention to the description of how the airplane broke apart, mid-flight: en.wikipedia.org...


OK, done reading? Good. Now, when the pieces began to fall to the ground, they only accelerated only as fast as the force of gravity, they aren't being propelled by the thrust of the engines.

I hate to seem ghoulish, but this lesson is important for understanding the differences.


As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first (46.5 seconds after the explosion)


It hit in the Scottish village, among the buildings and pavement. The forward fuselage section, containing the cockpit, would have fell slower, and impacted at a lower speed.

Compared to UAL 93, deliberately dove into the ground, and by chance impacted in fairly soft soil. IF UAL 93 had hit in different terrain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

The fact that the momentum and forces caused the two recorders to penetrate so deeply should not be dismissed --- nor should the data recovered from them.

You may wish to look at another example of a "lawn dart" impact, although both at slower speeds than UAL 93 --- UAL 585 and USAir 427.

While neither is exactly the same, because of the ground diffrences, there are some similarities.

Also, Value Jet 592, which did a high-speed into a swamp. Knee-deep water, and of course wet soil (meaning soft) and there were NO pieces sticking up out of the water. It disappeared.

PSA 1771....high-speed, but a rocky hillside. Didn't bury as much, but some did.

Finally, the only photos that keep popping up on the Internet are the same ones. You do NOT see a whole lot of others, like what the debris back in the trees looked like.

Wally Miller should cough those up, he seemed to have a stack of 'em, in that one interview he taped.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I gave you what there was, in the public record, on the remains of Flight 93 being in storage.


There is no public record only a statment from the media. You have no real evidence of where the remains are. Please stop the lies.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Compared to UAL 93, deliberately dove into the ground, and by chance impacted in fairly soft soil. IF UAL 93 had hit in different terrain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


You keep forgetting flight 800. It hit the water at high speed and the Navy still recovered enough pieces to do a reconstruction.

Also do not forget Payne Stewarts Learjet, it hit the ground at high speed and stil left recognizable pieces.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


You forget that TWA 800 also broke up in mid-air after the explosion. It was not intact at full throttle impacting the ground in a nosedive.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
It was not intact at full throttle impacting the ground in a nosedive.


You forget that it did hit at full throttle because the engines were still on.

The point is that it hit the water at very high speed but yet there was enough recovered to do a reconstuction.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


You forget that it did hit at full throttle because the engines were still on.




um, what?

this is another terrific stundie!



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



You forget that it did hit at full throttle because the engines were still on.


Wow!!!! And you somehow think that the airplane then controlled itself into a powered descent, straight down???

WOW!!!!!

Here, read this:

www.ntsb.gov...


The point is that it hit the water at very high speed but yet there was enough recovered to do a reconstuction.


Yse, falling from at most 16,000 feet!!! The key word here is 'falling'.

Same with Payne Stewart's Learjet. It exhausted its fuel, at altitude, stalled and spun in. Well, its actual path down would not have been a traditional spin, probable developed into a flat spin, since it had a lot of altitude to begin with. Point is, it did NOT impact nose first, power on, at the same velocity as UAL 93.

ValuJet 592 is close, look that one up.

Anyway, IF the reason for UAL 93's crash had been a mystery, then they would have tried to recover, and reassemble as much as possible, in a search for a cause.

But, the cause was already known.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lower speeds, but almost straight nose-in (different terrain composition):

UAL 585
USAir 427


[edit on 6 March 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
It was not intact at full throttle impacting the ground in a nosedive.


You forget that it did hit at full throttle because the engines were still on.

The point is that it hit the water at very high speed but yet there was enough recovered to do a reconstuction.



:headslap:

Once again, TWA flight 800 broke up in mid-air. Parts fell off and hit the ground at roughly free-fall.

There is a difference between the engines running and giving full speed straight ahead in the direction of travel, and the engines running at full throttle when the plane belly-flops into the water, or impacts at an angle where the engines are not giving the proper thrust in the direction of travel, allowing for greater speed.

If my car is going 120 miles an hour straight at a wall, and I impact full throttle straight in, that is it. I hit it dead on, pedal to the metal right in. It will be a little different than if I aim for the wall at 120mph, but I put it into a skid, flip the car, lose forward momentum and impact the wall upside down and backwards. Sure my foot is on the accelerator and the engines are red-lined, but the car itself is no longer accelerating in the original direction.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I wish you cats would stop labeling me an others Truthers! the only difference is that iv tried to be an honest man all my life i like it, its far more changeling been honest than been dishonest! now you have the audacity to label me an honest man a Truther like it was a dirty word!
Tell's all members an Guests viewing this tread what you think of honest people trying to get at the Truth the whole truth an nothing but the truth! you can put the rest of this saying if your honest enough!

[edit on 6-3-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, TWA flight 800 broke up in mid-air. Parts fell off and hit the ground at roughly free-fall.


No, it broke into 2 large sections. Both hitting at high speed. The Navy found enough parts to do a reconstruction.

So please show proper evidence of parts at Shankesville.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, IF the reason for UAL 93's crash had been a mystery, then they would have tried to recover, and reassemble as much as possible, in a search for a cause.


No its not a mystery but it is a crime scene so a proper investigation must be done.

Remember Flight 800 was also a crime scene at first when they originally thought a bomb was the casue of the breakup in mid air, and then later on when witnesses stated they saw a missile.


[edit on 6-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Dble post


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Dble post


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]









 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join