• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

AJM8125 said:
Several of us have cited Wally Miller as a source of DNA - going way back here, but is Wally Miller lying?
Click to expand...

I also cite "Wally" Miller as a source and have done so in this thread. I may have been the first to mention his name in this thread and to quote him. I think his statements are contradictory, ambiguous at best. I do not think he is your go to person for DNA proof.
 
jammonius said:
hokulele,

Your guess, my guess, whosover's guess. Who cares? We can't prove a darn thing making claims like that and that is the point. The photo is utterly inconclusive.

If posters here want to go off on a reasearch tear, I suggest using the following "18 inch hyraulic excavator"

Try this on for size:
Click to expand...

That picture was entered into evidence in a trial. That means that the person that took the picture testified that he took the picture and it had not been doctored and that it came from Shanksville and some engine expert testified that the disk was an engine part and it was of a type that could come from Flight 93.

Both the prosecution and defense team agreed with the above.

When considered with all the evidence and testimony we have on Flight 93, the claim that it is a jet engine part is much more likely that it being a hubcap.


We have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, Phone company data identifying the location where the calls were made from, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by some of these people.

The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/16/september11.usa2

And

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=1619489
Click to expand...

The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11 might be a clue
 
jammonius said:
I also cite "Wally" Miller as a source and have done so in this thread. I may have been the first to mention his name in this thread and to quote him. I think his statements are contradictory, ambiguous at best. I do not think he is your go to person for DNA proof.
Click to expand...

Contact Wally and ask him if his professional conclusion is that he identified all the body parts from Shanksville as having the same names as those on the boarding manifest from Flight 93 at Newark.

How did they get from Newark to Shanksville in 120 minutes?
 
BigAl said:
That picture was entered into evidence in a trial. That means that the person that took the picture testified that he took the picture and it had not been doctored and that it came from Shanksville and some engine expert testified that the disk was an engine part and it was of a type that could come from Flight 93.

Both the prosecution and defense team agreed with the above.

When considered with all the evidence and testimony we have on Flight 93, the claim that it is a jet engine part is much more likely that it being a hubcap.


We have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, Phone company data identifying the location where the calls were made from, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example is the myrterdom videos left by some of these people.



The fact that the airplane that was Flight 93 and the people it carried haven't been seen since it took off on the morning of 9/11 might be a clue
Click to expand...


Hey big al,

You are relying for a third time now on your foreign newspaper and myspace sources. OK, third time's the charm then. Those are therefore your best sources for your DNA claim. Your claim, therefore, fails.

We've already got enough in the thread on the Moussaoui trial exhibits and on what is or is not evidence and whether proof of 9/11 can be deemed to be established on the basis of what Zacharis Moussaoui "stipulated." As you know, he didn't have a trial as he copped a plea.

I'm going to pause here and resume tomorrow or Monday, posters; not that it matters, but just so you know. Speaking personally, I think we've made some progress today.

best
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I also cite "Wally" Miller as a source and have done so in this thread. I may have been the first to mention his name in this thread and to quote him. I think his statements are contradictory, ambiguous at best. I do not think he is your go to person for DNA proof.
Click to expand...

Stundied.

ETA: Forgive me but I had to stundie that. Now are you saying Wally Miller is lying or are you going to dance around it some more?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Hey big al,

You are relying for a third time now on your foreign newspaper and myspace sources. OK, third time's the charm then. Those are therefore your best sources for your DNA claim. Your claim, therefore, fails.
Click to expand...


So you claim the martyrdom videos don't exist or are not as described?

In any case, we still have DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental remains and records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, Phone company data identifying the location where the calls were made from, radar track data, operations records at Newark airport, boarding manifests, multiple pieces of evidence identifying Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, and Ziad Samir Jarrah as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93.

Who is faking all of this evidence? How big is your conspiracy?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
ajm,

I could agree that phrased as follows, your question is not a stupid one or a trick question, etc.; rather, it is merely one that doesn't add much to the discussion, whether it is answered or not. And, I hasten to add, not all questions have to add much, some can add little and still be considered worthwhile. In my opinion, your question is not wothwhile, given the point reached in this discussion.

You've asked:

How many United Airlines 757's crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001?

The issue here is now a bit different. The above question is not the one you previously asked and is phrased differently from how you posted it before.

Your prior question was:

"What other United Airlines 757 crashed in Shanksville Pensylvania on 9/11/2001 jammonius?"

The phraseology "other United Airlines 757" is presuppositional.
Click to expand...

Semantics, the last refuge of deniers.
 
jammonius said:
Hey posters,

As nearly as I can tell, the DNA claim is being supported by a newspaper quoting another newspaper The Guardian quoting Al Jezeera, neither of which are sourced in the USA, which might mean they are based on the psyop exception. The use of psyops is ok if the false information is not released in the US, as I understand the way psyops work. So, based on that sourcing, the psyop claim cannot be ruled out.

In addition, newspaper reports are not considered evidence. That is not my rule, that is a rule of reason.

The second source that someone actually posted on this thread, in support of a DNA claim is "myspace."

That should be considered an adequate admission that the DNA claim can't be proven, in and of itself.

The second thread seems to be a desire to morph the plane parts serial number situation into anything and everything other than a glaring deficiency in the handling of the 9/11 investigation by the authorities who had that responsiblity and who failed to discharge it.

One aspect of morphing is the claim that serial number identification is "the only" method of proof. I did not make the claim that it is the only method. My point is that it is the easiest, surest way of proving a particular jetliner crashed.

