Flight 93

[JoeyDonuts]

flight 93 didn't exist

It's fun to pretend.

 

[femr2]

In which case, given that this is a forum to discuss conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and not an air accident investigation forum, it seems reasonable to ask, 'What's your point?' Either your question is relevant to some alternative interpretation of the events of 9/11, or it's off-topic for the forum. Anyway, to ask people's help with a question, then to refuse to explain why you want their help, seems a little impolite at best.

Dave

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.

My question was simply to find out if there was any definitive information.

It's clear there is none.

The reason for asking the question is to gain clarity.

There are suggestions of distance ranging from 300ft, to 2000ft, to several kilometers, to...

I think the most sensible *guess* would be that the piece was a 900lb section of the core as previously discussed, but the information presented is very far from definitive, and so does not settle doubt.

If the actual (though perhaps improbable) correct answer is that a large section of the engine was found much further from the impact site than suggested, then I would have to consider the manner in which it came to get there. There will be a limit on how far it could *bounce* for instance.

If the question can be answered with reference to some kind of official report, then all of the speculation from others about that can be *resolved*, and my own view of the conflicting informal details about it can be clarified.

 

[carlitos]

Here you go femr. Here is a place where you can post your theory about what happened to Flight 93 or any other aspect of 9/11/01 and it will be on topic.

Thread Topic

Direct link to last page.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If the actual (though perhaps improbable) correct answer is that a large section of the engine was found much further from the impact site than suggested, then I would have to consider the manner in which it came to get there. There will be a limit on how far it could *bounce* for instance.

If your friends all told you about a high school football game you missed, and the reports on the length of the winning field goal varied from 30 yards to 99 yards, the reasonable thing to do would be to assume that its length was consistent with what we know about high school football.

This is the same sort of situation.

 

[BigAl]

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.

So what, anyway? What difference would any answer make?

I think you mean recorded somewhere we can find on the Internet while in our PJs. That doesn't mean it's not documented somewhere.

 

[carlitos]

femr is so bothered about this "anomaly" that is:
- bandied around, even here
- being suggested by folk

That he "asked the question" but won't state its relevance to any kind of big picture. There are "conflicting informal details" with every conspiracy theory.

femr, if you want to know something, go figure it out.

By the way, the engines in this crash also were found quite a ways away from the main debris field. So it's happened before.

 

[TJM]

There's a thread around here about Wally Miller that was started by a banned member so I won't link to it. In the OP there's a video in which IIRC Miller says he's seen the engine part in question, diagrams how it may have come to rest in the pond and he may have even photographed it, I don't remember.

Do a thread title search for "Wally Miller".

There you go. The mystery is solved. Next?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in bold:

I've not refused to explain anything. My original post (#2 on this thread) was that I've seen conflicting information on the location of the engine (the one that was not recovered from the impact scar, embedded pretty deeply in the ground).

You don't care to explain anything because you love to dodge. Your alleged "conflicting info" is garbage!

Various conflicting claims are bandied around, even here, where folk have suggested a fan remnant, or a 900lb of the core, with the nature of the actual piece and location not being recorded in any kind of definitive manner.

95% of the aircraft was recovered. What don't you understand?

My question was simply to find out if there was any definitive information.

It's called the internet. You're just too damn lazy to find it yourself.

It's clear there is none.

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of Rule 10 removed. Please do not curse, or mask curse words in an attempt avoid the auto-censor, in your posts.

The reason for asking the question is to gain clarity.

You know nothing about clarity, your mind is foggy!

There are suggestions of distance ranging from 300ft, to 2000ft, to several kilometers, to...

snip

If the question can be answered with reference to some kind of official report, then all of the speculation from others about that can be *resolved*, and my own view of the conflicting informal details about it can be clarified.

I was down there a week after the crash occured. It's not "speculation", it's a known fact bub. Blah, blah, blah, blah your clarity is pure garbage!

 

[jammonius]

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". That theory is just rediculas because I live no more than 20 miles North of Shanksville, PA. The John P. Murtha Airport, which is located at Johnstown, PA, only has Apache Helicopters & no jet fighters. When I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that, if indeed there was a jet fighter I would've heard it flying low too. In my mind I thought it was a plane going to land at the airport cause I lived near the airport at that time. Then I heard on the local news that a plane had crashed in Shanksville.

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts in 1994 & that a hole aleady existed there. At the time in 1994, the place where Flight 93 crashed on 9/11/2001, it was an abandoned strip mine. Filled with ditches where the excavators dug when the strip mine was still open. So to say that a hole existed & that they planted parts in 1994 is rediculas.

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

And if any Truther wishes to challenge me they can do so, only if they have enough evidence to counter my statement.

Hi chewy,

I've looked over the posts in response to this FL93 thread and it seems like it might need a little help. Oh, forget it, no need to be discreet. You guys never seem hungup on discretion in response to me, so let me give it to you straight, no chaser:

This thread needs a kick in the @ss if it's ever going to amount to anything.

First of all, chewy, if you're going to challenge people, then you need to come with more than your little 20 miles away anecdote where the very most you apear to be able to say is "(w)hen I woke up that September morning I only heard a large low flying commercial jet and I didn't hear anything after that..."

Well, chewy, if that's all you've got to say, then obviously you're not a witness -- either by sense of sight or of hearing -- of a plane crash.

So, chewy, hadn't your first duty, if you're going to challenge people, be that of posting up some proof that FL 93 crashed in Shanksville?

This thread has come forward with almost no proof of that assertion and very little else of substance. A cnn article -- cnn for goodness sake -- a wnd article, an inconclusive pbs transcript or two and one google screen capture as follows.

The cnn article contained the following dumb statement:

"The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, such as paper, nylon, thin nylon, things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. — "FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001..."

The google screen capture was this:

Look, posters, that's no way to treat a thread

Can't you folks do better than that?

Look, let me do a little survey here. How many posters think a jetliner of some sort crashed in Shanksville PA?

And, how many of you think that the declaration that they found paper and nylon is a stupid thing to say about a jetliner crash?

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"


Paper as evidence that FL93 crashed:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

The FL 93 crash site:

http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg

Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

 

[carlitos]

jammonius, would you be willing to believe that this "evidence" exists in this thing called the "real world?" There are vast swaths of the "real world" that are not indexed by Google. Even today, in 2010, you need to pay extra for Google Scholar or go to a library** to read certain things. Really.

ETA -

**or call an airline, or call the NTSB, or call the FAA, or call the FBI, or go look for yourself, or...

 

[JimBenArm]

Normally, if someone wants proof of a plane crash, they go to the airlines and the FAA to get information.
However, for some reason, these sources are not good enough for these plane crashes. Why is that?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Twoofers are stupid.

 

[beachnut]

High speed impact the whole jet is there except for parts ejected 100 to 1000 feet away.

With bodies buried 20 to 30 feet deep the impact speed with physics can be calculated. But 911 truth use lies, not physics to make up their moronic lies only morons can believe and repeat.

Buried plane smashed and ejected parts from a high speed impact which 911 truth can't grasp due to complete ignorance in science and reality.

I worked crash sites and find the impact crater and debris of 93 to be consistent with a high speed high impact angle crash. Too bad 911 truth is evidence free and spewing lies. All trained experience aircraft accident investigator including myself understand the impact zone of 93 is reality. 911 truth can't be trained to do more than post lies.

Flight 93, and it has never been refuted with facts; 911 makes up lies but have no facts and they can't do physics.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/P200059-1.jpg600 mph impact looks like this with all the ejected aircraft parts and parts of people all over.

Only ignorant liars can ignore this evidence of a 600 mph impact.

Aircraft parts from Flight 93 and all the Passenger DNA found in and around the impact crater.

Part of an engine buried because it was traveling at 600 mph. It belongs to Flight 93 found next to where all the DNA of the passengers and terrorists were found.

The passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes! They took action and they are the standard for figuring out 911.
911 truth can't figure out 911 after 8 years and the 911 truth remains evidence free and can only make up idiotic lies.

 

[jammonius]

jammonius, would you be willing to believe that this "evidence" exists in this thing called the "real world?" There are vast swaths of the "real world" that are not indexed by Google. Even today, in 2010, you need to pay extra for Google Scholar or go to a library** to read certain things. Really.

ETA -

**or call an airline, or call the NTSB, or call the FAA, or call the FBI, or go look for yourself, or...

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth?

 

[BigAl]

chewy, prove that FL93 crashed in Shanksville. I here assert you cannot do that with anything approaching the normal evidence for proving plane crashes.

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.

 

[carlitos]

Since you won't give me an explanation for what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, I'll just hang onto the myth, I guess.

 

[wargord]

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth?

Lee Purbaugh stated he saw FL93 crash into the ground in Somerset County, PA. There, FL93 crashing in Somerset County, PA has been verified.

 

[twinstead]

You forgot to mention the flight data recorders that show where the plane came from and how it got to Shanksville.

You forgot to mention the DNA that identified all bodies as being exactly the same people that got on the Flight 93 shortly before.

You forgot to mention the after-the-fact radar data analysis that showed the exact route and which matches the route shown in the flight data recorder.

You are probably unaware of the few thousand people involved with the crash investigation. If what they saw disagreed with what we've been told, one of them would have blown the whistle in the last 8 years.

You are probably unaware of what your rants appear to be to those familiar with aviation and aviation crash investigation, several of which have responded to you here on JREF.

I'd be curious as to exactly what jammonius would accept as "PROOF" that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, because there sure is a hell of a lot of evidence that it did, everything from eye witnesses to DNA evidence to radar evidence to first responder evidence.

What the hell does he want?

 

[BigAl]

You are a troll. You a first-class troll with oak leaf clusters awarded for ignorance and arrogance as demonstrated to a panel of experts.

carlitos,

You can call United until you are blue in the face, you will not get a manifest for FL 93 from them.

Any idiot can can't get something if he looks in the wrong place. Here it is.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual93manifest.png​

You can call NTSB until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the NTSB did not investigate FL 93, or, for that matter, any of the other alleged 9/11 flights. Instead, the NTSB says the FBI was in charge.

Here it is.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
Discussed : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102924



You can call and send FOIA requests to the FBI until you are blue in the face, but they will tell you, in good, circular, bureaucratic fashion that you have to get your information from the NTSB. And, true enough, in either 2006 or thereabouts, the NTSB released something called "flight path" data for the 9/11 flights. But, that data do not match up with prior descriptions of the way the flights were described and the data source from which the flight path data was derived is not the normal data sets used to prove jetliner crashes. Further, there is no way to determine whether the released flight path data was a part of the military exercises, like Vigilant Guardian, taking place on 9/11 that, you guessed it, simulated jetliner hijackings.

You can call the FAA until you are blue in the face, but, unfortunately, the FAA's tapes were destroyed.

Which was a tiny and not replaceable bit of information. The tapes that were cut up were backed up with other sources. Read Farmer, don't cherry-pick him.

Are you beginning to get the idea that jetliner crashes on 9/11 cannot be verified; or, are you still hanging in there and holding onto the myth?

You can't explain away the fact that parts identifying Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77 and Flight 93 were all found and DNA identifying most bodies with it. You can't explain away the radar data that shows tracks for all 4 planes from takeoff to crash. You can't explain how none of the people and planes have been seen since.

 

[jammonius]

Normally, if someone wants proof of a plane crash, they go to the airlines and the FAA to get information.
However, for some reason, these sources are not good enough for these plane crashes. Why is that?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Twoofers are stupid.

jimbenarm,

It is as if you do not realize the airlines appear never to have issued passenger manifests for any 9/11 flight. One of the things posters here who affirm that jetliners crashed should do is produce official, validated manifests, instead of jumping up and down and engaging in righteous indignation.

So, point blank:

Can you produce a verified passenger manifest for Flight 93?

Hint: Good luck. Note: I am not here talking about lists gotten from newspapers, I am talking about validated passenger manifests. Do they exist?

Point blank for a second time.

You do know the FAA destroyed tapes and hid information, correct?

What information did FAA destroy? What ifnormation did FAA withhold?

The FAA destroyed tapes, lied, hid evidence and in other respects completely and totally misrepresented the truth of what happened on 9/11/01 such that the claim that jetliner crashes occurred cannot be proven reliably, precizely because of the FAA's deceit. One could say the FAA was incompetent, thus giving them the same label everyone else in authority was given.

But, the better interpretation is that the FAA was brilliant because they succeeded in obfuscating the fact that there were no jetliners involved in 9/11 in the first place.

Separate and apart from theory, the fact remains, the FAA lied, used deceit, destroyed records, withheld records and, in other respects, made their records and their accounts of what happened on 9/11 totally unreliable.

Isn't that a fine kettle of fish.

Here's a little background reading that might enable you to begin to get up to speed on the FAA's deception and tape destroying antics:

"Several air traffic controllers at the FAA’s New York Center and a union official representing them express concern that the controllers are going to be recorded recalling their experiences of the morning’s attacks, but are persuaded to go ahead with the recording. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; Washington Post, 5/7/2004] Mike McCormick, the New York Center manager, has directed that six controllers who communicated with, or tracked, the first two hijacked aircraft participate in a session where they are recorded giving their personal accounts of what happened. [Washington Post, 5/6/2004; Air Safety Week, 5/17/2004]
Controllers Apprehensive - According to McCormick, before the session commences there is a general concern among these controllers. He will later tell the 9/11 Commission that they “didn’t want to put things in a formal way that would be used in an investigation. There was also some worry about who would receive the tape.”
Local Union President Concerned - McCormick consults with Mark DiPalmo, the local president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)—the air traffic controllers’ union. DiPalmo is concerned because the tape recording of statements is not a standard procedure. McCormick assures him that the tape will be available only to law enforcement officers, will only serve as a temporary measure until written statements have been prepared, and the controllers will be able to use their taped statements to help them prepare written ones. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ; US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ; New York Times, 5/6/2004] Ruth E. Marlin, the executive vice president of NATCA, will later say she cannot address the question of why DiPalmo wants the tape to be “temporary.” She will say, however, that if she were in his position, “my concern would be that if tapes were saved permanently, they might be subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, and then controllers would be subject to hearing their own voices recounted on television over and over again.” [Washington Post, 5/7/2004]
Controllers and Union President Consent - The controllers are reassured that the tape with their recorded statements on will not be used for disciplinary purposes, and will be strictly for use only by law enforcement personnel. [9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003 ] DiPalmo agrees to the recording of the controllers on the condition that the tape is only a temporary record until written statements are obtained, after which it should be destroyed. The recording session commences at 11:40 a.m. (see 11:40 a.m. September 11, 2001) and the resulting tape will be destroyed several months later (see Between December 2001 and February 2002). [US Department of Transportation, 5/4/2004 ] "

"Investigators for the 9/11 Commission discover that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has withheld a large amount of documents from it about the day of the attacks and falsely claimed it had provided everything the Commission asked for (see August 2003). The discovery is made on a day when the Commission’s investigators begin interviewing air traffic controllers at centers on the East Coast and in the Midwest. John Farmer, the staffer who leads the Commission’s team dealing with this aspect of its work, is only a few minutes into interviews at the FAA’s Indianapolis Center when he realizes, in the words of author Philip Shenon, “just how much evidence the FAA had held back.” His interviewees tell him that there is “extensive information the Commission has not seen, including tape recordings of conversations between the individual air traffic controllers and the hijacked planes.” He also discovers that what the FAA has provided is merely the “accident package,” rather than the much larger “accident file.” Farmer is “furious” and contacts the Commission’s lawyer in Washington. Asked to explain the situation, the FAA rapidly admits there is other material and, within days, several boxes of new material, including the air traffic control tapes, arrive at the Commission’s offices. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 201-202] However, the Commission has lost confidence in the FAA and will issue it with a subpoena next month (see October 14, 2003)."

 

[TJM]

"The debris found in New Baltimore consisted of very light materials, such as paper, nylon, thin nylon, things that would, if in the air with the wind, would easily blow. — "FBI Briefs the Media on the Crash in Pennsylvania", CNN, September 13, 2001..."
Look, posters, that's no way to treat a thread

Can't you folks do better than that?

Look, let me do a little survey here. How many posters think a jetliner of some sort crashed in Shanksville PA?

And, how many of you think that the declaration that they found paper and nylon is a stupid thing to say about a jetliner crash?

There's actually a lot of anamoly in the fact that among the most well-documented debris from FL 93 is paper:

"Despite the apparent lack of plane wreckage and human remains at the Flight 93 crash site (see (After 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:45 a.m. September 11, 2001), a large amount of paper debris is found there, mostly intact. Faye Hahn, an EMT who responds to the initial call for help, finds “pieces of mail” everywhere. [McCall, 2002, pp. 31-32] Roger Bailey of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department finds mail “scattered everywhere” around the site. He says, “I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board.” [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 38] Some envelopes are burned, but others are undamaged. Flight 93 had reportedly been carrying a cargo of thousands of pounds of US mail. [Longman, 2002, pp. 213-214] Whether this is later examined as crime scene evidence is unclear: According to Bailey, over subsequent days, whenever a lot of this mail has been recovered, the post office will be called and a truck will come to take it away. Several of the first responders at the crash site also see an unscorched bible lying open on the ground, about 15 yards from the crash crater. [Kashurba, 2002, pp. 43, 110 and 129; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 6/13/2006] Local coroner Wallace Miller will later come across a second bible at the warehouse where the Flight 93 victims’ belongings are kept. [Washington Post, 5/12/2002] Other paper debris rains down on the nearby Indian Lake Marina (see (Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to witness Tom Spinelli, this is “mainly mail,” and also includes “bits of in-flight magazine.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002] Other paper items will be recovered from the crash site in the following days. These include a fragment of Ziad Jarrah’s passport and a business card linking al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to the 9/11 hijackers. [CNN, 8/1/2002; Washington Post, 9/25/2002] A flight crew log book and an in-flight manual belonging to Lorraine Bay, a flight attendant on Flight 93, will also be recovered. [National Museum of American History, 9/20/2003]"

What's wrong with finding paper in the crash debris if the plane was carrying it? Take a look at this and get back to us.



Thanks Walter Ego.