Flight 93

[DGM]

Post the full NTSB statement, then modify your claim so as to make it accurate.

Once again in English?

I did post the full statement (linked to it).

If you have any questions:

NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
Peter.knudson@ntsb.gov
(202) 557-1350

 

[jammonius]

Well, that is one way to avoid answering a direct question. It is relevant to the topic, as it can help me determine what evidence you would consider acceptable and why. If your standards apply to the events of 9/11 and those events alone, the use of special pleading can be noted.

hokulele,

If you want to know what evidence I would consider acceptable and why, with respect to FL 93, you could have asked, rather than beat around the bush and come at the matter indirectly, tangentially and off topic.

At best, your question is a hypothetical one because evidence has been destroyed. Further, I have been looking at the existing evidence all along, the same as I presume everyone else who is serious about the topic has been doing.

The evidence is ALL, ever last element of it, tainted in some way. And, that is not surprising. The basic thrust of the common myth of 9/11 defies reason and is not a viable story. It is suspect as to its very nature.

So, that is the starting point: I expect a plane crash story to sound credible rather than incredible; believable rather than unbelievable.

From that starting point and going forward, I simply rely on the human faculties for perception and reason. What did people see and hear and say and what did investigators do. I review that and expect it to make sense and to add up. That is a summary of what evidence I would accept and why. In connection with matters that quickly take on a political dynamic, especially ones that involve making war, I look with additional caution because I adhere to the Hobbesian school that holds that "In war, force and fraud are the cardinal virtues." Another saying that is to similar effect is "In war, truth is the first casualty."

And, this brings us to what I have said is the main problem: Our society all but mandates belief in the common myth, precisely because it is a matter couched in patriotic war fervor. I also refer to this as "the emotional nature" of 9/11.

May I ask whether your approach is the same, by and large as mine, or whether yours differs?

Also, permit me to ask you the same question you've asked of me:

What evidence do you accept and why?

Here are some of the evidence problems I encountered:

--The photographs of the gray smoke cloud do not look like a plane crash.

--The witness descriptions of what planes they saw do not add up to a description of a plane crash.

--Wallace Miller, whom I've quoted in another post, one of the first on the scene, does not describe a plane crash scene.

--beachnut's favorite photo does not show plane debris.

 

[DGM]

About the NTSB and 9/11:

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
September 13, 2001
NTSB PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FBI INVESTIGATION



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead agency investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11.
At the request of the FBI, the Safety Board has sent investigators with knowledge of aircraft structures and flight recorders to the crash sites in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. They are assisting in the search for the cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders - the so-called “black boxes” - and helping to identify aircraft parts.

The NTSB has offered the use of its laboratories to read out any recorders the FBI may find.

The Safety Board also dispatched its family affairs specialists to New York and Pennsylvania to advise the FBI and the airlines on providing federal services to the families of the victims of these crimes. Similar assistance is being provided for the crash at the Pentagon.

As the crashes of the four airliners on Tuesday are criminal acts, the FBI is the lead investigative agency and will release all information on the progress of the investigation. News media should direct questions on this investigation to the FBI’s press office at (202) 324-3691.



NTSB Media Contact: Ted Lopatkiewicz
(202) 314-6100

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm

 

[jammonius]

Are you claiming that Wallace Miller believes that there was no victims at the site? You do know in later interviews he explains what he meant by this statement. Stop the stupid cherry picking.

You stop the stupid cherry-picking. You are being needlessly dense here. I have said, specifically, you have to go by what witnesses say and give more weight to what they actually say and to what they say early on.

Most people "get it" dgm. This means, most people know they are expected to conform to the norm and to firmly believe a plane crash occurred. All I'm saying is that reports of what they actually saw and actually said contradict the claim a jetliner crashed.

You could have grasped that if you had wanted to.

All you're doing is simply continuing along the path of doing whatever you can, howsoever you can to try to preserve the common myth, just so long as you don't have to admit the FBI curtailed the investigation so that a determination of what happened could not be made and the FBI gave away and thus destroyed vital evidence.

I suppose we'll go back and forth this whole page and have very few posts that will acknowledge that the FBI did trash out the investigation and destroy evidence and, therefore, the subject of accountability is raised.

Will the subject of accountability be addressed in this thread?

I'm waiting.

 

[BigAl]

hokulele,

If you want to know what evidence I would consider acceptable and why, with respect to FL 93, you could have asked, rather than beat around the bush and come at the matter indirectly, tangentially and off topic.

At best, your question is a hypothetical one because evidence has been destroyed. Further, I have been looking at the existing evidence all along, the same as I presume everyone else who is serious about the topic has been doing.

The evidence is ALL, ever last element of it, tainted in some way. And, that is not surprising. The basic thrust of the common myth of 9/11 defies reason and is not a viable story. It is suspect as to its very nature.

So, that is the starting point: I expect a plane crash story to sound credible rather than incredible; believable rather than unbelievable.

From that starting point and going forward, I simply rely on the human faculties for perception and reason. What did people see and hear and say and what did investigators do. I review that and expect it to make sense and to add up. That is a summary of what evidence I would accept and why. In connection with matters that quickly take on a political dynamic, especially ones that involve making war, I look with additional caution because I adhere to the Hobbesian school that holds that "In war, force and fraud are the cardinal virtues." Another saying that is to similar effect is "In war, truth is the first casualty."

And, this brings us to what I have said is the main problem: Our society all but mandates belief in the common myth, precisely because it is a matter couched in patriotic war fervor. I also refer to this as "the emotional nature" of 9/11.

May I ask whether your approach is the same, by and large as mine, or whether yours differs?

Also, permit me to ask you the same question you've asked of me:

What evidence do you accept and why?

Here are some of the evidence problems I encountered:

--The photographs of the gray smoke cloud do not look like a plane crash.

--The witness descriptions of what planes they saw do not add up to a description of a plane crash.

--Wallace Miller, whom I've quoted in another post, one of the first on the scene, does not describe a plane crash scene.

--beachnut's favorite photo does not show plane debris.

How did the body parts that match the names on the boarding manifest get to Shanksville about 120 minutes after the plane took off from Newark?

That's just the beginning of the mountain of evidence and forensics that show that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

Your assertions do nothing to address, let alone dismiss the mountain of evidence we have that shows that flight 93 was hijacked by Islamic Arabs and crashed in Shanksville.

By not being familiar with all the evidence, you'd fail as a trial lawyer.

You succeeded as a troll.

 

[Hokulele]

hokulele,

If you want to know what evidence I would consider acceptable and why, with respect to FL 93, you could have asked, rather than beat around the bush and come at the matter indirectly, tangentially and off topic.

At best, your question is a hypothetical one because evidence has been destroyed. Further, I have been looking at the existing evidence all along, the same as I presume everyone else who is serious about the topic has been doing.

This has nothing to do with the question I asked, nor does it have anything to do with hypotheticals, but about evidence in general.

Do you believe the Titanic sank, or did it never exist at all?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here are some of the evidence problems I encountered:

--The photographs of the gray smoke cloud do not look like a plane crash.

--The witness descriptions of what planes they saw do not add up to a description of a plane crash.

--Wallace Miller, whom I've quoted in another post, one of the first on the scene, does not describe a plane crash scene.

--beachnut's favorite photo does not show plane debris.

--you are a troll. I see no reason to continue to allow myself to be baited by you.

 

[DGM]

You could have grasped that if you had wanted to.

.

The only problem with me "grasping" what your claiming is I don't have the luxury of being able to only accept evidence that is convenient to my view. I have to look at ALL the evidence. I have to look at the context. I, unlike you, want to know the truth.

 

[jammonius]

About the NTSB and 9/11:



http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm

dgm,

Your efforts at avoiding the admission that you need to make are noted. Unfortunately, you are doing nothing to further our knowledge and you are engaging in a mighty effort to further cover up.

The NTSB's press release does not change the additional devastating fact that the exact time alleged FL 93 crashed has NEVER BEEN DETERMINED. Why, because the data points to do so, that NTSB would normally ferret out, obtain and analyze, WAS NOT DONE.

"The New York Observer will note that, in addition to the seismology study, “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as [former Inspector General of the Transportation Department] Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’” [New York Observer, 2/15/2004

It would be appreciated, dgm, if you would spend a little time on the topic of accountability for this horrible failure to determine what happened on 9/11 in re alleged FL 93, and less time on manipulation and cover up.

I've said this before and will repeat here:

THE JIG IS UP.

 

[jammonius]

--you are a troll. I see no reason to continue to allow myself to be baited by you.

agglerithm,

Your concession lacks grace. I do wish you'd reconsider and address the issue of accountability for horrible failure to determine what happened in re alleged FL93. I suspect that if you want to, you can add greatly to that effort.

My hope is that before this thread rolls over to pg. 15, at least one of you will address the need for accountability for this failure to invesigate properly.

 

[I Ratant]

Off topic. Go start a thread on Flight 77 if you want and start it by providing a rational explanation of what happened and source your claims.

.
Jbird wrote "no planes".
Plural.
Flight 93 is -a- plane.
Flight 77 is -a- plane.
Two of them make "planes".
A plural construction that indicates "more than one", which would have to be "no plane" in reference to Flight 93, were there any consistency at all in your postings.
In common jargon, that is.
Ya know, the English language.

 

[jammonius]

How did the body parts that match the names on the boarding manifest get to Shanksville about 120 minutes after the plane took off from Newark?

That's just the beginning of the mountain of evidence and forensics that show that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

Your assertions do nothing to address, let alone dismiss the mountain of evidence we have that shows that flight 93 was hijacked by Islamic Arabs and crashed in Shanksville.

By not being familiar with all the evidence, you'd fail as a trial lawyer.

You succeeded as a troll.

Big Al,

Are you ready to address the issue of accountability? I hope so.

 

[Jackanory]

You stop the stupid cherry-picking. You are being needlessly dense here. I have said, specifically, you have to go by what witnesses say and give more weight to what they actually say and to what they say early on.

Most people "get it" dgm. This means, most people know they are expected to conform to the norm and to firmly believe a plane crash occurred. All I'm saying is that reports of what they actually saw and actually said contradict the claim a jetliner crashed.

You could have grasped that if you had wanted to.

All you're doing is simply continuing along the path of doing whatever you can, howsoever you can to try to preserve the common myth, just so long as you don't have to admit the FBI curtailed the investigation so that a determination of what happened could not be made and the FBI gave away and thus destroyed vital evidence.

I suppose we'll go back and forth this whole page and have very few posts that will acknowledge that the FBI did trash out the investigation and destroy evidence and, therefore, the subject of accountability is raised.

Will the subject of accountability be addressed in this thread?

I'm waiting.

We cant help you. You need to do it yourself. Do it now and stop talking about doing it. Shut up, stop writing and asking and demanding and get out there and do something.

The Felts family want to hear what happened to the family member they lost. The 8,000 names of peple directly involved inthe investigation want to speak with you to help you clarify the situation. The firefighters and their families want some answers from you. The FBI want you to coach them on investigation techniques. NIST would like you to divulge your quals and experiences in their field. The coroners office and aircrash investigators want to pick your brains just incase they missed something.

Most survivors, first responders and proffessionals involved still live or work in the same place so should be easy to trace. Take your pick Mr truth seeker. You also have the direct line to one of them already posted up for you. You dont even have to leave the house. Just pick up that phone and ask away. Do it now. Tick off number one from that exhaustive list of people you shuld be speaking too. We cant help you here. You asked for clarity and first hand evidence. We dont have that here. We point you towards it but its best if you go direct. Do it now. Dont waste any more time on JREF because we cant help with your dillusions.

Who have you approached to find the answers you seek?

 

[BasqueArch]

EXCUSE # 1

Your claim even if true, cannot be asserted as true because by destroying evidence and by not investigating in normal manner, and, instead, investigating in a less precise manner, reliance on the FBI is untenable, unscientific and inconsistent with evidence standards.

Stating that something is "evident" is not considered a proper, reason-based approach to reality. Self-serving declarations about what is or is not "evident" do not count or matter and cannot be deemed credit-worthy.

Not only that. The evidence that did come out has not consistently confirmed the common myth.

I say "no plane" was involved.

Others say "the plane was shot down."

Unfortunately, no claim can be either verified or falsified now because the investigation was not properly done and vital evidence was destroyed.

Posters, you can post excuses, rationalizations, justifications, playground putdowns from now on; but, you cannot change the fact that no proper investigation was done and evidence was destroyed.

Deal with it, posters.

You are wrong - all the evidence proves here is the plane you say was not involved.
You can't argue with facts:
Facts will always beat delusions no matter what you wish to believe.
a proper, reason-based approach to reality. Self-serving declarations about what is or is not "evident" do not count You don't recognize your hypocrisy. Obey your parroted phrases.

See article below:
There was a flight 93, it was hijacked, cell phone calls from plane, FBI checked did not find evidence of explosives or mid air breakup, 95% of the plane found, cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder found, 1500 field workers saw what you claim was not there, fingerprint ,dental, DNA evidence Ids victims.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/970609/detail.html

The taped voice of the pilot hijacker on the CVR:

 

[BigAl]

Big Al,

Are you ready to address the issue of accountability? I hope so.

Dodge much?

How did body parts who's DNA identified them as all the people that boarded Flight 93 in Newark wind up in a corn field in Shanksville 120 minutes later?

We have a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that Flight 93 was hijacked by Arab Islamists who crashed the plane into a corn field in Shanksville.

We have a mountain of evidence that shows you are a troll.

 

[beachnut]

NTSB does accidents, FBI does crime... jammonius posts nonsense

...
2--The NTSB conducted no investigation.

...

Big letters make a bigger failure.
The NTSB does accidents, the police do crime. The FBI is lead on Flt 93 crashing due to your terrorists buddies.

The NTSB worked and supplied products for the FBI.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Flight path study, you will not understand it so why try? http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf

FDR report, you have no skills to understand this either so why try?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf

ATC transcript, you don't understand flying or ATC so give up.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC _Report_UA93.pdf

The NTSB does not do an investigation on CRIME. Stop making up lies to impress your friends, your ideas are dirt dumb on 911.

But if you could do rational research you would find NTSB reports which I found in 10 seconds, and produce a summary in a post in a minute. Why can't you do research?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There is no jetliner debris and there are no remains visible. Moreover, the lack of remains and of debris is confirmed by the first of the first responders.

Negative. You have stated the exact opposite of truth. There was plenty of debris, and the photographic evidence alone confirms this, let alone the other testimony and evidence that exists. Furthermore, the first responders confirm the presence of both debris as well as human remains. Sample quotes:

"We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

"We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

"There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris.

"After calling for backup from several area fire companies, King and the other firefighters, who had never responded to an airplane crash, surveyed the scene. None of them was prepared for what they saw. King recalls the paper strewn in the trees and clothing and shoes scattered on the ground. There were no bodies, he says. Just body parts. 'That's when the sheer destruction of the crash really hit home,' he says."

I bold the above because this is exactly the sort of thing truthers like Jammonious key in on: They take a statement of shock and sadness and twist it to imply that there were "no bodies". In fact, what they were saying was that the human remains were not found as intact corpses. That's a world of difference from saying they weren't there to begin with. Yet, that is precisely what Jammoniuos is trying to claim. Anyway, the point is made.

Mind you, some of them made statements that made it appear as if they wanted to say there was a plane crash. This is understandable and already explained in terms of the desire by almost everyone to want to be perceived as going along with the program.

It was clear from the first moment of the 9/11 psyop that people were being specifically directed to think a certain way. That is why when a witness says what they saw, at first, it has greater weight than what they may have said either later or even later in the same statement.

This is not even close. The first responders were dispatched because witnesses to the crash itself called 911.

Paula Pluta of Stonycreek Township was watching a television rerun of “Little House on the Prairie” when the plane went down about 1,500 yards from her home along Lambertsville Road at Little Prairie Lane.

“I looked out the window and saw the plane nose-dive right into the ground,” she said, barefoot and shaken just 45 minutes after the crash.

The explosion buckled her garage doors and blasted open a latched window on her home, she said.

“It was just a streak of silver. Then a fireball shot up as high as the clouds. There was no way anybody could have survived. I called 911 right away.

(Source)

For two years, Terry Butler, 43, has worked as a mechanic at Stoystown Auto Wrecker in rural Pennsylvania...

...I was just taking off some parts and I heard a plane. Usually the planes only fly in one direction, so when I heard it, at first I was looking in the wrong direction. When I turned around, there it was.
It seemed like you could just reach out and touch it. I never saw a plane up close like that. It was just right there.

I looked up and saw it coming right above the trees there. It started to go up, then just missed a hill, made a right turn and then went down.

I wish I had turned my head. But I didn't. I saw it go down.
I radioed to the shop down there and they called 911. I heard the fire whistle go off. You could see the highway from where I was, and I saw the first firetruck come up the hill.

(Source)
​

Jammonius's charge is not only empty and unsupported by him, but is contradicted by the events themselves.

Something else that is relevant to your photo is that the normal way of investigating a crash scene has been said NOT to have been followed at the FL 93 scene. This may have something to do with that whole "trust" issue that the Univ Colorado study touched on in such polite and indirect language that it was hard to determine what they were actually getting at. Anyway, proof that the FBI interfered with proper investigative technique can be found as follows:

"A report suggests the crash site of Flight 93 is being searched and recorded in 60 square-foot grids. [News Journal (Wilmington, DE), 9/16/2001] This approach is preferred by Wallace Miller, the local coroner, and Dennis Dirkmaat, a forensic anthropologist involved in searching the crash site. According to journalist and author Jere Longman, “The distribution patterns developed from such precise marking of airplane parts, remains and personal effects might have told them such things as exactly how the airplane struck the ground. Theoretically, by associating the location of particular remains with the location of parts of the airplane, they may have also gained some clues about which passengers had rushed the cockpit.” However, almost a year later Longman reports that this approach was not followed: “The FBI overruled them, instead dividing the site into five large sectors. It would be too time-consuming to mark tight grids, and would serve no real investigative purpose, the bureau decided. There was no mystery to solve about the crash. Everybody knew what happened to the plane.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 262]"

The above is a devastating quotation that almost in and of itself confirms both deception and a desire NOT to be able to find out what happened. Small wonder the local first responders were so upset.

Unfortunately, upsetting the local coroner and expanding the size of sectors does not change any aspect of what the first responders found. The difference between tight 60 foot square grids and 5 large search boxes doesn't mean that the body parts that were found and identified via DNA forensics were not body parts, nor do they mean that the debris that was excavated was not jet debris. It merely means that the search sectors were larger, and instead of localizing recovered evidence to small 60-foot square grids they can only localize them to 1 of the 5 search sectors.

Nothing you point out here indicates anything more than a difference of professional opinion between the local authorities and the federal ones. It certainly does nothing to cast doubt on the authenticity of their findings.

Posters, let me ask this:

Is there anything more the FBI could have done to make sure claims about what happened to FL 93 could not ever be reliably proven? They gave away evidence; and, they interfered with and prohibited the standard procedure for investigating a plane crash site.

This is devastating to the integrity of the common myth, posters.

It already has been reliably proven. You cannot ignore all the evidence we present and then say there's no reliable evidence. Yet, that's what you're trying to do.

The verified narrative is confirmed by all the evidence you try to ignore or excuse away. And your objections don't even come close to challenging the veracity of the evidence, let alone the conclusions drawn from them.

 

[tsig]

beachnut,



I should like to also thank you in advance for ceasing with the dirty, underhanded attempt to link me to terrorists, indirect and therefore snide though your attempt may be.

From your post one could think that you are a terrorist posting here to waste our time. Were you born Muslim of did you convert? Your debating technique clearly points to madrassa style training.

 

[wargord]

wargord,

EXCUSE # 2
You seek to distinguish the fact that the FBI curtailed the investigation in such a way as to prevent the collection of evidence as not being a definite "standard practice" and as only being what the local authorities wanted to do. You do not source that assertion, you merely make it.

It is hilarious that you brought up sources when you have never provided any. But now that we are on the subject: You claim that the standard practice for investigating a plane crash was not followed yet you provided no sources to what the standard practice is. NTSB has stated that the FBI has the jurisdiction on investigating the events on 9/11. So, that makes it not a standard plane crash investigation but a criminal one. Please show the standards for criminal investigations and how they were curtailed.

Furthermore, the main fact is seen in the devastating admission that the FBI trashed out an investigation such that a determination of what happened cannot be made.

Who admitted the FBI "trashed out an investigation?" The determination has been made and verified.

Thus, your excuse makes no difference to the essential fact of the matter.

Your pretensions make no difference to the facts.

As to witnesses and what they saw, I think one of the best, both because of what he said, when he arrived and his area of expertise, is Wallace Miller, the coroner of Somerset County. He is one of the first people to arrive at the Flight 93 crash scene. He is surprised by the absence of human remains there. He says, “If you didn’t know, you would have thought no one was on the plane. You would have thought they dropped them off somewhere.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 217]

So you only will use Wallace Millers out of context statements as proof that FL93 didn't crash?
How does his expertise in being a coroner make him more reliable then anyone else who saw the wreckage?

How about Eric Peterson: "I actually thought it was going to hit a house here in town;" "There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning"

Maybe State Trooper Tom Spallone: "Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30;" "debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields."

Or how about Bill Wright: "Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors."

Karl Landis: "saw the crash from about a half-mile away while driving his pickup. "It came in, rolled slightly to the left and appeared to hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle," he said. "It seemed like an eternity, but it must have been only a few seconds. It evaporated into a huge fireball that turned into black smoke."

Lee Purbaugh:"I heard this real loud noise coming over my head, I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."

Wallace Miller: "It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled. "Usually, when you see a plane crash on TV, you see the fuselage, the tail or a piece of something. The biggest piece I saw was as big as this (spreading his hands less than a meter apart). It was as though someone took a tri-axle dump truck and spread it over an acre." "Walking in his gumboots, the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached."

 

[aggle-rithm]

THE JIG IS UP.

As a general rule, when the font size exceeds your IQ, you have lost the argument.