My point, as well, is that in connection with Flight 93, there has not been any sourcing of reliable proof of a jetliner crash. Look, I am not being difficult here. Flight 93 was vague, obscure, contradictory to begin with. And, all subsequent effort seems consistent with further obscuration rather than of clarification.

The FBI is neither incompetent nor dumb. Had the FBI wanted to confirm a jetliner crash occurred at Shanksville and that it was FL 93, the FBI could have done that. All of the FBI's actions are opposite of a desire to confirm a jetliner crash, and there is nothing they have done, posted or put forward that is intended to prove a crash. There may be a desire on the FBI's part that it not be questioned or that the public accept newspaper reports or secondary evidence, like transcripts of alleged conversations that cannot, in the best of circumstances, be sourced as to where they came from and the FBI has to know that.

So, posters, the fact is, proof of a jetliner crash fails and that is not my fault.

The iconic photo that one poster posted up umpteen times has, as its most prominently visible feature, 3 pink circle sun spots and no visible jetliner debris. Big al's DNA claim that he wants to make is fine if he can make it and I invite him to try to do so. I have looked and cannot find evidence. I have mentioned the sources that don't work and I will here add to it. The DMort announcement is ambiguous and contradictory. I assume you posters know that and that is why it isn't relied on as DNA proof.

What more can be said here?

Posters haven't posted up proof Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. If you can do that, then do so and stop beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of proof but you don't want to see it.

BTW How did that big hole get there and where is fight 93 and all the passengers and crew?
 
AJM8125 said:
What part of this:


"Quote:
The review has been completed and the potentially responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to the FOIA under the following Exemptions: Exemption (b)(6) prohibits the disclosure of an individual's personal information viewing it as an invasion of their personal privacy; Exemption (b)(7)(a) which prohibits disclosure of information which would interfere with an on-going law enforcement investigation; and Exemption (b)(7)(c) which prohibits disclosure of information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."




do you need explained to you?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Start with "The"
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Hey posters,

As nearly as I can tell, the DNA claim is being supported by a newspaper quoting another newspaper
Click to expand...


The press release from AFIP and the article in Military Medicne are primary sources. The authors can be contacted for confirmation as long as you don't ask for personal information about any victims.

The AFIP press release says they were the source of the CNN article that said that all bodies were identified at Shanksville.
 
As far as I can tell from the responses (I have jammers on ignore), our friend appears to subscribe to a form of solipsism in which nothing outside the Internet is real. Since none of it is real anyway, he is free to believe or disbelieve anything he wants about it, with no basis whatsoever in reality.
 
tsig said:
There's plenty of proof but you don't want to see it.

BTW How did that big hole get there and where is fight 93 and all the passengers and crew?
Click to expand...

If he ever gets assigned to a jury, we may have the first case of one juror being murdered by the 11 others.
 
Why are we all still communicating with this moron? If we ignore him he will go away. He just wants attention. Discuss Flight 93 with intelligent people, not retards. Stop feeding the troll.
 
jammonius said:
Hey big al,

You are relying for a third time now on your foreign newspaper and myspace sources. OK, third time's the charm then. Those are therefore your best sources for your DNA claim. Your claim, therefore, fails.

We've already got enough in the thread on the Moussaoui trial exhibits and on what is or is not evidence and whether proof of 9/11 can be deemed to be established on the basis of what Zacharis Moussaoui "stipulated." As you know, he didn't have a trial as he copped a plea.

I'm going to pause here and resume tomorrow or Monday, posters; not that it matters, but just so you know. Speaking personally, I think we've made some progress today.

best
Click to expand...

I wont do your work for you. I will point you in the right direction though. Take those numbers from those photographs and hazard a guess at what comes up. Do some research and let us know what is refers too. Then wriggle as much as you like. Here are some pointers to help you on your way. Everyone is more than welcome to do the same. We can compare notes afterwards.


United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A
Prosecution Trial Exhibits

Exhibit Number P200059

Description
Photograph of the scene in Somerset, County Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed
 
I'll answer for him

Reactor drone said:
Jammonius,to help you identify jet engine components I'll post a link to a site with lots of pictures of parts from different engines. I know you don't want to do research for other people but it never hurts to do some for yourself.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimerius
Click to expand...

I don't accept Flickr as a valid source...

How do I know that that is a jet engine...

Those look nothing like the wheel cover in the hole...

:D
 
Altered photo, anyone?

picture.php


Boy, that hubcap had to be for a pretty deep wheel.;)
 
jammonius said:
sylvan,

Why are you posting a photo of another plane crash, one that shows fire and a lot of visible wreckage, apparently, in support of the claim Flight 93 crashed, where the iconic photo shows neither debris, nor fire?

In my opinion, the photo you have posted is consistent with exactly why the claim that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville has not been proven; i.e., the photo evidence is very poor and is inconclusive, at best.
Click to expand...

Are you unable to understand the concept of an analogy? A plane crashed. They knew which plane it was even before they were able to look at the individual parts. Do you honestly think they would have told the public which plane it was if they weren't SURE? Do you honestly think? Why didn't you address the points I made?
 
jammonius said:
hokulele,

Your guess, my guess, whosoever's guess. Who cares? We can't prove a darn thing making claims like that and that is the point. The photo is utterly inconclusive.

If posters here want to go off on a reasearch tear, I suggest using the following image search terms:

"18 inch hyraulic excavator"

Try this on for size:

:)
Click to expand...


You understand the difference between track width and bucket width, yes?

The Komatsu you posted has a 60" bucket.

Take a look at a few 18" buckets, they look nothing like the one in the image you dispute. The hinge size, number of teeth, and width to height ratio are all wrong for anything smaller than a 30" bucket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom