| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Show un-stageable Shanksville evidence; Another challenge for skeptics | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2009, 02:19 PM (1,548 Views) | |
| ToS | Jul 20 2009, 02:19 PM Post #1 |
|
Skeptics, if the alleged Flight 93 crash at Shanksville was real, then there should be LOTS of evidence there to prove it really happened, evidence that could not have been realistically planted, staged, or simply made up. I say "realistically" because given the time and opportunity, almost anything can be planted, or staged. But remember situation at the Shanksville field, such as Rollock scrap yard across the field and Barry Hoover living in his cabin around the corner, limits the time and opportunity perps would have to stage the scene. So if the Flight 93 crash is real, there should be plenty of evidence there that could not have been realistically staged, or evidence that simply could not of been made up. Have at it. |
 |
 
|
| Bernie big shorts | Jul 20 2009, 05:46 PM Post #2 |
|
ToS, The difficulty in staging Shanksville would be enormous in my opinion. I doubt i can provide evidence that you would see as "unstageable" but the overall operation would take a vast amount of planning, huge manpower, logistical difficulties and most importantly a colossal risk for a small and arguable benefit! The most obvious difficulty lies in faking the phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones. To fool the passengers relatives in a real time conversation is a science fiction conundrum of huge proportions, relatives spoke about personal things that only they would know - like the passenger who gave the safe number to her sister regarding her will. In my opinion these calls couldn't have been faked and would have been an unnecessary risk to fake. Faking the crash site would take masses of manpower working secretly. They would have to dig a huge crater secretly. They would have to char and remove the surrounding trees appropriately. They would have to pour jet fuel into the crater to fake the smell and sight reported at the scene. They would have to simulate an almighty explosion that resulted in a mushroom cloud that was photagraphed and reported. They would have to either fly a low flying jet upside down towards the scene or pay many witnesses to claim they saw one. They would have to hide the real 757 and dissapear the passengers somehow. The hundreds of people that worked at the scene that included dedicated full time professionals and committed voluntary workers would have to be paid off so they didn't blow the whistle on the fact that there weren't really collecting airline parts and body parts from the scene. The teams of people that were working on the DNA analysis would have to be controlled by a corrupt team of DNA scientists. Large amounts of lightweight debris would have to be flown down wind from the crash site. Engine parts would have to be hidden in small pools near the crash site. Engine parts would have to be staged in fake photographs coming out of the crater. Dumpsters full of small pieces of debris would have to be staged for photographs. Masses amounts of small debris would have to be strewn across the debris site and photographed near the lodge. Faking the FDR and the CVR would be a difficult operation. The cockpit voice recorder had to dovetail with the passengers phone calls. Both the FDR and the CVR would have to fool all the specialist technicians in contact with it. Conversations with people in air traffic control would have to be faked, the rader system would have to be compromised for this to happen. Airline security officials would have to either lie or be paid off regarding their recollection of the hijackers. The friends and acquaintences of the hijackers in Germany and beyond would have to lie about the hijackers association with Jihadist movements. As you can imagine there will be many difficulties and complications that i haven't considered. The whole operation would raise eyebrows if it was presented in a die hard film. The tangible benefits of all this was negligible - many truthers say they wanted the whole 'roll it' story to rally the country round, but i don't believe for a minute the national mood would be any different without this tiny detail. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 20 2009, 06:55 PM Post #3 |
|
How does any of that proves the plane crashed where it supposedly did, if it proves it crashed at all? Where any callers heard saying or cockpit mics records someone saying the plane is flipping over on its belly, or that its aiming for the ground?
Who said the crater had to be dug? It's been shown similar "wing scars" existed before 9/11 and some kind of bomb could have easily been dropped on an existing "wing scar" to achieve that Shanksville crater and also dropped into the forest, or what they dropped on the "wing scars" exploded and bounced into the forest.
They could have poured fuel in the existing "wing scar" before hand and if you look at the crater, you'll notice there is only charring inside the "wing scar" parts of the crater, but not the middle/"bombed part" of the crater as if something hit and moved the dirt into the direction of the damaged forest.
The one and only Val McClatchey photo with the colossal mushroom cloud that doesn't even line up over the crater is an obvious fake, which most truthers think so, along with Shanksville resident and 9/11 witness Kelly Leverknight who said it was a fake. If a bomb was used to make the crater as I suggest, that would have produced the smaller explosion that was witnessed.
