Challenge: produce two photos from Shanksville scene showing plane wires

reply to post by ProudBird


I understand the differences between terminology used describing methods of locomotion...I was using the term utilized by the ATS member to whom I was replying...my point is 1) the plane was not originally intended (according to the OS) for Shanksville; 2) There are conflicting reports as to how an impact occurred that day; and 3) what impacted the ground the day...

reply to post by jeichelberg
Part of their story relies heavily on the flight data recorder, that was miraculously recovered. This whole day is nothing but a tapestry of evil, woven from lies. What a bunch of fools they've played us for, they've even built a monument to a hole in the ground, and people actually go there to be lied to, in person. Of all the lies we've been force-fed, this one tastes the worst. "Let's roll", my ass.

reply to post by jeichelberg

1) the plane was not originally intended (according to the OS) for Shanksville;

No....that part of Pennsylvania was just the area they were flying over, on the way to where they "intended"....a target in Washington, D.C. Most likely, the Capitol Building.

2) There are conflicting reports as to how an impact occurred that day;

No, not really.

... and 3) what impacted the ground the day...

NO, not really. The evidence for United 93 is irrefutable.

reply to post by dillweed

Part of their story relies heavily on the flight data recorder, that was miraculously recovered.

It is not a "story"...and the FDR was not "miraculously" recovered. The CVR was intact too.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Part of their story relies heavily on the flight data recorder, that was miraculously recovered. This whole day is nothing but a tapestry of evil, woven from lies. What a bunch of fools they've played us for, they've even built a monument to a hole in the ground, and people actually go there to be lied to, in person. Of all the lies we've been force-fed, this one tastes the worst. "Let's roll", my ass.

Woah, woah, woah. Isn't part of the criticism over the towers the fact that the recorders were crushed by the tower debris? What happened to that? Now, apparently, if they collect the data recorder then it's a conspiracy. If they can't collect the data recorder then it's a conspiracy. You guys are some of the most unreasonable people to argue with.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

1) the plane was not originally intended (according to the OS) for Shanksville;

No....that part of Pennsylvania was just the area they were flying over, on the way to where they "intended"....a target in Washington, D.C. Most likely, the Capitol Building.

2) There are conflicting reports as to how an impact occurred that day;

No, not really.

... and 3) what impacted the ground the day...

NO, not really. The evidence for United 93 is irrefutable.

Yes there are conflicting reports over what impacted the ground that day...and yes there are conflicting reports over how it impacted the ground that day...you cannot read the reports and say they do not conflict with the OS...As I have stated before, and as I will state here again, I do not know what happened and I believe I will never know what happened that day...I know what I have been told...I know what I saw...And what I saw that day, does not jive with what I have been told...That is all I will say about it anymore...

reply to post by jeichelberg


When it comes to airplane crashes and *eyewitnesses*, this happens every time..."conficting" reports.

I have read and studied plenty of them. The witnesses' accounts vary greatly according to where they were in relation, their amount of aviation knowledge, and any biases that they had previously (or, were influenced by, as in hearsay from others).

That's why the forensics, including the machines like an FDR and CVR are vital, as they are dispassionate, and only provide facts, not opinions.

This aspect of Humans as *eyewitnesses* can be researched in many other events as well, and NOT just from that day on 9/11.

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Yes there are conflicting reports over what impacted the ground that day...and yes there are conflicting reports over how it impacted the ground that day...you cannot read the reports and say they do not conflict with the OS...As I have stated before, and as I will state here again, I do not know what happened and I believe I will never know what happened that day...I know what I have been told...I know what I saw...And what I saw that day, does not jive with what I have been told...That is all I will say about it anymore...

The FDR from that flight shows how it went down. The OS based their conclusions using that data, and the corroborating eyewitness accounts.

What are the conflicting reports of what impacted that day? How do you account for all the debris?

I too thought it could've been something other than a plane when I first saw the crash site-- from crappy photos taken at a distance. But when you read what witnessed saw and see the photos that clearly show debris field and you know that United says they lost that plane along with its passengers. You start to realize that it had to be UAL93. There's too much proof of its existence.

Otherwise you'd have to resolve all the proof and come up with ways of how it was all forged without anyone knowing or admitting to it yet. UAL would have had to agreed to lying about that plane and all the information we know about it and the passengers. Why would they agree to that?

At some point logic and common sense has to kick in...

Hi guys.... i know this is about Shanksville and by the look of things no one has provided the photos the O.P is looking for , but i just wanted to say that if you have not seen this maybe you should.
His name is in the "show more" thingy ..... look him up, hes the real deal.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by EleninPfft


I am very, very familiar with Russ Wittenburg, and his lies. Or, his agenda-driven misdirections and false analogies.

(He does not tell the whole story about the actual training and experience levels the hijackers had....he intentionally (??) misleads the viewers with a false impression, by omitting certain salient facts).

That video clip has been bandied about for many years. I see you just joined, and are *new*?

There is much already been written about him. Care to single out anything from that video related to United 93? I can answer in detail.

His other claims associated with other flights best taken to other threads.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by EleninPfft

 

I am very, very familiar with Russ Wittenburg, and his lies. Or, his agenda-driven misdirections and false analogies.

(He does not tell the whole story about the actual training and experience levels the hijackers had....he intentionally (??) misleads the viewers with a false impression, by omitting certain salient facts).

That video clip has been bandied about for many years. I see you just joined, and are *new*?

There is much already been written about him. Care to single out anything from that video related to United 93? I can answer in detail.

His other claims associated with other flights best taken to other threads.

edit on Tue 25 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

well he flew the planes soo , id rather believe his word than someone whos looking for glory points on a forum, ive been right through this thread and all i see is people ganging up on the people who are trying to talk about it, theres no good evidence of a 757 hitting that spot , its been proven in this thread , the crater would have been huge for a 757 to hit that spot on any angle. If something did crash there it was smaller than a 757 ... much smaller.

Originally posted by EleninPfft
well he flew the planes soo , id rather believe his word than someone whos looking for glory points on a forum, ive been right through this thread and all i see is people ganging up on the people who are trying to talk about it, theres no good evidence of a 757 hitting that spot , its been proven in this thread , the crater would have been huge for a 757 to hit that spot on any angle. If something did crash there it was smaller than a 757 ... much smaller

When he said "probably pulling 5, 6, 7 Gs" he blew what ever credibility he had right there. It still makes me giggle every time I hear it.

reply to post by EleninPfft

well he flew the planes soo....

Yeah....him, me and about 10,000+ or so other airline pilots in the history of the Boeing 757/767. Don't be fooled just because as a United pilot (retired) he actually touched those specific jets....so did thousands of others, just at his company alone. Every 757 and 767 built is under a common Type Rating....the minor differences between companies that operate have no bearing on how they fly.

SO, why is HE the only United pilot, and other airline pilot (save a handful of others, with similar agendas) who embarrasses himself this way, making these stupid assertions?

.... ive been right through this thread and all i see is people ganging up on the people who are trying to talk about it....

No, there are some people who are making outrageous claims based on completely ignoring evidence, in favor of a few fringe notions. Allowing such distortions of the facts would be disingenuous to the topic overall, and insulting to the memories of the victims and their families.

theres no good evidence of a 757 hitting that spot , its been proven in this thread ....

Hogwash.

.... ive been right through this thread ...

Did you miss all of my posts, then? Like this one to "ShadowHerder"::

.....repeating a poorly formed opinion based on flawed interpretations of all the data won't turn it suddenly into a fact.

When someone alleges it "wasn't a Boeing 757" and ignores the actual, irrefutable facts of:

Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from United 93

Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from United 93

Airplane debris

Jet fuel in the area

Human remains

Personal effects of the passengers and crew

Eyewitness testimony to the above from first responders on scene, and on-site cleanup workers

Forensics and DNA work to match the Human remains, that attest to the facts above

Air Traffic Control radar tapes tracking United 93's primary skin return, when the transponder was off, all the way to impact

A Private Pilot, and his passenger, airborne in a Piper Arrow single-engine witnessed United 93 before crash

Seat-back 'AirFone' calls made from United 93

Cell phone calls made from United 93 (after it descended to low altitude)

And, just prior to impact, United 93's transponder was briefly turned back on...the same four-digit code originally assigned. It produced a data block on ATC screens with the proper ID, and squawked Mode C (altitude) information too.

Furthermore, the size of the impact site is commensurate with the majority of the airplane, when measuring on a radius from the centerline of the fuselage out board, to where the engines were mounted.

Four to a half-dozen other high velocity, very steep angle impacts can be referenced for comparisons.

There is also the FDR recreation in video format, by the NTSB, just a page or two back, easy enough to find.....

See what i mean , your doing it again.
He flew 93 , i believe him , why should i believe you ? you tear everyones opinions apart asthough your all high and mighty .. explain to me, since your a pilot , what size crater does a 757 leave ? i saw a post further back which i agree with , the russian jet that crashed was about the same size and weight as a 757 and the crater was huge . Why is this crater so small ?

reply to post by EleninPfft
Don't forget, in that hole there were wings, tail, three engines, a full compliment of seats partially filled with passengers and their luggage, and fuel tanks nearly full of kerosene. All of that, according to the 'experts', was in that hole. What a steaming crock of sh*t. And you debunkers wonder why we get angry?

reply to post by dillweed


Ever watched mythbusters? If you had, you might remember the episodes where they launched cars at many hundreds of miles per hour into walls, other cars, and a giant blade. Have you seen just how many pieces those things end up in?

What about that air show crash? There was the air show where the plane crashed into the ground and destroyed into so many small pieces that it was unrecognizable.

I feel like you are just picking and choosing possible facts.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

There actually was one lady who talked about a different plane, but her account perfectly matches the identity of a business class jet which was asked to take a closer look at what happened to flight 93.

Was she at the crime scene? Was she able to see first hand the debris? Does her statement validate this post from Shadow?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Nobody believes a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksvillle on 911. The evidence proves this. But answer my quesions first. Thanx.

Again, I will ask Shadow to provide me with one person that was AT THE CRIME SCENE that agrees with this statement.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

You attempt to label us liars, and expect us to believe that seven people 'starred' your post and Varemias. It's obvious who the liars are here at ats. You're losing.

No planers are liars. Period.

Can I ask you.... is this a truthful statement:

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Nobody believes a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksvillle on 911. The evidence proves this. But answer my quesions first. Thanx.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Was she at the crime scene? Was she able to see first hand the debris? Does her statement validate this post from Shadow?

In short, no. It is a testimony which Shadow was using, however, and I was showing that it can be explained by a business jet which matched the description she gave, which was asked to check out the crash site to see what happened to flight 93.

reply to post by dillweed

Don't forget, in that hole there were wings, tail, three engines, a full compliment of seats partially filled with passengers and their luggage, and fuel tanks nearly full of kerosene. All of that, according to the 'experts', was in that hole. What a steaming crock of sh*t. And you debunkers wonder why we get angry?

You get angry because you believe your own line of crap. No one said all that stuff was in the hole. Except truthers.