Flight 93

[BigAl]

big al,

DNA. I invite you to post up your proof that DNA positively identified people. I do not know of any. I do know, for instance, that wikipedia has a statement about DNA identification that may or may not be limited to Flight 77 that states that "citation needed." In other words, that while the DNA claim has been made, it hasn't been proven.

Please give a citation for your claim that DNA positively identified people. Note: Newspaper accounts are not valid as proof. The AFIP report was not a forensic report and said so and also said it made no claim of positive identification, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. You've made your claim, big al, now kindly source it.

Here we go.

Operation Noble Eagle: Forensic and psychosocial aspects of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's response to the September 11 Pentagon attack

Military Medicine | September 1, 2002 | Wagner, Glenn N | CopyrightAssociation of Military Surgeons of the United States Feb 2009.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) responded to the tragic vents of September 11 by providing a multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel to the Dover Air Force Base morgue. This team conducted one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in U.S. history. AFIP staff also deployed to the Pentagon Family Assistance Center to establish a DNA reference collections operation, and to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, to collect tissue specimens recovered from the crash site for DNA analysis. All DNA analysis took place at the.

Wagner, Military Medicine September 1, 2002 (you have to access it from a university or library)

And this. See below for Flight 93.

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities (Jan 2002)

by Christopher C. Kelly Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
The Mercury [an Army Medical Department publication]
January 11, 2002

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack.

"Our staff represented every branch of service," said Navy Capt. Glenn N. Wagner, AFIP director. "We also received tremendous support from the doctors, nurses and technicians stationed at Dover who participated in the investigation."

AFIP used a well-designed and tested system for identifying the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications.

Forensic dentistry experts then performed dental charting and comparison with existing dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in identification, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause of death, and a forensic anthropologist determined race, sex and stature of victims when necessary.

An epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology studies. Forensic photographers documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists embalmed, dressed and casketed remains.

For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked 12-hour shifts to complete the identification system.

From DNA samples sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, scientists there generated DNA profiles of the victims. Their work also included the victims of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Pa.

The DNA lab's entire staff of 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, and logistics and administrative personnel worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week to complete the work.

DNA identifications for Flight 93 victims were sent to the Somerset County Coroner's Office for release. The Department of Defense released identification of Pentagon victims. All but four who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers of Flight 77.

From the January 2002 Mercury, an Army Medical Department publication.

http://911review.org/Wget/www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/releases/afip.htm

---

 

[jammonius]

Hey beachnut,

It is Flight 93, one of the jet engines.

You are not abiding the terms of discussion. I didn't ask you to REPEAT your claim the photo is of a jet engine. Rather, I asked you to SOURCE your claim. I noted that the source from which the photo comes doesn't say it's a jet engine.

I am not willing to assume you do not understand the difference between sourcing a claim and just 'whistling Dixie.' Instead, you simply cannot source your claim; and, therefore, your claim is false.

You do understand what the words "your claim is false" mean, don't you?

It is your lack of knowledge and refusal to join reality that you call that a wheel-cover.

That is close on to spam.

Complete nonsense, all your posts are a waste as you defend your delusions with more idiotic delusions. Fuselages are horse-trailers to you

That is now spam.

and DNA, you spit on the dead! Good job

No, beachnut, yours is the posting of a scoundrel, seeking to dress yourself in feigned, false and phony concern for victims. That is despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself. I here disrobe you of the victims' clothing, it is not yours. Now you go and put on your own clothing, and quickly too, as standing naked does not become you.

you are not on topic as you post insane ideas based on your lack of knowledge and failed opinions. do you know the topic?

You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't on topic; let alone what is or isn't sane.

 

[twinstead]

You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't on topic; let alone what is or isn't sane.

Nor are YOU. Don't forget that as well. The evidence that flight 93 crashed as advertised is HUGE. Frankly I could care less what you think about it.

 

[jhunter1163]

Jammonius;

See that little yellow square on the photo Beachnut posted? That's an exhibit number. That photo was accepted as evidence IN A COURT OF LAW. How much more confirmation can you possibly ask for?

 

[BasqueArch]

DNA, airplane parts, surviving luggage scraps, jewelry, dental records (if necessary) , black box data, flight voice recorder, Plane-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger phone calls, 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 to hijack, 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.

BigAl , the evidence collected by the over 1,000 investigators you have presented to jammonius that Flight 93 crashed in Shannksville is insufficient. What jammonius is asking for is a picture of a metal bit lying on the grass with numbers on it with the statement by an official, “Yes this bit with numbers on it matches Flight 93 serial numbers.“ That would convince him. That’s all that that remains to free up the logjam that’s on everyone’s lips.

I saw this item in Ryan's files and producing this irrefutable evidence would convince jamm. BigAl can you look for it? Thank you. Then we can move on to other questions such as “Why are robots stealing jammonius’ luggage.”

 

[beachnut]

Hey beachnut,



You are not abiding the terms of discussion.

say it's a jet engine.

I am not willing to assume

You do understand what the words "your claim is false" mean, don't you?

That is close on to spam.

That is now spam.

No, beachnut, yours is the posting of a scoundrel, seeking to dress yourself in feigned, false and phony concern for victims.

You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't on topic; let alone what is or isn't sane.

You deny the DNA, you spit on the victims graves because reality is they impacted at 600 mph in the crater; you post nonsense claim the aircraft was a horse-trailer; you posted it. An insane post you refuse to take back.

You are off topic, lost posting tons of talk with zero evidence.

You can't identify a jet engine or where Flight 93 crashed on 911. Now that is an inability to connect the dots and think for yourself as you push lies from 911 truth.

You assume your lies are evidence, but you only have talk you can't prove. Jet fuel does not burn is what you say, but it does. You deny science and especially physics since you don't know what a crash looks like at 600 mph, you lack knowledge.

You spam us with talk, off topic and you can't get back on topic.

Your ideas on 911 are insane, go ask your friends. Ask your parents. Ask your teachers. I suspect you will not offer evidence to prove you points since they are moronic lies; I mean calling a jet engine a wheel-cover is pointless drivel you have to post since you don't have any idea what really happen on 911 and you prove it by denying the DNA and supporting the terrorists.

Please explain why the fuselage is a horse-trailer; it is off topic but go ahead present your evidence and prove one thing you bring up. So far you have proved you are gullible and like lies about 911 and disrespect the victims since you have NO evidence. Keep up the apologies for the terrorists who already said they did it; the 19 terrorists fellow buddies can figure out 911, 911 truth can't.

Now you will post talk to prove you have no evidence or knowledge about 911. You will not check the facts, you will deny evidence. Prove it is not flight 93's jet engine. You can't.





You can't post on topic because you are not able to present evidence or rational ideas on 911. You base your talk on lies, fantasy, delusions, hearsay, and ignorance.

According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". ...

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts ...

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.

Start reporting your delusional posts as off topic to save other members here the trouble. You can't form rational thoughts on 911 and it shows. Try to prove me wrong by presenting real evidence, not the moronic opinions of a failed movement.

 

[TJM]

beachnut,

It is all but pointless with you, isn't it?

Ay! what's that? You're not tampering with a photo are you? Take care on that slope.

Since we're posting altered photos, let's have another look at mine:

Why it looks like a compressor section from a turbofan jet engine.

 

[jammonius]

Here we go.

And this. See below for Flight 93.

---

big al,

Well thanks a lot for posting partial, incomplete stuff that can't be accessed

Let me ask you something big al. Do you consider yourself to have provided proof of dna for flight 93 based on the following quote?

"The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) responded to the tragic vents of September 11 by providing a multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel to the Dover Air Force Base morgue. This team conducted one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in U.S. history. AFIP staff also deployed to the Pentagon Family Assistance Center to establish a DNA reference collections operation, and to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, to collect tissue specimens recovered from the crash site for DNA analysis. All DNA analysis took place at the.
Wagner, Military Medicine September 1, 2002 (you have to access it from a university or library)

That sourcing is incomplete and apparently we cannot link to it. You know the rules, right Big al? What it says is inconclusive to a faretheewell about identifying victims at Shanksville. You don't need me to tell you this, do you big al?

I here assert your attempt has failed. Mightn't you try again, big al?


Your second source claims one thing, then addresses another. It claims to involve Flight 77:

And this. See below for Flight 93.
Quote:
Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities (Jan 2002)
...

DNA identifications for Flight 93 victims were sent to the Somerset County Coroner's Office for release. The Department of Defense released identification of Pentagon victims. All but four who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers of Flight 77.


Can you at least point to something having to do with Flight 93 and Shanksville as its primary topic and not a one sentence, vague reference that doesn't say the DNA data was actually released, let alone what it proved?

Surely this isn't the best you can do, is it, big al?


The only AFIP studies that are available don't say anything about actual DNA identification. I refer to this study by way of example:

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781.pdf

The title of the above study is interesting enough:

"Lessons Learned From 9/11: DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents"

But, the study itself says absolutely nothing about DNA identification of 9/11 victims anywhere, let alone Shanksville.

The AFIP has refused to release other data, as per the following FOIA response:

I'm told that the above letter states as follows:

"DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY
WASHINGTON, DC 20306-6000

September 10, 2008

Office of Legal Cousel

Aidan Monaghan
---------------------
Las Vegas, NV -----

Dear Mr. Monaghan,

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated June 5, 2008 for all "records pertaining to the recovery and identification of human remains of those who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, collected and identified from the Pentagon buildings in Arlington, V.A. and Shanksville, P.A. following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Your request was received on June 5, 2008 and referred to me in my capacity as Legal Counsel, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This referral was received on and processed in accordance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552.

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.

Because your FOIA has been denied, you are advised of your right to appeal this determination to the Secretary of the Army. If you decide to appeal at this time, your appeal must be submitted within 60 days of the date of this letter. In your appeal, you must state the basis for your disagreement with the denial and the justification for the release of information associated with your request for this command. Your appeal should be addressed to: U.S. Army Medical Command, Attention Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Office (MCPA), 2050 Worth Road, Suite 21, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234 6021, for forwarding, as appropriate, to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Please enclose a copy of this letter with your appeal. To ensure proper processing of any appeal the letter and the envelope should both bear the notation, "Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Act Appeal". If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 782 2124 or by email at Catherine.with@us.army.mil

Sincerely,

Catherine M. With
Major, U.S. Army
Legal Counsel

cc: John Peterson, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office, U.S. Army Medical Command."

So, maybe there's other data. We simply do not know, big al. I'm trying to be helpful here by showing you what I have come across that leads me to the conclusion there is no valid DNA proof.

What you are disclosing, so far at least, is that you don't have any either. I am not surprised by this. I think I have been clear in saying there is no valid DNA data.

 

[George 152]

Ay! what's that? You're not tampering with a photo are you? Take care on that slope.


Why it looks like a compressor section from a turbofan jet engine.

You can even see the blades...
I think his motives are suspect.
As a psychologist would would waffle on about him being in denial I suspect a rather deeper motive...

 

[TJM]

What part of this:

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?

 

[jammonius]

Ay! what's that? You're not tampering with a photo are you? Take care on that slope.

Since we're posting altered photos, let's have another look at mine:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2542[/qimg]

Why it looks like a compressor section from a turbofan jet engine.

ajm,

Let me be frank. I disagree with you. I think that looks like a wheel cover.

Here's why I think it looks like a wheel cover:

1--While no conclusive statement can be made about the size of scale of anything in the photo because no scale is given and because none can be deduced without knowing the details of the camera, lens, distance, etc., the cherry picker looks, to me, to be no more than 18inches in width. The wheel cover is of a smaller diameter than the cherry picker, as I see it, making it the size of a normal midsize automobile of somewhere between 14 and 17 inches, max.

2--Whatever is under the wheel cover is too degraded to make an intelligent comment on what is shows. It might be a wheel, but there is no way to confirm that claim because, simply put, not enough is shown and what is shown is too indeterminant to make a definitive comment, in my opinion, as an observer of the photograph.

Let me be even more frank. It doesn't matter that you think its a jet engine and I think it's a wheel cover. We each have equal entitlement to our opinion as to what the photo shows. You may WANT it to be a jet engine and I may WANT it to be a wheel cover, although, I can tell you, for what it's worth, that what I really want is a competent, fair investigation that presents proper proof. That is what I want.

The point and the question really ought to be:

What do those who may have collected the junk shown in the photograph and who had a responsibility for analysis say they determined it to be?

I do not think an analysis of that piece of junk has ever been shown to have been done. The reason I say that is the few sources there are say the debris was returned to United within the month of September, 2001, as posted up earlier in this thread. I have not ever seen a source for a claim of analysis. ajm, have you seen a source analyzing what is in the photo; if so, would you kindly post a source for your claim that what is seen is a jet engine, or part thereof, please?

 

[BigAl]

big al,

Well thanks a lot for posting partial, incomplete stuff that can't be accessed

Let me ask you something big al. Do you consider yourself to have provided proof of dna for flight 93 based on the following quote?

"The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) responded to the tragic vents of September 11 by providing a multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel to the Dover Air Force Base morgue. This team conducted one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in U.S. history. AFIP staff also deployed to the Pentagon Family Assistance Center to establish a DNA reference collections operation, and to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, to collect tissue specimens recovered from the crash site for DNA analysis. All DNA analysis took place at the.
Wagner, Military Medicine September 1, 2002 (you have to access it from a university or library)

That sourcing is incomplete and apparently we cannot link to it. You know the rules, right Big al?

What "rule"?

Welcome to the real world of research. Not everything can be accessed via your keyboard for free. You can get this from a decent library or university computer or you can contact AFIP directly. Don't be shy, it's our tax money at work. Here's the phone number and email link to AFIP. Contact them and ask for details on their reports on Flight 77 and 93.

(202) 782 - 2115​

http://www.afip.org/contact.html​

It's not just DNA, we 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

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.

 

[twinstead]

Well, jammonius, that settles it; if you can't find it on the internet it doesn't exist. Pack it up boys, we're done!

 

[TJM]

ajm,

Let me be frank. I disagree with you. I think that looks like a wheel cover.

Here's why I think it's a wheel cover:

1--While no conclusive statement can be made about the size of scale of anything in the photo because no scale is given and because none can be deduced without knowing the details of the camera, lens, distance, etc., the cherry picker looks, to me, to be no more than 18inches in width. The wheel cover is of a smaller diameter than the cherry picker, as I see it, making it the size of a normal midsize automobile of somewhere between 14 and 17 inches, max.

2--Whatever is under the wheel cover is too degraded to make an intelligent comment on what is shows. It might be a wheel, but there is no way to confirm that claim because, simply put, not enough is shown and what is shown is too indeterminant to make a definitive comment.

Let me be even more frank. It doesn't matter that you think its a jet engine and I think it's a wheel cover. The point and the question is:

What do those who may have collected it and who did have a responsibility for analysis say they determined it to be?

I do not think an analysis of that piece of junk was done, as I have not ever seen a source for a claim of analysis. ajm, have you; if so, would you kindly post a source for your claim that what is seen is a jet engine, or part thereof, please?

Seeing on how it was pulled from a crater that a 757 crashed into and hubcaps generally don't have gear teeth, I'm going with a compressor section.

You might want to educate yourself, it'll help with that whole personal incredulity thing that's holding you back.

 

[jammonius]

What part of this:



do you need explained to you?

ajm,

As I posted the information, I think you could reasonably infer that I understood it.

This is rich. Do you think I am the one who has posted DNA proof while being the one, simulataneously, who has indicated there is no valid DNA proof?

Yes, there is a letter denying information; and, yes, the letter references multiple exemptions, two of which might infer the existence of DNA identification. However, what I posted is not proof of the DNA claim.

The information could exist. However, all I have said and continue to say is that posters here have not posted valid proof of the DNA claim. I have done my best to show that I have made a good faith effort to search for data before coming to my conclusion that there is no valid proof of the DNA claims that have been made.

ajm, the least you could have been expected to do, in my opinion, is post up your own proof and not try to over-interpret what I posted up.

You are showing signs of being lazy in your research, ajm.

 

[TJM]

ajm,

As I posted the information, I think you could reasonably infer that I understood it.

This is rich. Do you think I am the one who has posted DNA proof while being the one, simulataneously, who has indicated there is no valid DNA proof?

Yes, there is a letter denying information; and, yes, the letter references multiple exemptions, two of which might infer the existence of DNA identification. However, what I posted is not proof of the DNA claim.

The information could exist. However, all I have said and continue to say is that posters here have not posted valid proof of the DNA claim. I have done my best to show that I have made a good faith effort to search for data before coming to my conclusion that there is no valid proof of the DNA claims that have been made.

ajm, the least you could have been expected to do, in my opinion, is post up your own proof and not try to over-interpret what I posted up.

You are showing signs of being lazy in your research, ajm.

Several of us have cited Wally Miller as a source of DNA - going way back here, but is Wally Miller lying?

 

[Hokulele]

That can't be an 18" bucket, the hinge would look a lot larger if it were and it wouldn't have 5 teeth. It has to be at least a 30" by my guess.

 

[jammonius]

Seeing on how it was pulled from a crater that a 757 crashed into and hubcaps generally don't have gear teeth, I'm going with a compressor section.

You might want to educate yourself, it'll help with that whole personal incredulity thing that's holding you back.

ajm,

You appear to be married to your presumption that a 757 crash occurred and that your presumption does not require independent proof. I think you know why I disagree with what you've attempted to do in that regard.

Is this circle now complete and can we move on?

We have firmly established the following:

1--You see a jet engine in the photo in question and you don't think you have to source your claim and you have not sourced your claim and, I think it safe to add, you will not ever source your claim, rather you will just continue to make it.

2--I note that what it looks like to me is a wheel cover and I make no claim that that is what it, in fact, is. I am merely saying that is what it looks like to me.

3--I also assert that there is no source known to me where the piece of junk has been identified as a jet engine or any other specific part of a Boeing 757.


4--I, myself, have posted up the written assertion associated with the photograph in question that states as follows:

"Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed"

Here's my suggestion, ajm. Why don't you just go with the information I have posted up on this claim, too, just like you appear to have done on the DNA claim?

I would caution you against over-interpretation in that what I have shown does not say the photograph is a part of a Boeing 757 and certainly not a jet engine.

Others have pointed out that experts would need to be called on to verify and validate the photograph; or, at least that is what one poster initially appeared to have claimed. I hasten to add I am not putting words in posters' mouths. It wouldn't surprise me if the poster were to have a different viewpoint now. But, as for me, I will make the claim that whatever is shown in the photo would need to be validated. As for Zacarias Moussaoui, his defense attorneys, if he had any, could have a field day contradicting the claim that what is seen is a jet engine, using, of course, their own independent experts and the art of cross examination.

 

[TJM]

ajm,

You appear to be married to your presumption that a 757 crash occurred and that your presumption does not require independent proof. I think you know why I disagree with what you've attempted to do in that regard.

Is this circle now complete and can we move on?

We have firmly established the following: <snip>

"We have" firmly established nothing of the sort. You have done nothing but handwave away the mountain of evidence that puts UAL 93 in a crater in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.

As for Zacarias Moussaoui, his defense attorneys, if he had any, could have a field day contradicting the claim that what is seen is a jet engine, using, of course, their own independent experts and the art of cross examination.

Well that's it then! Contact the feds and demand a new trial! Go ahead, show those lawyers of his up!

 

[jammonius]

That can't be an 18" bucket, the hinge would look a lot larger if it were and it wouldn't have 5 teeth. It has to be at least a 30" by my guess.

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: