Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Shanksville, PA _ Shanksville Coroner Wally Miller

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 07:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYOk3zxf54


whistle.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 5 2008, 09:33 AM

Good stuff Dom. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: SPreston Aug 5 2008, 02:20 PM

Yes, just great Domenick. cleanup.gif



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?

Alleged Flt 93 Crash Site After Excavation




The Flt 93 Crash Site Picture The First Day - Before Excavation (Click me)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/UA93_crash_site_noborder.jpg

Posted by: SPreston Aug 5 2008, 02:43 PM

Shanksville Coroner Wally Miller was there, on the scene of the alleged Flt 93 crash site, soon after the alleged crash.

How is it that a 100 ton aircraft, allegedly almost in a vertical dive (alleged 40 degree nose-down inverted attitude) and allegedly at 563 mph, only buried 6-8 feet deep in a soft soil coal strip mine?

That seems preposterous.

QUOTE (Famous Wally Miller quotations)
Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11.
He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says,
"like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says,
"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there."

Immediately after the crash, the seeming absence of human remains led the mind of coroner Wally Miller to a surreal fantasy:
that Flight 93 had somehow stopped in mid-flight and discharged all of its passengers before crashing.
"There was just nothing visible," he says. "It was the strangest feeling."It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first trace of a body part.

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified
Saturday, October 27, 2001
At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions,
wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.
"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in
10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United
."

Alleged Flight 93 debris recovered from 6-8 ft deep crater



Posted by: UnderTow Aug 5 2008, 03:29 PM

WoW. Look at all those pictures he's got.

It'd be interesting to see a dotted map of parts/remains found in that area.

Another stellar effort, /salute

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 3 2008, 12:33 PM) *
Good stuff Dom. thumbsup.gif



thank you brother.

as i'm sure you're well aware from that there are definitely contradictions between truth and bush's 9/11 commission. wally recites the official flight path cross route 30 and the scrap yard and then explains how the plane came in with it's wings vertical to the ground [which i have corroborated with other witnesses which means it isn't inverted] with the right wing hitting first and the front of the plane shattering off into the woods.

you can draw a straight line from the deepest point of the damaged woods making an arrow and see this plane cannot come over the scrap but has to come more from the east.

indian lake marina and indian lake golf course are directly due east of the crash site if not a tad northeast.

this would explain the debris field in the lake especially if an intercept by the small white plane witnessed by many residents took place.

indications are that most likely edward felt's phone call to west moreland county 911 happened later than stated in the printed media and that his account of the goings on at that point are accurate.

the only explanation for the lack of plane debris would be that there was a bomb of some type aboard the aircraft. that would also help explain why passengers were loaded from the tarmac which was highly unusual. 2 men of middle eastern backgrounds exited the plane as soon as there was an announcement that there was going to be a delay. these men most likely were the men who placed guns on the plane for the hijackers as described by tom burnett.

this would then explain the need to shoot down this plane and also cover it up. using the government's phone calls against them we can determine that 3 men hijacked this plane. there was no resistance from the pilots because the hijackers did indeed have guns like which was reported on aa11 as well. there is no other explanation.

the delay at newark that morning [for still unexplained reasons] are what jeopardized this aspect of the operation and forced the bush regime to abort. on the flights that struck the towers had the passengers made any airphone calls out they would not have received information that planes were being used in suicide missions which wouldn't give anyone a reason to start an uprising as they would believe the hijackers were really returning to the airport until it was too late.

the plane armed with a bomb was most likely going to nose dive right into the lap of congress allowing the immediate implementation of martial law. had the plane been successfully taken over [40 vs. 3] and the passengers gained control and with help were able to land it the whole operation would have been exposed long before the dust settled anywhere that day.

i can't find any witnesses to a plane flying away from the crash site.
i can't find any witnesses to a c130 dumping debris or even being in the area that morning.

i can find witnesses to the plane heading towards the site with its wings vertical to the ground.
i can find witnesses to the white plane being there after the explosion.

and if you want to check with shelton i believe i have the name of someone who's going to tell an account that is going to be very very important.

thats just my thoughts at this time. they can be changed should something new come to light.

salute.gif

oh and yeah..... do you like how wally says indian lake is in the direction of the blast trajectory into the woods? wink.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Aug 3 2008, 05:20 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)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/UA93_crash_site_noborder.jpg


thank you!

appreciate it. i have to thank shelton and state rep bob bastian for making it all possible.

and if you look at the pond in the images posted that is in the direction of the blast trajectory there that is where wally miller says a 1 ton section of the 2nd engine was recovered somewhere between 500-600 yards away from the site.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 3 2008, 05:37 PM) *
That dude is messed up, or force fed a script.

Hmmm...


More related videos:

Before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNDVAfcJ2I&feature=related

After
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rygx1Q8zw3E&feature=related

rolleyes.gif


he really didn't say anything different.

he went out of his way to stress how small the crater was sayin only 6-8 feet deep and agreeing with it being somewhere between 15-20 feet wide.

he said how little human remains were recovered.

he even went into detail about these statements.

i do not believe wally miller is shilling for the united states government for a second. if this is a staged scene as some people [not i] contend then wally miller was duped as well as he would require being. but i and the others who accompanied me that day and spend 2 hours with the man believe he is genuine.

wally miller is willing to talk about no plane theories and no body theories but ask him about shoot down theories.......'i dont wanna talk about that'.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (UnderTow @ Aug 3 2008, 06:29 PM) *
WoW. Look at all those pictures he's got.

It'd be interesting to see a dotted map of parts/remains found in that area.

Another stellar effort, /salute



thank you!

there were hundreds of photos.

this site was not however, documented in the way you describe as it should have been. this would have made for a better understanding of the crash dynamics involved during a reconstruction and even explained which passengers where were and possibly helped identify remains that were deemed 'unidentifiable'.

of course the government did not want such a real investigation taking place.

there are no photos of anything inside the crater. if they exist wally miller sure doesn't have them or took them.

i will be hopefully acquiring a full set of them minus the ones containing human remains. i have to check to see how much the charge is going to be to purchase them.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 09:07 PM

p.s. i reserve the right to change my opinion of wally miller under further analysis and discrepancies. i need more time to study this interview......

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 5 2008, 09:32 PM

http://libertasmedia.org

in about 30 minutes from now [10:00EST PM]i will be discussin shanksville on 'beyond the grassy knoll' if anyone is interested in tuning in.

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 5 2008, 10:31 PM

as lousy a site as i have attempted to connect.

would have loved to hear you dom.

perhaps a transcript?

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 6 2008, 12:14 AM

Wally has a funeral home business and we were there because Wally is an old acquaintance of Representative Bob Bastian, the retiring state rep. from Somerset. It was pretty clear that had Bob not requested it, we probably would not have got the time of day from Wally. I am grateful to Bob (and to Wally) for being a man of his word. He professed genuine interest in the information that has not been explained by the official account.

Wally appeared to be stifling an impulse to kick us all out before we got started, in fact I thought he was doing that with his first words, but he was prefacing his interview by saying that he would not be commenting on what happened to the aircraft before the crash - which may have implied that he felt a shoot-down could not be ruled out, however, he did describe the attitude of the aircraft at impact- in a 90 degree bank, which, if memory serves, is at variance with both the FDR information and the crater. He calmed down quite a bit after that, and I thought he was relatively forthcoming.

When he was asked whether we could photograph some of the pictures (there was quite a stack of them) he became a bit exercised and implied that we wanted to photograph body parts and put them on the internet. Dom was quick to reassure him that we would do no such thing, but were interested in pictures that showed layout of the scene, wreckage, etc. One figure that stood out for me was (as I recall) that only 8% of the body parts were recovered, and one of our colleagues indicated that several of the photos seemed to be of the same parts, however all but four of the persons aboard were identified out of what had to be like human confetti. The identifications came via the FBI, intially by fingerprint and dental records, and later DNA and were the basis for the death certificates that Wally issued. Wally's part appeared to be primarily as the contact with the family members.

I, and the others who sat in, agree with Dom's assessment that Wally, while he may have been manipulated by the FBI, is sincere in his belief that the investigation of Shanksville and the ensuing account of the scene reflected reality. That still leaves plenty of room for questions, and I look forward to a contrast of the final attitude of the aircraft, as reflected by the FDR, and the impact angle described by Wally. I also look forward to Dom's follow-up with some hither-to unknown witnesses, as far as I know.

Hats off to Dom and to Craig and Aldo, who have to be - pound for pound - some of the most productive and tenacious investigators in the world. Great job, guys.
SFL

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 6 2008, 01:54 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 3 2008, 11:46 PM) *
Listening cheers.gif



hope you enjoyed!!

cheers.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 6 2008, 10:36 AM

Great job guys... and thank you very much Shelton for the hard work in putting this all together, meeting with Bob.. and staying on top of it...

Yeah, the angle Wally describes conflict with govt data and his location for Indian Lake conflict with reality. wink.gif

Posted by: Rickysa Aug 6 2008, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Aug 6 2008, 12:14 AM) *
One figure that stood out for me was (as I recall) that only 8% of the body parts were recovered, and one of our colleagues indicated that several of the photos seemed to be of the same parts, however all but four of the persons aboard were identified out of what had to be like human confetti.



Please forgive this uneducated question, but is it the norm for bodies to be essentially blown apart by aircraft accidents, even the most extreme?

What about the bodies recoverd from the low-fare airline that had a plane crash vertically at full speed into a swamp several years ago due to an explosion of oxygen containers? We're they "recovered" in the same state?

Rick

Posted by: tnemelckram Aug 6 2008, 12:47 PM

Hi Rob!

QUOTE
Yeah, the angle Wally describes conflict with govt data and his location for Indian Lake conflict with reality. wink.gif


I thought so too when I lisyened to Wally. Thanks for confirming it.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 6 2008, 03:19 PM

How on earth is Wally supposed to know what attitude the aircraft was in? Was he there for the accident?

I found his narrative and body language to be dishonest. And I would like to know how, if body parts were found, there was no baggage scattered about?

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 6 2008, 10:13 PM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Aug 4 2008, 01:33 PM) *
Please forgive this uneducated question, but is it the norm for bodies to be essentially blown apart by aircraft accidents, even the most extreme?

What about the bodies recoverd from the low-fare airline that had a plane crash vertically at full speed into a swamp several years ago due to an explosion of oxygen containers? We're they "recovered" in the same state?


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. From the Pentagon accounts, several alleged that the engines sounded like they were essentially at idle until the aircraft leveled out below the navy annex. Experienced accident investigators would be the ones to address this. As with the buildings, the official argument maintains that previous failures to collapse are not relevant because these fires were so much hotter, given that these were fed with "Jet Fuel" (ooooooooh). That argument is absurd to anyone familiar with the properties of kerosene, who also realize that the fuel not consumed in the initial fireball, would have quickly burned out leaving only an office-furnishing-fueled conflagration. Wally made reference to 520 mph for the impact speed. That seems unlikely.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 7 2008, 06:20 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 4 2008, 05:19 PM) *
How on earth is Wally supposed to know what attitude the aircraft was in?


the fbi told him. thumbdown.gif

QUOTE
Was he there for the accident?


sure wasn't. but he gets real shook up when you put the words shot and down together. definitely 'doesn't want to talk about that'.....lol

QUOTE
I found his narrative and body language to be dishonest. And I would like to know how, if body parts were found, there was no baggage scattered about?



considering the passengers of this plane boarded from the tarmac and the hijackers managed to get at least 1 gun on board are you open to the possibility that the plane really did have some sort of bomb already on board and that the reason this plane was shot down was because the passengers did make airphone calls and found out what was happening and a successful rebellion on that plane would have exposed the entire operation before noon that day?

just curious.....

Posted by: Rickysa Aug 7 2008, 09:58 AM

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

Posted by: amazed! Aug 10 2008, 11:27 AM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 10 2008, 08:31 PM

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.

Posted by: richard cranium Aug 10 2008, 09:14 PM

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)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/UA93_crash_site_noborder.jpg

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

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 11 2008, 12:58 AM

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

Posted by: amazed! Aug 11 2008, 10:16 AM

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.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 11 2008, 12:15 PM

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?

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 12 2008, 04:14 PM

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....

Posted by: amazed! Aug 13 2008, 03:29 PM

And what option is that Domenick?

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 13 2008, 06:40 PM

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?

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 13 2008, 08:30 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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 13 2008, 08:40 PM

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.......

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 13 2008, 09:29 PM

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

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 13 2008, 10:09 PM

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.

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 13 2008, 11:30 PM

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.

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 14 2008, 12:05 AM

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.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 14 2008, 12:20 AM

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.

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 14 2008, 12:48 AM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 14 2008, 01:25 AM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 14 2008, 01:33 AM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 14 2008, 01:36 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 12 2008, 02:30 AM) *
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.

and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a fraud.



oh you got me. i guess i should go back under the rock i climbed out of. and to think of all the money i could have said if only you would have exposed me long ago as i have always stated i believed ed felts call was a legitimate phone call.

i believe only 2 cell phone calls were made on flight 93 and they both coincidentally enough seemed to occur around 9:58 am. everything else was an airphone according to the evidence available.

but hey im just pushing disinfo. go look at all the disinfo i've been pushing since i released susan mcelwain's interview. and now wally miller has given me more data conflicting with the government story that i can use to continue on with my disinformation campaign.

laughing1.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 14 2008, 01:48 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 12 2008, 03:48 AM) *
so, when dom uses them as a bulwark for his analysis, i am compelled to question the entirety of his argument.



