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  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Shanksville Coroner Wally Miller

Rickysa
post Aug 7 2008, 09:58 AM
Post #21





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Aug 6 2008, 10:13 PM) *
It occurred to me that one reason for claiming extreme speeds for Flt 93 and 77 is to make it possible to argue that the aircraft and contents were pulverized to a degree not usually seen in this kind of crash.


The degree of "passenger fragmentation" noted has puzzled me from the start. I have an email into the DMORT of Section 4 regarding the id process of the remains from the ValuJet accident of May '96. Although it was a DC-9, it still went in nose first at full speed, and I am wondering if the remains are comparable to Shanksville?

Rick

PS In the round-about way I went to find out info on the Valujet crash, I happened to speak with the NTSB guy that was on site in Shanksville working with Wally. He was very helpful in telling me which agencys to contact etc., and I asked off-hand if he agreed with Wally's assessment, and boy did I get a "NO COMMENT".... rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Rickysa: Aug 7 2008, 10:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 10 2008, 11:27 AM
Post #22





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



Domenick

We are told this, that, and the other thing about this. It is a story that they used a movie to reinforce in the public's eye.

Whether it loaded on the tarmac or at a gate, I have no idea, and it does not seem particularly relevant in the big picture. I do know a man who knows a man, both airline captains, who were flying out of Newark at the time. That morning, when the captain checked in and headed to his airplane, there was NOBODY at the security checkpoint he went through. Naturally, he did not complain and proceeded to his plane. I think that was around 0730.

My opinion is that no Boeing crashed there at Shanksville, shot down or otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 10 2008, 08:31 PM
Post #23





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 8 2008, 01:27 PM) *
Domenick

We are told this, that, and the other thing about this. It is a story that they used a movie to reinforce in the public's eye.

Whether it loaded on the tarmac or at a gate, I have no idea, and it does not seem particularly relevant in the big picture. I do know a man who knows a man, both airline captains, who were flying out of Newark at the time. That morning, when the captain checked in and headed to his airplane, there was NOBODY at the security checkpoint he went through. Naturally, he did not complain and proceeded to his plane. I think that was around 0730.

My opinion is that no Boeing crashed there at Shanksville, shot down or otherwise.


i respect your opinion but i highly disagree with it.

i believe the planes that struck the wtc were also equipped with some sort of explosive devices. i believe the shanksville plane was as well.

i believe this plane was intended for congress and that much like the south tower the american people were to see a plane crash in dc that morning just like they did in nyc.

i believe when the plane impacted that the bomb on board also exploded and that is the real reason for no large plane debris and the fact the plane never penetrated deeper than 6-8 feet into the ground.

i've spoken to bob blair, doug miller, and others who saw the plane we are told was flight 93 and i cant find anyone who saw it on the other side of the crash site flying away. so either the plane used some sort of invisibility cloaking device or blew up into nothing upon impact.

everyone tries to figure out how a 757 disappears but no one ever bothers to think that the plane was modified or equipped with any type of devices. to each their own.

when i find someone who can tell me they saw the plane flying away from the crash site i will naturally change my belief. but until that time i have no reason to doubt my current conclusion based on all the evidence available to me.

nobody saw the plane flying away. thats the bottom line for me. people saw a plane heading to point a and people on the other side of point a did not see a plane flying away from it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
richard cranium
post Aug 10 2008, 09:14 PM
Post #24





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 276
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



QUOTE (SPreston @ Aug 3 2008, 04:20 PM) *
Yes, just great Domenick. cleanup.gif

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/nkYOk3zxf54&hl=en&fs=1" height="425" width="625"><param name="FlashVars" value="allowFullScreen=true"></param><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nkYOk3zxf54&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param></object>

The crater was only 6 or 8 feet deep? Twenty feet wide? How do you fit 100 tons of aircraft into such a low volume area?
The alleged 37 passengers (including the alleged 4 'hijackers') and 7 crew members (44) with their seats would not fit into that area.
Where did the rest of the alleged 757 aircraft go? More Bush Regime magic?

<font size="3">Alleged Flt 93 Crash Site After Excavation</font>




<font size="3">The Flt 93 Crash Site Picture The First Day - Before Excavation</font> (Click me)

At the risk of sounding stupid,where is the pond in the photo in the second row,right side? The photo where the angle of the photo is somewhat from the pond side. Is the pond below the frame of the photo? Or is it dried up?
rc
by the way, I agree...great job Dominick! thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by richard cranium: Aug 10 2008, 09:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 11 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (richard cranium @ Aug 8 2008, 11:14 PM) *
At the risk of sounding stupid,where is the pond in the photo in the second row,right side? The photo where the angle of the photo is somewhat from the pond side. Is the pond below the frame of the photo? Or is it dried up?
rc
by the way, I agree...great job Dominick! thumbsup.gif


the pond has been drained in that picture and is not visible. the entire pond was drained during the recovery process.

thank you!! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 11 2008, 10:16 AM
Post #26





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



The pictures above are interesting. The impact zone is very small, and the burned trees also a small area.

I had a similar perspective to an F-16 crash here in Florida, and the area involved was 2 or 3 times that area, but the F-16 had been in level flight when the accident happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Aug 11 2008, 12:15 PM
Post #27





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Aug 11 2008, 12:58 AM) *
the pond has been drained in that picture and is not visible. the entire pond was drained during the recovery process.

thank you!! cheers.gif



I'm pretty sure I can see the water reflection in this picture of the pond.
Top center


I believe he said one engine made it there, so take a line (straight or bouncy) and it would go along about the road/path way from crash site to the pond. Whether it skidded, bounced, or flew there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 12 2008, 04:14 PM
Post #28





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



QUOTE (UnderTow @ Aug 9 2008, 03:15 PM) *
I'm pretty sure I can see the water reflection in this picture of the pond.
Top center


I believe he said one engine made it there, so take a line (straight or bouncy) and it would go along about the road/path way from crash site to the pond. Whether it skidded, bounced, or flew there?


we can eliminate it skidding there is no physical evidence supporting that.
bouncing is the official story. but it doesn't make sense that 1 engine and allegedly 2/3 of the plane get buried into the ground but the other one bounces off the ground instead of penetrating. there is no explanation for this. if the ground is so hard that an engine traveling at 500+MPH cannot penetrate it then 2/3 of the plane can't be 75 feet deep in a 8 foot deep hole.
so that pretty much leaves one option left....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 13 2008, 03:29 PM
Post #29





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



And what option is that Domenick?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 13 2008, 06:40 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 11 2008, 06:29 PM) *
And what option is that Domenick?


where did the plane go?

is bob blair and doug miller and these other people who saw it heading there in the same position described by wally miller [wings vertical to the ground - not inverted] liars? government shills?

who saw it flying away?

the direction bob and doug saw the plane heading before the explosion would make it fly right over susan mcelwains head about a mile southwest of the crash site. but the plane bob and doug saw was never seen by susan and the plane susan saw was never seen by bob and doug.

now the layout of the area would make it so bob and doug couldn't see the white plane but there would be no way susan could miss the plane saw by bob and doug. bob and doug saw a huge military jet come over their heads shortly after arriving at the site which was about 2-5 minutes after event depending on the speed they drove. i have spoken with these people in depth more than once. these people have lived here all their lives..... i dont know, i believe the witnesses saw what they saw. i believe when these people tell their stories that they all contradict the official story. wally miller has the plane coming out of the northeast impacting the ground right wing first and sort of cartwheeling the front part of the plane into the woods. not exactly the inverted nose first over the scrapyard story[even though he insists it came over the scrapyard he never saw the plane]. susan mcelwain sees some small little white plane before the explosion. that plane is seen afterwards by rick chaney and another eyewitness who doesn't wish to speak publicly about it now but did then[lee purbaugh also saw it but i haven't spoke with him - robin doppstadt saw it but she won't talk about it - dale browning didn't see anything....]. if you go through the bob blair & doug miller see a plane heading there and they're north of the crash site. they said they saw more of the front of the plane than the back. looks like all these people who heard a plane fly over from the indian lake area towards the crash site [barry lichty, jim brandt, ohn fleegle, carol delasko, chris smith, val mcclatchey] are telling the truth. theres still more witnesses for me to talk to but going on everything i've learned in the last 2 years these are my beliefs. so how do i explain what happened to the plane? well it has to get blown up to disappear it didn't vanish in a 8 foot deep hole.

i dont understand the purpose to fake a phone call to westmoreland county 911 claiming to be a passneger on a hijacked plane and there having been some sort of explosion and white smoke filling up the plane. to trick people into not believing the official story?

i don't believe the fbi chopped peoples hands and feet off inside some hangar at cleveland airport and handed them over to wally miller so he could identify those people either. nor do i believe the human remains i saw photographed in photos dated 9/12 were planted overnight taken from some morgue or something.

so tell me what do you theorize happened to that plane and the passenger inside the bathroom calling westmoreland county 911 that morning since you don't believe it crashed there or anywhere near there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 13 2008, 08:30 PM
Post #31





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



just some comments....

for 37 years i have been dealing with issues of radio frequency suppression. and i would say that the bathrooms on commercial airliners are one of the perfect rf shielding devices ever created.

though i can accept the notion of anomalous behavior, i would say to a certainty of 99.9999999% that cell transmissions could neither escape for infiltrate any bathroom on any commercial airliner at any altitude, even circling a cell tower. in other words, virtually no cellphone communications could have been initiated, nor sustained, by/with any cellphone contained within a commercial airliner's bathroom.

and lastly, i think that the record has been established clearly that "eyewitnesses" can be extremely unreliable.

court proceedings throughout the usa confirm that unreliability of "eyewitnesses".

i don't pretend to know all that happened at this "collision with terrain" site. there are many oddities about this site[as there are concerning all the "collision with terrain" sites of that day].

and i don't think that you have enough of the answers. it troubles me profoundly that you think a cellphone conversation could be conducted from within a commercial airliner bathroom.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 13 2008, 08:40 PM
Post #32





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



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 11 2008, 11:30 PM) *
just some comments....

for 37 years i have been dealing with issues of radio frequency suppression. and i would say that the bathrooms on commercial airliners are one of the perfect rf shielding devices ever created.

though i can accept the notion of anomalous behavior, i would say to a certainty of 99.9999999% that cell transmissions could neither escape for infiltrate any bathroom on any commercial airliner at any altitude, even circling a cell tower. in other words, virtually no cellphone communications could have been initiated, nor sustained, by/with any cellphone contained within a commercial airliner's bathroom.

and lastly, i think that the record has been established clearly that "eyewitnesses" can be extremely unreliable.

court proceedings throughout the usa confirm that unreliability of "eyewitnesses".

i don't pretend to know all that happened at this "collision with terrain" site. there are many oddities about this site[as there are concerning all the "collision with terrain" sites of that day].

and i don't think that you have enough of the answers. it troubles me profoundly that you think a cellphone conversation could be conducted from within a commercial airliner bathroom.



below 2000 feet when the call was made and he was peeking out of the bathroom so its not like he was locked inside of it with the door shut.

so now ed felts phone call to 911 talking about an explosion and white smoke inside the plane was faked by the fbi. ok, theorize why for me......

and if eyewitnesses are so unreliable then i suppose a plane hit the pentagon after all.......

This post has been edited by Domenick DiMaggio CIT: Aug 13 2008, 08:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 13 2008, 09:29 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Aug 13 2008, 08:40 PM) *
below 2000 feet when the call was made...



Dom, do you have a solid (or incriminating in case of govt) source that Ed Felts phone call was initiated "below 2000 feet"?

If so, i think you know where im going with this.... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 13 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i know something about the behavior of cellphones in commercial aircraft flying linearly, at cruising speeds, at many altitudes.

i have posted most of my cellphone excursions from commercial aircraft on this site. you can look them up.

most of my evidence has been generated from the first class cabin. from window and aisle seats.

as i have noted here, window seat gets much better connectability than aisle seat. but, without exception, flying out of well cell towered metro houston[iah], from a first class window seat, i always lose cell connection, on climb-out at less than 500ft according to my personal altimeter.

flying into lax, over another major metropolitan area, with many cell towers, descending from palm springs[10,000 ft], in a first class window seat, i can make no cell connection until crossing the 405 on final[i.e., virtually on the ground].

i know this shanksville area very well concerning cell phone tower coverage. it is one of the worst areas for coverage that i know of. that is true today. that was more the case in september, 2001.

and it doesn't matter if the bathroom door was ajar[quite unimaginable]. that area of that aircraft is as rf-screened as to to make it tantamount to a fully-closed door.

lastly, i don't need any witnesses to inform me about the purported "collision with terrain" at the pentagram. i have eyeballs, i have a brain, and i have a knowledge of metallurgy.

the photos of the "collision with terrain" site tell me that no commercial airliner was involved in that impact.

the "official" story that all of the "colliding" aircraft vaporized is all i need to know that the usg was lying.

the "official" story that passenger remains were recovered[then identified] from an aircraft that vaporized has always informed me that the "official" story was/is a crock of sh*t.

in that arena of exquisitely egregious prevarications, i don't need any witnesses to clarify my analysis.

AA77 DID NOT COLLIDE WITH THE PENTAGRAM. NOR DID ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 13 2008, 11:30 PM
Post #35





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



apparently, very few[including rob balsamo] have paid attention to what i have related concerning cellphone communications.

initiating such a connection, sustaining such a connection, has nothing to do with altitude.

it has everything to do with speed.

for a cellphone connection to be made, maintained, it requires that the phone be within "handshaking" range of a cell tower[s].

discarding altitude issues, now, cell towers have been constructed for land telephony, with the individual cellphone traveling at less than 100mph.

from an aircraft, traveling in excess of that speed[consider +400nauts per hour], there is no way that a cellphone connection can be made, sustained.

and that is the problem with any assertions that cellphone conversations were conducted that day. technologically, they just could not have happened.

so, when dom attempts to assert that any cellphone communication was made, sustained from 93, he informs me that he is just another disinformation agent.

cellphone technology in september 2001 was benchmarked. by the cellphone industry.

no cell phone conversations were made, sustained on that day.

and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a fraud.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Aug 14 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #36





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



QUOTE
so, when dom attempts to assert that any cellphone communication was made, sustained from 93, he informs me that he is just another disinformation agent.

I don't know who does more damage - those who make absolute statements saying this or that could not or definitely did happen, despite accounts that are all over the map, or those who have an strongly held opinion for reasons they believe are good and sufficient but then accuse others who have different opinions, and good reasons for holding them of being disinfo agents.

Can we present our views and support them and leave the accusations of bad faith and disinfo to the the govt loyalist site gang?

It does nothing to bolster your case... nothing at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Aug 14 2008, 12:20 AM
Post #37





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



albert got a bit of rant there, yes sir. smile.gif

Anywho, I think it was pretty established that no communications of any kind came from any of the planes.

At least after all the crack hijackers went into action jackson mode and ho'd up da everyone with a few quick moves before ANY DISTRESS SIGNAL could be sent.

Stories about cell phones on planes are amusing but pure fantasy, imvho.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 14 2008, 12:48 AM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



doesn't cut it.

2001 cell phone technology cannot be altered to suit dom's argument.

it might please you to be warm and fuzzy concerning this issue, but, the reality of cell phone technology cannot be altered.

no cell phone calls could have been made and sustained from 93. let alone from inside a bathroom. even with the door ajara. over and out. and anyone who claims otherwise is a prevaricator.

i am going to go further. for many years i have functioned as a forensic metallurgist. i examine failure evidence. i talk to the individuals on the site where the failure[s] occurred.

the interesting aspects of my inquiries: no individual has ever related a story, as a witness, that corroborated the metallurgical evidence.

individuals lie. for innumerable reasons.

as to dom. i had no arguments with is research and conclusions until he made the assertion that ed felt's cell phone communications had be to be valid.

technically, those cell communications could not have occurred.

so, when dom uses them as a bulwark for his analysis, i am compelled to question the entirety of his argument.

and you know, you don't have to like what i have to say. but, in my assessment, when anyone uses cell phone communications from aircraft on that day as a prop for their analysis, knowing what i know about cell phones, that raises a very red flag concerning the veracity of that individual.

finally, if you can tell me where i get cell phones inaccurately, lay it on me.

no one has done it yet. perhaps you will be the man.

never forget, you must resolve the issue of aircraft speed. and handshaking.

if you cannot do that. tell us that you cannot do that and slink off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 14 2008, 01:25 AM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 12 2008, 12:29 AM) *
Dom, do you have a solid (or incriminating in case of govt) source that Ed Felts phone call was initiated "below 2000 feet"?

If so, i think you know where im going with this.... wink.gif



i know gag orders were placed on shaw & cramer.

i know the fdr data definitely conflicts with the blast trajectory indication of impact and wally millers description as given to him by the fbi which is more consistent with the blast trajectory an indicates a plane coming from the east/slight northeast flying southwesternly towards the crash site. bob and doug saying they saw more of the front than the back of the plane from their position north of the crash site on route 30 also would conflict greatly with the data.

and many eyewitnesses [who i still haven't confirmed yet] are reported as seeing this plane at much lower altitudes than the fdr data would indicate.

i am looking into filing an FOIA request for felt's 78second phone call to 911 and all the calls from indian lake that morning. maybe you can give me some tips? lol

i don't understand the purpose of faking a phone call to conflict with the official story. if someone can rationalize this for me my mind is open and im all ears.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 14 2008, 01:33 AM
Post #40





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



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 12 2008, 01:09 AM) *
i know this shanksville area very well concerning cell phone tower coverage. it is one of the worst areas for coverage that i know of. that is true today. that was more the case in september, 2001.


well that is true but 8 minutes before the impact was the plane hovering above shanksville at a high altitude?

QUOTE
and it doesn't matter if the bathroom door was ajar[quite unimaginable]. that area of that aircraft is as rf-screened as to to make it tantamount to a fully-closed door.



QUOTE
lastly, i don't need any witnesses to inform me about the purported "collision with terrain" at the pentagram. i have eyeballs, i have a brain, and i have a knowledge of metallurgy.


ok well you don't believe a plane hit the pentagon. good neither do i. the eyewitness accounts prove the official flight path and thus the official story to be a fabrication.

ok you don't believe a plane impacted in shanksville. so what happened to the plane bob blair and doug miller saw that susan mcelwain didn't see that was between them?

you know i don't see any real airplane debris recovered from the towers either. i guess planes didn't hit those as well, huh?


QUOTE
in that arena of exquisitely egregious prevarications, i don't need any witnesses to clarify my analysis.


well your "analysis" doesn't seem to be getting any closer to a new investigation and exposing the cover up so while you sit around analyizing the 12 pictures at your disposal from shanksville i'll go to wally millers office and look at hundreds of them and visit the people who were there that day and saw what happened. there weren't too many planes flying over shanksville on 9/11 and definitely not too many flying at a very low altitude so if someone says they saw a plane at point a they most likely did.

but i'll continue to go out there and meet people and talk to people and call people and film people and email people and when it's all said and done you can provide your expert "analysis" on to me and explain it to me because obviously my analysis of the data i have collected [probably a lot of which you don't even know about] has failed according to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2019 - 11:56 PM