Lee Purbagh was the closet to the scene and the ONLY witness to see an aircraft hit the ground and the aircraft he says flew only about 50ft over his head was well below where the official FDR put the plane at and Lee never described the aircraft he saw as flying upside down. Also, I have yet to find a witness who described seeing a United 757-like plane.
Not hard to do. Read the theory of Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Airport with the NSA building next to it. Even if that theory is wrong, you can see how it would be easily doable somewhere else.
When did the cleanup start? Where the volunteers allowed to go near the crater? Who were the people excavating the crater in the yellow and white hazmat suits?
Why would that team need to be corrupt? If you were a DNA tech and I handed you a bag of body parts and said it was from a certain location, how would you be able to tell?
So?
There is a road in the back that leads right up to the pond. How hard would it be to plant? Also, do you have photographic proof of this alleged engine part from the pond?
Engine PART (singular) and it's been shown that ONE engine part was free of dirt, not embedded in the ground and fits in the scooper bucket next to it suggesting it was planted by the scooper.
Dumpsters? Source? For the ONE dumpster of parts I've seen, if I had a team scatter a bunch of debris, or drop a bunch from the air and the next day hired a bunch of people to come collect it all and give them a dumpster to put it all it, wouldn't that explain ONE dumpster full of debris?
Again, what day did the cleanup start?
Pilots for Truth showed the FDR flight path doesn't jive with the witness reports from the ground.
None of that proves a plane crashed at a certain location. I was hoping you would show me a photograph of a piece of debris too big/heavy to move in without being noticed, or one that was partially buried in the ground that would be very hard and time consuming to plant that way, especially if most of the plane was supposedly buried and there was a photographer at the scene of the excavation taking lots of photos of it. Edited by ToS, Jul 20 2009, 07:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Jul 21 2009, 04:38 AM Post #4 |
|
ToS,
The cockpit voice recorder has the voice of the hijackers saying "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" The other hijacker responded, "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down." A hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The FDR then shows that the airplane descended with the yoke turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting the takbir. Amidst the sounds of the passenger counterattack, the aircraft plowed into the empty field in Shanksville. http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf
It's really not "easy" to drop a bomb secretly and hope for the kind of damage you need. You would need to drop the bomb at the same time as your suppossed plane crash without being caught by the many people who turned up immediately to help.
The allegation that local resident Val McClatchey is lying about taking this photograph is unfounded. There isn't any evidence from a technical photographic analyst to suggest that there is anything suspicious about this image. If the plotters were to go to this much trouble would it not been easy to produce an image that lined up? I thought it would be the least of their difficulties.
Here are some witnesses you may not have come across:
It would take quite an operation to fly a jet dangerously low performing violent banks, then drop a bomb and secretly fly your jet off without any witnesses.
It would take quite a few people to look after the dissappearance of a jet and the removal of the passengers. It would be difficult enough to find one heartless person callous enough to remain quiet about killing dozens of their innocent countrymen, to find a team of these people i cannot accept. Many soldiers struggle with the inhumanity in killing their enemy soldiers in a war they believe to be justified!
Hundreds of volunteer firefighters were quickly on the scene. These included: Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad. www.crono911.net/docs/Somerset.pdf One of the earliest on the scene was Rick King:
At Shanksville, which was by far the smallest of the three 9/11 crash scenes, over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations worked at the scene. Including civilian volunteers, many of whom joined an organized effort to collect aircraft parts, the number of crash scene workers reaches well over 1,500. On 9/11 alone, these included: 8 Police Departments, 7 EMS Services, 8 Fire Departments, 10 Emergency Management Agencies, NTSB, ATF, FBI, CISM, Red Cross, United Airlines.
This would take more operatives working secretly trying to release the light material high enough into the wind simulating the heat of the explosion to float down to the Lake.
So they are going to these extraordinary lengths but have forgotten to put dirt on the engine parts or couldn't plant some more debris, it doesn't really make sense!
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html
There were people on the scene straight away looking for survivors. The formal clean up began on day 2 i understand.
Why are the plotters faking erronous data?
What i'm trying to show you is that to fake an event of such proportions is fraught with difficulties regarding each minor detail, the overall operation would be so colossal that it would be completely unfeasible. For the government to risk such an operation that would involve manpower in the tens of thousands over several years it would have to have a huge reward - but all this was to produce a 'roll it' hero is a head scratching theory to me. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Jul 21 2009, 11:34 AM Post #5 |
|
So the first question is - What kind of evidence of a plane crash could not be realistically staged or made up. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 21 2009, 11:37 AM Post #6 |
|
It is not up to anyone to prove to you what happened in Shanksville. It has already been proven. You just don't accept the evidence. Do you have any proof that anything was planted or faked? Do you have any actual proof that flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville? " I don't see enough debris to satisfy my idea of what a plane crash should look like", is not evidence of no plane crash. It is evidence of your lack of understanding. If you don't have actual evidence, what is the point of you speculating ad nauseum? Anyone can sit up and think of different senarios, but evidence is always present. 'They' are not supernatural. Why haven't you been able to find any evidence that the flight never crashed in Shanksville? Could it be that it doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 21 2009, 12:40 PM Post #7 |
|
What evidence ? |
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 01:49 PM Post #8 |
|
Let's try this again: Where any callers heard saying or cockpit mics records someone saying the plane is flipping over on its belly, or that its aiming for the ground? "Callers" is referred to the passengers calling on the phones. "Aiming for the ground" refers to commenting the plane is actually aiming towards the ground, not what someone says before the process starts.
How many people actually saw something hit the ground?
Shanksville resident and 9/11 witness Kelly Leverknight say Val's original photo "didn't have a mushroom cloud." Are you calling her a liar?
Tom Fritz - "you couldn't even make out what color it was." (speaks for itself) Rick King - "I hear a big plane" (I didn't ask for "hear," I asked for type of plane and color) Knoll and Nevin Lambert - “It was coming right at me...and all at once it made the 45-degree angle and it went right down" Karl Landis - "appeared to hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle," (is it 45deg, or 90deg?) Anita McBride - looked out her kitchen window (she doesn't describe the plane) Michael Merringer - "I looked up and I saw the smoke coming up." (he didn't see the plane) Eric Peterson - "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. (he could see the rivets, but doesn't describe type of plane or color?) Lee Purbaugh - 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. (plane he saw was way lower the Flight 93 official was and going slower because a 757 going 580mph at that altitude could not be observed rocking for side-to-side in the 400yds distance from where Lee saw it until where it supposedly crashed, never mind the incredibly G-forces that would put on a 757 at that speed and that altitude) Viola Saylor - "We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," (she heard, didn't see and Dominick interviewed her and she says the official story is a lie) Bob Blair - he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops (Flight 93 wasn't silver. Bob saw a different plane) Tim Lensbouer - "I heard it" (heard it, didn't see it) Rob Kimmel - "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom." (but doesn't describe type of color) Terry Butler - "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." (tried to gain altitude? sounds like a plane setting up to do an acrobatic move) Linda Shepley - She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet (a 757 wobbling at that speed at that altitude would start breaking up) Kelly Leverknight - "I saw the belly of the plane." (doesn't describe type of color) Tim Thornsberg - "started wobbling ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees." (another description of a plane setting up for an acrobatic move) Paula Pluta - “It was just a streak of silver. (there's that color SILVER again!) Now, which witnesses described a 757-like plane and/or described United Airlines colors?
Well, at least you admit you're too close-minded to accept it.
Again: When did the cleanup start? Where the volunteers allowed to go near the crater? Who were the people excavating the crater in the yellow and white hazmat suits?
Can you produce photo evidence of this extraordinary claim?
Stuff like that couldn't have been dropped from a plane?
Is there dirt clumped on that engine piece? Is that engine piece partially submerged in the ground? Do you agree it's small enough to fit in the scooper? Do you also agree it is the ONLY photo of a plane part seen supposedly being dug out of the ground?
How does that link answer my questions?
Actually day 3 (9/13), so that means the had the whole day and night of 9/12 to do whatever they wanted to the scene before the cleanup started.
Ask them, but PFT proved the official trajectory doesn't jive with witness accounts unless you are going to say all the of the witness you posted are wrong, or liars.
Yes I know, but show me just ONE piece of Shanksville evidence that couldn't have been realistically planted, staged, or made up. Just think, you only have to show ONE piece to prove the crash was real. Can't get any easier than that, especially when you have 48tons of plane debris underground to show coming out of the ground (i.e. the claimed 80% of 757 said to be buried). Edited by ToS, Jul 21 2009, 01:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 21 2009, 01:56 PM Post #9 |
|
ToS Bernie big shorts has provided you with a lot of information about the complexities of faking Shanksville. And a good deal about witnesses who actually saw the plane crash and I commend him for it. To fake everything would have been a task of such stupendous difficulty and one false move would have lead to it unravelling. Have you any evidence of fakery that will stand up. Other factors, which I alluded to on another thread that was stymied, are:- (a) Why fake the crash of Flight 93 when you have control of the aircraft ? (b) Why, in a plan to attack the WTC and the Pentagon, would anyone decide that targetting a corner of a field in Pennsylvania is the optimum use of Flight 93 ? With respect, I think that just looking at some of the wreckage and coming up with your theories is a total dead-end unless you can come up with a plausible reason as to why a field in the back of nowhere should have been deemed a prime target. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 02:00 PM Post #10 |
|
And I shot it all down. Look, how hard can this challenge be? All you have to do is produce ONE piece of evidence that couldn't have been realistically planted, staged, or made up. HOW HARD CAN THAT BE?!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 21 2009, 02:10 PM Post #11 |
|
ToS You do like challenges don't you ? But, how about trying to give me an answer to my questions (a) and (b) above which you ignored on the other thread. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 02:17 PM Post #12 |
|
You sure don't.
Why don't you start a different thread for your different topic? |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 21 2009, 02:29 PM Post #13 |
|
The evidence you continue to ignore. The evidence has already been listed many times. You know what the evidence is. You have never shown that any of the evidence is fake. That is where you should start, instead of suggesting what could have happened. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 21 2009, 02:45 PM Post #14 |
|
ToS How is it a different topic ? If you accuse conspirators of fakery surely you need to provide a plausible motive. I think your challenge is a phony and that proper debate around the circumstances is likely to be much more illuminating. Given time, money and expertise I daresay it would be possible to produce a Mona Lisa identical to the original. People are caught out in the art market all the time. So, I think it is probably true that there isn't anything which cannot be faked. However, that is a whole different ball game from accepting that fakery can be carried out on the grand scale of Shanskville and you have given no plausible reason why it should have been. The plane was heading back east and the others had struck the WTC and the Pentagon. Are you not deliberately avoiding the obvious ? The plane was headed for an important target, probably in Washington. I can't imagine why you so resolutely oppose the idea that your countrymen prevented it getting there. The cockpit voice recorder and the phone calls are substantive evidence of that. Even if you loathed the Bush administration why can you not allow your countrymen their obvious due ? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 02:48 PM Post #15 |
|
Well, pieces too big to truck in without being seen. Submerged pieces that would require digging the ground to plant them in. Video of crews bringing out piece after piece after piece of wreckage under the ground. Common sense stuff like that. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 02:53 PM Post #16 |
|
Says who, you?
Yes, but you just don't accept the evidence (deja vu!)
What is my lack of understanding then?
Well we've been asking for proof of the reported 80% of Flight 93 buried in the ground, but as you say, you might not be able to find it because it doesn't exist. 
Edited by ToS, Jul 21 2009, 02:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 21 2009, 03:28 PM Post #17 |
|
I have ignored nothing. The topic of this thread is "Show un-stageable Shanksville evidence" You have shown none. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Jul 21 2009, 04:08 PM Post #18 |
|
So the only pieces of evidence you believe would be un-stageable would be: - Pieces "too big to truck in without being seen" - Submerged pieces that would have to be dug in to plant them - Video of said pieces being removed So what you're asking for is evidence consisting of large pieces of the plane? (And you don't believe photos of that could be staged) Am I correct? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 04:45 PM Post #19 |
|
No, I was giving you examples. Why don't YOU give me an example of a piece of evidence that YOU think could not be realistically planted, staged, or just made up? Then we can debate it. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 04:49 PM Post #20 |
|
Bernie big shorts, I forgot to ask, do you concede that there is no single piece of "Flight 93 evidence" that could not have been realistically planted, staged, or just made up? If not, please produce one. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 21 2009, 04:57 PM Post #21 |
|
ToS Why don't you seriously address anybodys points. You obviously live in a totally different world from me. How can you really imagine, for even a nanosecond, that a corner of a Pennsylvania field was a pre-planned designated target ? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 21 2009, 05:02 PM Post #22 |
|
Who's on-topic points did I not address? Why do you side-step all my on-topic questions?
How is that on-topic? |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 21 2009, 05:13 PM Post #23 |
|
ToS You haven't addressed my questions (a) and (b). So far as my last question is concerned; it is entirely on-topic. You assert the Shanksville site is a fake. I am asking you why you think such an obscure rural backwater should have been planned as a target when other targets were the WTC and Pentagon. |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Jul 21 2009, 05:51 PM Post #24 |
|
ToS,
The hijackers are heard saying that they are going to put the plane in the ground as the passenger revolt becomes more intense. For obvious reasons there are no conversations from in the plane about the plane flipping onto its belly. The FDR shows us that the plane had flipped itself onto its belly for the final seconds, this is confirmed by eyewitness accounts.
Tom Burnett comments to his wife during his phone calls that they are waiting to fly over an urban area before they attempt to take the plane back from the hijackers. http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html
Many people saw a plane flying really low towards the earth right over the trees near the crater.
I'm not calling her a liar, she may be mistaken or she may be mischief making. Either way there is no evidence that the photo isn't genuine and the fact that the mushroom cloud was reported by other eyewitnesses means i see no reason to doubt the veracity of the photograph.
I think your wrong to expect the witnesses to accurately describe the plane, a frightening incident that occurred in a few seconds is unlikely to yield much accuracy other than the fact that an out of control airplane roared past them in unusual circumstances.
It would have been both at different times.
Volunteer fire services were on the scene immediately, these were followed by many organisations i linked above.
Truthers from this forum were shown private pictures from the coroner of the pools of fuel in the crater. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2456935081384261617&ei=cz1mStyaIJv1-AbWmt1c&q=shanksville+files+wally+miller&hl=en&client=firefox-a
There are no reports of this extraordinary behaviour on a day when people could well be attuned to the skies after seeing the images from New York. Would it be necessary for the plotters to scatter light weight material in the sky for their story - is this not the most outlandish risk imaginable?
It may be the only image of engine parts coming out of the crater but i would still accept the overwhelming body of evidence that a plane crashed there even if this photo didn't exist. There are other images of plane debris round the site. http://911research.wtc7.n...vidence/photos/index.html The video linked above also shows truthers looking at private pictures of plane debris and body parts.
Wally Miller says his work as a coroner collecting body parts started on day 2. You seem to think that having a day would give them time to plant stuff but you fail to understand that the site was full of local volunteers and people from a whole manner of organisations.
I certainly don't expect the eyewitness accounts to give accurate distances and trajectories but a large number of people saw a plane flying out of control towards the crash site. It is also possible that PFTs analysis of the FDR is not accurate.
I'm putting it to you that the entire body of evidence couldn't have been faked at once. Yes individual photos could be faked, corrupt teams of scientists could be hired with great difficulty, eyewitnesses could be paid off/hired, full time and volunteer rescue workers may be offered huge sums of cash to remain silent (however, the people in this line of work aren't in it for the money, thats why its unfeasible, they are motivated by a duty of care), debris could be smuggled in and planted, planes could be flown dangerously across tree tops (not made to dissappear though!), bombs could be dropped (not very easy during the day), false flight data recorder could be created by corrupt technicians, voice manipulation experts would have to fool loved ones that they are their husband/wife/sister/brother etc (they would have to have teams of many people doing extensive research to learn safe combinations, affectations, foibles, phone mannerisms, pet names etc), they would have to recreate the cockpit drama using actors for the CVR, they would have to control the Air Traffic Control communications, they would have to attempt dropping light weight debris from a plane in the hope that nobody will see in the broad daylight. The list goes on and on. There are many aspects of the planning that i won't have considered that will undoubtedly bring with it more problems. One single part of the process would be a massive risk but to run this together really would make you laugh if it was shown as a blockbuster at your local cinema. The shanksville operation would also have to dovetail with the operations in New York and at the Pentagon. The list of people involved would be astronomical, and for what? - so Bush can use the "Lets roll" line! Edited by Bernie big shorts, Jul 21 2009, 08:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Jul 21 2009, 09:07 PM Post #25 |
|
Because you're the one asking for the "un-stageable" evidence. I have no idea what evidence would be considered un-stageable, and since it's your question I'm asking you. I suspect that anyone who posts a piece of evidence here that they consider "un-stageable" you would simply disagree, which is why I asked for your criteria so that I'm not wasting my time. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
8:38 AM Nov 25
