IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Shanksville Coroner Wally Miller

Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 22 2008, 04:13 PM
Post #61





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 20 2008, 05:33 PM) *
Reality? Sure!

In reality, the chances of there being a new investigation are about the same as a new investigation into JFK or MLK or OKC. Ain't gonna happen.



so you think i should stop wasting my time and losing my money?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 22 2008, 07:07 PM
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 22 2008, 12:33 PM) *
In reality, the chances of there being a new investigation are about the same as a new investigation into JFK or MLK or OKC.

IMO- we ARE the new investigation (I agree with amazed! here that it doesn't benefit 2 PNAC Crew to have an honest investigation, and they will not allow one to happen).

That said, I don't think Dom should quit (unless that's his preference/decision), and I appreciate what all the legitimate researchers have done so far and are currently doing, and their having the courage to speak out in the face of all this banal, propaganda-machine's opposition. salute.gif

This ball of lies and deception (9/11 OGCT) should never be/never have been entombed in the "history" books.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 22 2008, 08:58 PM
Post #63





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 20 2008, 10:07 PM) *
That said, I don't think Dom should quit (unless that's his preference/decision), and I appreciate what all the legitimate researchers have done so far and are currently doing, and their having the courage to speak out in the face of all this banal, propaganda-machine's opposition. salute.gif



well i have no intentions of quitting until this is resolved or i am dead whichever comes first.

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 23 2008, 10:26 AM
Post #64





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Dom

I am thankful for all you have done. You will do what you want to, that is also reality.

I'm simply saying that the goal of a new investigation is very unrealistic. The bureaucracy does not work that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 23 2008, 06:06 PM
Post #65





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 21 2008, 01:26 PM) *
Dom

I am thankful for all you have done. You will do what you want to, that is also reality.

I'm simply saying that the goal of a new investigation is very unrealistic. The bureaucracy does not work that way.


thank you.

obviously i believe differently. i think a revolution is possible if there are enough revolutionaries. everyday more people wake up. the problem right now is this fake election and fake choice is giving everyone fake hopes and putting a lot into a deeper state of slumber. but that'll wear off too. hopefully soon enough. joe biden........lmao

it's all good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 24 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #66





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I agree with you and you are correct about the revolutionary spirit. But it acts more slowly than you think--the fourth dimension kicks in.

But you have contributed a spark to that revolution.

Personally, I think most folks know it's a damn lie. Most folks are too afraid to talk about it. We're not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 28 2008, 03:28 AM
Post #67





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



9/11 : The Shanksville Files Vol II : Wally Miller [46 min]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 28 2008, 11:09 PM
Post #68





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE
d: now there was reports in the media that there was human remains in indian lake, floating in the lake....

w: incorrect.

d: no remains were recovered from any other location than the actual site?

w: thats correct.

d: were they recovered from in the crater or were they off into the woods?

w: both

d: both?

w: both. the explanation was, when the plane came in it was coming low, it banked at a 90 degree angle allegedly from the people...from the struggle in the cockpit and the right wing hit the ground right there where the impact area is.. and as that happened it flipped the front end. the front 1/3 of the plane including the cockpit slammed into the ground off of the wing and the front 1/3 broke off and flew up into the trees with a fireball behind and the remaining 2/3 went down into the crater.



consistent with the evidence? yes.

consistent with the official story? no.

and thats just in the first 3 minutes......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 29 2008, 06:38 PM
Post #69



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi Dom,

You might want to take a look at post #73 over in the Pentagon section...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10754094
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Oct 1 2008, 08:22 AM
Post #70





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 27 2008, 08:38 PM) *
Hi Dom,

You might want to take a look at post #73 over in the Pentagon section...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10754094



QUOTE
Air traffic controllers when suspecting that Flight 93 was hijacked updated
flight plan in FAA computer to show path toward Washington. This
was a "ghost track" where computer showed estimated flight path
toward Washington. The 10:28 time was the estimated time plane would
arrive .

In other forum have discussion of the Flight 93 track and if the F 16 could
have detected and intercepted it . Poster "CHEAP SHOT" was in Boston
ATC and made the call to NEADS about first hijacking (Flight 11) to
scramble the fighters from Otis toward New York. Watched the track of Flight 93 on scope ...


duh-bunkers argument........

thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 1 2008, 08:47 AM
Post #71



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



"Unique FAA Index:" 196566 [for "UAL93"]

WHEELS DOWN: 10:28 EDT, at DCA per FAA per "Brian Stark via FOIA 2008-3195" at:

http://aal77.com/faa/FOIA%202008-3195%20(Stark).xls

Any more questions "dung-bunkers?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Oct 1 2008, 10:08 AM
Post #72


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Amazing. http://aal77.com/faa/FOIA%202008-3195%20(Stark).xls

Apparently Flight 93 took off from EWR Newark International NJ at 8:43 (EDT) and landed at DCA Reagan National at 10:28 AM (EDT) on 9-11-2001.

Now why would Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Nami, Ahmed al-Haznawi, and Saeed al-Ghamdi want to land at Reagan instead of carrying out their orders?

Have we been lied to?

Surprisingly, the 911 Commission only missed the takeoff time from Newark by one minute and the landing at Reagan by 5 minutes.
Maybe it ran into headwinds. whistle.gif cheers.gif

QUOTE (911 Commission)
United 93 took off from Newark at 8:42. It was more than 40 minutes late.

Had it not crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03, we estimate that United 93 could not have reached Washington, DC any earlier than 10:13, and most probably would have arrived before 10:23.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 2 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #73





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Maaybe it's me, but I couldn't find 196566

I think I found 196599

Whatever, yes, we already know we've been lied to. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 2 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #74



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 2 2008, 08:34 AM) *
Maaybe it's me, but I couldn't find 196566

I think I found 196599

I'm not sure how anyone can miss it (but I spend a LOT of time inside spreadsheets, too). EDIT: I sorted the data by EDT "wheels down" time first.

Here's another screen capture for you amazed, with the 2 B757-200's highlighted in green. Boeings are yellow or orange.



The file server has been acting pretty wonky lately, though. I've asked about flight AMT133 over in the Aircraft section- that's looking like a "ghost" B757-200 so far... [cough * AA77] ;)

EDIT: That "non-descript" AAL568 "Other" at 10:13 EDT is awfully curious, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 4 2008, 05:55 PM
Post #75





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



So what you're saying dMole, is that according to an official FAA record, UA 93 landed somewhere that day?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 4 2008, 06:45 PM
Post #76



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Well amazed,

According to my independent analysis of the data in the "Stark" spreadsheet linked at post #76 above, yes that is what that data alleged to have been from an FOIA request of FAA indicates. If anyone has issue with this paragraph or my findings, then follow the links to that spreadsheet and/or take it up (as in file an FOIA) with the FAA themself. Alternately, take issue with the person who posted that spreadsheet that lists "UAL93" on the "DCA Arrivals" tab- I'm just the messenger/analyst, but that's where the chips just fell.

The "spin doctors" have already alleged that this "UAL93" was scheduled to arrive at DCA, and didn't actually arrive there- (computer error, check in the mail, ...) rolleyes.gif

Let's take a look at what American Airlines and DCA had going on just recently:

http://www.flightarrivals.com/cgi-bin/WebO...y3WiXt79wC/2.15



Hmmm... AA1314 from DFW landed at 17:14 EDT.
AA1360 from DFW was in flight, 20 miles out and due at 18:12.
AA1900 from DFW was 705 mi. from DCA in flight and due at 19:36.
AA1136 was scheduled for DCA at 20:13 EDT, but was still presumably sitting on a runway at MIA
---
Oh wait... was't UA93 scheduled for somewhere across the continent from DCA on Tues. 9/11/2001?

"(8:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Takes Off 41 Minutes Late Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, bound for San Francisco, California. It leaves 41 minutes late because of heavy runway traffic. [Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Associated Press, 8/21/2002; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]"

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...te_911_timeline

---

Let me guess, now the apologists will speculate that the FAA didn't have computers back in 2001. Or radar. Neither did the USAF RADES/NORAD system... No C-130s or "Gofers" either...

Aren't those OGCT fools running out of excuses yet? rolleyes.gif
---------------------------------------
UPDATES:


Looks like AA1360 landed at 18:12- right on time.
AA1900 in flight, 284 mi. from DCA due at 19:34: good pilot- "shaved" 2 minutes already.
AA1136 in flight, 869 mi. from DCA due at 20:37- must have been delayed at MIA.

There were 2 more scheduleds now, AA1544 out of Chicago O'hare and AA682 from MIA, but I think you can see the pattern here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 5 2008, 11:40 AM
Post #77





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks dMole.

Suffice to say that there are numerous examples of the books having been cooked, eh? Rampant misinformation meant to confuse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Oct 5 2008, 12:36 PM
Post #78


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 2 2008, 10:34 AM) *
Maaybe it's me, but I couldn't find 196566

I think I found 196599

Whatever, yes, we already know we've been lied to. rolleyes.gif

There is a tab DCA Arrivals at the bottom left.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 29 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #79





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 4 2008, 06:45 PM) *
Well amazed,

According to my independent analysis of the data in the "Stark" spreadsheet linked at post #76 above, yes that is what that data alleged to have been from an FOIA request of FAA indicates. If anyone has issue with this paragraph or my findings, then follow the links to that spreadsheet and/or take it up (as in file an FOIA) with the FAA themself. Alternately, take issue with the person who posted that spreadsheet that lists "UAL93" on the "DCA Arrivals" tab- I'm just the messenger/analyst, but that's where the chips just fell.

The "spin doctors" have already alleged that this "UAL93" was scheduled to arrive at DCA, and didn't actually arrive there- (computer error, check in the mail, ...) rolleyes.gif

Let's take a look at what American Airlines and DCA had going on just recently:

http://www.flightarrivals.com/cgi-bin/WebO...y3WiXt79wC/2.15



Hmmm... AA1314 from DFW landed at 17:14 EDT.
AA1360 from DFW was in flight, 20 miles out and due at 18:12.
AA1900 from DFW was 705 mi. from DCA in flight and due at 19:36.
AA1136 was scheduled for DCA at 20:13 EDT, but was still presumably sitting on a runway at MIA
---
Oh wait... was't UA93 scheduled for somewhere across the continent from DCA on Tues. 9/11/2001?

"(8:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Takes Off 41 Minutes Late Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, bound for San Francisco, California. It leaves 41 minutes late because of heavy runway traffic. [Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Associated Press, 8/21/2002; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]"

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...te_911_timeline

---

Let me guess, now the apologists will speculate that the FAA didn't have computers back in 2001. Or radar. Neither did the USAF RADES/NORAD system... No C-130s or "Gofers" either...

Aren't those OGCT fools running out of excuses yet? rolleyes.gif
---------------------------------------
UPDATES:


Looks like AA1360 landed at 18:12- right on time.
AA1900 in flight, 284 mi. from DCA due at 19:34: good pilot- "shaved" 2 minutes already.
AA1136 in flight, 869 mi. from DCA due at 20:37- must have been delayed at MIA.

There were 2 more scheduleds now, AA1544 out of Chicago O'hare and AA682 from MIA, but I think you can see the pattern here.



After everything, why would anyone believe anything the FAA provides? (there goes my license)

And,

DAL588 131664 11-Sep-01 DFW 20010911 13:04 20010911 09:04 DCA 20010911 15:46 20010911 11:46 Commercial MD80
COA258 133125 11-Sep-01 IAH 20010911 13:19 20010911 09:19 DCA 20010911 15:53 20010911 11:53 Commercial B735
N4 198184 11-Sep-01 MKE 20010911 14:13 20010911 10:13 DCA 20010911 15:56 20010911 11:56 General Aviation C560
N242CT 176917 11-Sep-01 FTW 20010911 13:34 20010911 09:34 DCA 20010911 16:11 20010911 12:11 General Aviation FA20
MUS10 202397 11-Sep-01 ADW 20010911 16:49 20010911 12:49 DCA 20010911 17:01 20010911 13:01 Commercial UH1
N2 201596 11-Sep-01 MSY 20010911 18:51 20010911 14:51 DCA 20010911 20:55 20010911 16:55 General Aviation LJ31
FLC79 213449 11-Sep-01 FTY 20010911 22:29 20010911 18:29 DCA 20010912 00:23 20010911 20:23 Other BE30


aircraft were not allowed to continue on to their destinations on 9-11......these show arrivals at DCA long after "Scatana". Looks like either the flight plan database or contrived data......

This post has been edited by keroseneaddict: Oct 29 2008, 09:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 29 2008, 09:37 PM
Post #80



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



That FAA spreadsheet is smelling a bit like months-old eggs, eh KA? My lingering question is still why was UAL93 ever scheduled at DCA if so? I'm reasonably certain that SFO isn't usually south from Newark (but I'm not a pilot). wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 04:41 AM