from what ive read
the fouth plane crashed and there was no bodies or seats
ive been looking at the lockerbie air crash and i also remeber people saying there were bodies still in the seats on the ground
the lockerbie plane blew up at around 30k hight from what i remeber wasnt the 9/11 plane quite low
so if i am right
dose it mean a body falling out side a plane for 30k+ feet has more chance to survive the impact than a body inside a plane faling from a much lower hight
from what ive read
the fouth plane crashed and there was no bodies or seats
ive been looking at the lockerbie air crash and i also remeber people saying there were bodies still in the seats on the ground
the lockerbie plane blew up at around 30k hight from what i remeber wasnt the 9/11 plane quite low
so if i am right
dose it mean a body falling out side a plane for 30k+ feet has more chance to survive the impact than a body inside a plane faling from a much lower hight
There were body remains at Shanksville, and DNA matching identified those on board, however the essential differance is that, as you say, the Panam plane was blown up in mid-air, so the debris and bodies fell separately, while flight 93 was intact and hit the ground with the passengers inside. It then burned, so the passengers were "essentially cremated together" as the local coroner put it. The effect was that only about 8% of the total weight of the passengers was found. LINK
There were body remains at Shanksville, and DNA matching identified those on board, however the essential differance is that, as you say, the Panam plane was blown up in mid-air, so the debris and bodies fell separately, while flight 93 was intact and hit the ground with the passengers inside. It then burned, so the passengers were "essentially cremated together" as the local coroner put it. The effect was that only about 8% of the total weight of the passengers was found. LINK
Didn't the local coroner say on the day there was nothing and then change his mind months later?
Can you produce photos of the crash site showing seats, luggage etc?
"When one cannot find the fuselage relatively intact and when the wreckage is concentrated in a relatively small area, the chances of finding any survivors are practically nonexistent," AP quoted Pereira as saying.
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Coast Guard, Air Force and Navy continued an extensive search off the California coast Tuesday after an Alaskan Airlines jet airliner with 88 people aboard plummeted nose-first into deep waters northwest of Los Angeles.
The outline of the plane was seen, upside down, just under the surface of the water late Monday. Waters in the area are 700 feet (212 meters) deep.
The outline of the plane was seen, upside down, just under the surface of the water late Monday. Waters in the area are 700 feet (212 meters) deep.
i aint trying to prove anything by doing this, im just linking simular examples that i can find of nose down crashes, there are certain things in each case that are not identical to flight 93, for example speed/location/type of craft, there is always one or the other that is'nt exactly the same.
but it should still help in determing what we'd expect to see at shanksville regardless of which side of the arguement your coming from.
if i missed any examples you know of please link them also, it takes way to long to find every example possible.
if its only part of an engine then im not sure why the rest of the engine is not visible at least in smaller bits on the surface. or did a part of the engine decide to carrying on going down into the soil?
it was lucky it was just big enough to be carried around by the digger(perfect size) whilst the engine in the first example would need cranes and a heavy duty truck to carry it away.
not proof of anything i suppose but theres an extreme differance in size, especially when you consider flight 93 hit soft ground, and the first example hit hard concrete and tarmac yet stays intact.
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Busker wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
There were body remains at Shanksville, and DNA matching identified those on board, however the essential differance is that, as you say, the Panam plane was blown up in mid-air, so the debris and bodies fell separately, while flight 93 was intact and hit the ground with the passengers inside. It then burned, so the passengers were "essentially cremated together" as the local coroner put it. The effect was that only about 8% of the total weight of the passengers was found. LINK
Didn't the local coroner say on the day there was nothing and then change his mind months later?
Can you produce photos of the crash site showing seats, luggage etc?
No, what the local coroner said was taken by "truthers" who quoted only part of it in order to make it appear to say something he did not mean, a very typical trick used by people who claim to be looking for truth. See the link I gave above and this one. The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Bushwacker wrote:
Busker wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
There were body remains at Shanksville, and DNA matching identified those on board, however the essential differance is that, as you say, the Panam plane was blown up in mid-air, so the debris and bodies fell separately, while flight 93 was intact and hit the ground with the passengers inside. It then burned, so the passengers were "essentially cremated together" as the local coroner put it. The effect was that only about 8% of the total weight of the passengers was found. LINK
Didn't the local coroner say on the day there was nothing and then change his mind months later?
Can you produce photos of the crash site showing seats, luggage etc?
No, what the local coroner said was taken by "truthers" who quoted only part of it in order to make it appear to say something he did not mean, a very typical trick used by people who claim to be looking for truth. See the link I gave above and this one. The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
As the one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away, I guess the engine was made of bouncy rubber instead of metal, if - according to you - "Flight 93 was intact" when it crashed. LOL!
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Micpsi wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Busker wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
There were body remains at Shanksville, and DNA matching identified those on board, however the essential differance is that, as you say, the Panam plane was blown up in mid-air, so the debris and bodies fell separately, while flight 93 was intact and hit the ground with the passengers inside. It then burned, so the passengers were "essentially cremated together" as the local coroner put it. The effect was that only about 8% of the total weight of the passengers was found. LINK
Didn't the local coroner say on the day there was nothing and then change his mind months later?
Can you produce photos of the crash site showing seats, luggage etc?
No, what the local coroner said was taken by "truthers" who quoted only part of it in order to make it appear to say something he did not mean, a very typical trick used by people who claim to be looking for truth. See the link I gave above and this one. The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
As the one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away, I guess the engine was made of bouncy rubber instead of metal, if - according to you - "Flight 93 was intact" when it crashed. LOL!
What I meant of course was that the fuselage of the plane was intact and the passengers were inside it when it crashed. Possibly one or both engines came off the plane before impact, that can happen when subjected to extreme loads, it happened to an Airbus that crashed two months after 9/11 (LINK) but the story of an engine found a mile away from the main crash site of flight 93 seems difficult to confirm, have you any links?
What I meant of course was that the fuselage of the plane was intact and the passengers were inside it when it crashed. Possibly one or both engines came off the plane before impact, that can happen when subjected to extreme loads, it happened to an Airbus that crashed two months after 9/11 (LINK) but the story of an engine found a mile away from the main crash site of flight 93 seems difficult to confirm, have you any links?
1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.
Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.
The engine part was found ahead of flight 93's flight path, not behind it.
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Bushwacker wrote:
The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
Whether "that will do" depends upon the reliability of the evidence and those who presented it.
Doesn't it?
Quote:
Moussaoui Judge Questions Government
Tuesday November 20, 2007 11:16 PM
By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided wrong information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, raising the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
At a post-trial hearing Tuesday for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric from Virginia sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for soliciting treason, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases.
Attorneys for al-Timimi have been seeking access to documents. They also want to depose government witnesses to determine whether the government improperly failed to disclose the existence of certain evidence.
The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on those government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false.
In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.
Full article here _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
What I meant of course was that the fuselage of the plane was intact and the passengers were inside it when it crashed. Possibly one or both engines came off the plane before impact, that can happen when subjected to extreme loads, it happened to an Airbus that crashed two months after 9/11 (LINK) but the story of an engine found a mile away from the main crash site of flight 93 seems difficult to confirm, have you any links?
1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters – Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California – and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.
Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.
The engine part was found ahead of flight 93's flight path, not behind it.
So we have one story that part of an engine was found 2000 yards away and another that an engine was found 900 yards away, having bounced into the woods. If all or part of the engine was found ahead of the flight path, that seems to suggest that the engine did not come off in flight, either from violent manoevuring or the plane being shot down. No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
Planting evidence?!
You really haven't the first clue as to what the official story is or what us so-called truthers say do you?
Strange that the rest of the plane apparently entered the soft earth of the mine and yet the engine bounced off missing every tree in the wood to land at least 900 yds away, especially as the plane came down at steep descent according to the official story.
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Mark Gobell wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
Whether "that will do" depends upon the reliability of the evidence and those who presented it.
Doesn't it?
Quote:
Moussaoui Judge Questions Government
Tuesday November 20, 2007 11:16 PM
By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided wrong information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, raising the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
At a post-trial hearing Tuesday for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric from Virginia sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for soliciting treason, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases.
Attorneys for al-Timimi have been seeking access to documents. They also want to depose government witnesses to determine whether the government improperly failed to disclose the existence of certain evidence.
The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on those government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false.
In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
Planting evidence?!
You really haven't the first clue as to what the official story is or what us so-called truthers say do you?
Strange that the rest of the plane apparently entered the soft earth of the mine and yet the engine bounced off missing every tree in the wood to land at least 900 yds away, especially as the plane came down at steep descent according to the official story.
As far as I am aware there is no official story about the engine, is there? Do enlighten me. Truthers, as far as I can tell, agree about nothing except that the official story, whatever that is, must be wrong.
Yes, it is strange that the engine, or part of it, ended up 900 yards away in a wood, if indeed it did. I am sure you will let us know why that is absolutely conclusive proof of something or other, flight 93 never existed, it landed in Cleveland, it was shot down, or some such. Then the hole was made with a beam weapon, or explosives, or a mini-nuke, or Pat and Mick, who are good men with a shovel.
As far as I am aware there is no official story about the engine, is there?
Bushwacker wrote:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least your contradictions are good entertainment value.
You know James, dealing with you is like dealing with a particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year old!
For James and any particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year olds, let me spell out what would have be quite obvious to the grown-ups, and actually probably even to you, although you choose to pretend otherwise:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story that the plane crashed into the ground where the hole was found, and was not shot down.
As far as I am aware there is no official story specifically about the engine, is there?
I see you have still not managed to explain how gravity might act to stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, don't forget that little problem, the world of science is waiting!
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Mark Gobell wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The Mousaoui trial exhibits include photos of body parts, will that do for you?
Whether "that will do" depends upon the reliability of the evidence and those who presented it.
Doesn't it?
Quote:
Moussaoui Judge Questions Government
Tuesday November 20, 2007 11:16 PM
By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided wrong information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, raising the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
At a post-trial hearing Tuesday for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric from Virginia sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for soliciting treason, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases.
Attorneys for al-Timimi have been seeking access to documents. They also want to depose government witnesses to determine whether the government improperly failed to disclose the existence of certain evidence.
The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on those government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false.
In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: 4th plane
Mark Gobell wrote:
I can wait and wait and wait . . .
What are you waiting for, exactly?
Perhaps you have missed my reply, "It depends on what Busker thinks, it was he who wanted photos."
The relevance of the CIA failing fully to inform prosecutors of the existence of classified evidence, leading to the possibility of of a retrial, is unclear.
As far as I am aware there is no official story about the engine, is there?
Bushwacker wrote:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least your contradictions are good entertainment value.
You know James, dealing with you is like dealing with a particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year old!
For James and any particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year olds, let me spell out what would have be quite obvious to the grown-ups, and actually probably even to you, although you choose to pretend otherwise:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story that the plane crashed into the ground where the hole was found, and was not shot down.
As far as I am aware there is no official story specifically about the engine, is there?
I see you have still not managed to explain how gravity might act to stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, don't forget that little problem, the world of science is waiting!
Bushwacker,
I have answered your petty issues. Just read what I have said instead of bleating on about imaginary unanswered questions. Your last response on the WTC debate was so lame I couldn't see any point in continuing the discussion.
As far as I am aware there is no official story about the engine, is there?
Bushwacker wrote:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least your contradictions are good entertainment value.
You know James, dealing with you is like dealing with a particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year old!
For James and any particularly difficult and recalcitrant 10 year olds, let me spell out what would have be quite obvious to the grown-ups, and actually probably even to you, although you choose to pretend otherwise:
No one would plant evidence so far away, so what we have is some rather vague evidence, tending to confirm the official story that the plane crashed into the ground where the hole was found, and was not shot down.
As far as I am aware there is no official story specifically about the engine, is there?
I see you have still not managed to explain how gravity might act to stop the rotation of a massively heavy body falling freely through air, don't forget that little problem, the world of science is waiting!
Bushwacker,
I have answered your petty issues. Just read what I have said instead of bleating on about imaginary unanswered questions. Your last response on the WTC debate was so lame I couldn't see any point in continuing the discussion.
I suppose your total inability to justify or explain yourself is a petty issue, really. After all, we know you are quite simply wrong, gravity could not stop the upper section rotating as you say it could, and it does not much matter, because that section was never falling freely through the air as you assert anyway, so let us leave it at that.
You offer "evidence" of photographs presented at a trial and ask if they would do.
I then post words from the judges mouth at that trial that clearly states she has problems with some of the evidence presented at that trial.
You then question it's relevance?
Yes, I think you are beginning to grasp it is a very different issue, but you are still a little confused. The judge has no problem with the evidence presented, she has problems relying on statements that no evidence of a certain type existed. Nothing there casts doubt on the photographs presented, a statement that there were no photographs might be suspect. Understand now?
Yes, I think you are beginning to grasp it is a very different issue, but you are still a little confused. The judge has no problem with the evidence presented, she has problems relying on statements that no evidence of a certain type existed. Nothing there casts doubt on the photographs presented, a statement that there were no photographs might be suspect. Understand now?
Nope sorry.
The judge has problems with some of the evidence presented.
The evidence that she has problems with was the evidence given that there was no evidence.
That is a lie is it not?
If it is a lie then that means the people presenting that evidence are committing perjury does it not?
You, however, choose to present "evidence" provided by people whom the judge now has problems trusting, to support your argument.
So that means you are relying on evidence provided by people that a judge has accused of lying in court.
Understand now? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Yes, I think you are beginning to grasp it is a very different issue, but you are still a little confused. The judge has no problem with the evidence presented, she has problems relying on statements that no evidence of a certain type existed. Nothing there casts doubt on the photographs presented, a statement that there were no photographs might be suspect. Understand now?
Nope sorry.
The judge has problems with some of the evidence presented.
The evidence that she has problems with was the evidence given that there was no evidence.
That is a lie is it not?
If it is a lie then that means the people presenting that evidence are committing perjury does it not?
You, however, choose to present "evidence" provided by people whom the judge now has problems trusting, to support your argument.
So that means you are relying on evidence provided by people that a judge has accused of lying in court.
Understand now?
I understand perfectly, you are struggling to defend a point that was always desperately weak. If the judge had cast any doubt on the actual evidence presented, you would have a reasonable argument, but she didn't and you don't.
McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided wrong information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, raising the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
At a post-trial hearing Tuesday for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric from Virginia sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for soliciting treason, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases.
Attorneys for al-Timimi have been seeking access to documents. They also want to depose government witnesses to determine whether the government improperly failed to disclose the existence of certain evidence.
The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on those government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false.
In a letter made public Nov. 13, prosecutors in the Moussaoui case admitted to Brinkema that the CIA had wrongly assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees. In fact, two such videotapes and one audio tape existed.
_________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:33 am Post subject:
From Popular Mechanics
Roving Engine
Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
===
I think claims of longer distances were calculated with route finders, which show driving distance, not straight line distance. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