ed felt's phone call is one tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

you're free to remove it from the equation.

it will not change the answer when all the evidence is presented. remember i am 1 man supporting a disabled wife and 2 children off my pay. this whole thing would have been blown open a long time ago and could be blown wide open tomorrow if i had the funds to drop these hundred+ dollar trips down the turnpike more often then i am financially available to. but i have spoke to many witnesses and a lot have agreed to participate in this. i haven't discussed them because i don't want to jeopardize my investigation by tipping off the enemies of truth because i believe video is way more powerful than audio and as i said a lot of the witnesses in the printed media have agreed to do with me exactly what susan mcelwain did.

so i am doing what i can. you're free to call me disinfo because i believe ed felt really did make a phone call. and i think there really were some crazed hijackers on the plane [mkultra?] who were armed with guns and took control of the plane and that the plane was boarded from the tarmac because it had an explosive device of some type aboard. i also believe it was headed for congress and was intended to be caught on multiple cameras just like the south tower attack was for that added bit of shock and awe. so if these airphone calls are real and the 1 or 2 cell phone calls are real then a successful passenger revolt would have blown 9/11 wide open by noon that day. that is my opinion. you can call me disinfo it won't shake me i've been called worse. i don't care to argue about planes and no planes with people. i have better things to do like gather as much evidence as i can to make a presentation that the bush administration, faa, 9/11 commission, and others corroborated together to lie to the american people and con them into a bullshit war. thats what i would rather do than argue plane/no plane.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 14 2008, 07:40 AM

anyways to put this back on topic anyone find anything interesting in wally's interview?

Posted by: amazed! Aug 14 2008, 10:03 AM

I agree with Maturin--charges of being a disinfo agent should be the charge of last resort and only after ample evidence to support.

In Dom's case, that ain't so.

It appears to me that he has spent alot of time interviewing witnesses and studying the events of the day, and place, in his case.

He might not understand the precise technology of cell phones and towers, but that does not make him the enemy.

It seems to me that if there really were a 757 at Shanksville, underground or otherwise, the government would have gathered it up and shown it to the public, just like it did TWA 800. My hunch is that no Boeing scraps were produced because there were none. The whole damn thing was sleight-of-hand, and I fell for it hook, line & sinker for 4 years.

Instead, they had to have one of their minions make up some silly TV movie, Let's Roll. What bullshit.

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 14 2008, 12:48 PM

Amazed makes a great point. Dom has spent considerable time and money on the ground around Shanksville talking to real people, getting their story, and weighing what they tell him, and trying to make a coherent narrative that makes sense. He rattles off names of local witnesses that you have likely not heard of, and he knows their stories. Many, if not most, of us have to rely on information that is on youtube, presented by others, or second hand through books - all perfectly valid way of getting information, but youtubes have a point of view. When you are exposed to Wally's first line that we can all recite, "I stopped being a coroner 20 minutes after I got there - there were no bodies". If that is all you know about Wally, he becomes a cartoon figure. Meeting the guy in person and listening to him talk is another thing entirely.

There is another aspect of 9/11 we should all keep in mind. Almost nothing that we know about events makes a lot of sense. Aircraft that leave so little trace of themselves that you suspect they didn't exist. Parts that seem to have come from some other machine than we were told. People who seem to be dedicated to sowing discord and bad information, and other crucial witnesses or participants who have dummied up completely. Then we have the defenders of the OCT who will say black is white, day is night, and wet is dry in order to preserve some semblance of credibility for a totally incredible account for those with any depth of knowledge. This is all made possible by the mountains of evidence that has been disappeared and sequestered by the government, and the patently obvious truth that they have sought from the beginning to avoid a true forensic examination of physical evidence. The lack of positive ID on the aircraft, and the failure of NIST to test for explosive residue are just two examples.

Let's reserve our outrage and condemnation for those who make it possible for the perps to show their faces in public and not get hauled before a grand jury, and support those who are working to dig out the facts.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 15 2008, 06:38 AM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Aug 8 2008, 10:31 PM) *
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.

Hum! That statement does not hold up.

I have seen a photo' from WW2 taken in London after one of Hitler's V weapons (not sure now if it was V1 or V2 - the latter I think) had landed and the hole was considerably deaper than 8 feet - it swallowed a double decker bus for fcuk sake!

Even when aircraft ground impacts include the explosion of a bomb pieces of wing tip and tail are blown clear.

I respect you for the other work you have done which has advanced the cause considerably so don't destroy your credibility by making statements about things that you appear to have faulty concepts about.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 15 2008, 07:43 AM

everyone is free to tell me how wrong i am thats fine.

but i have an idea. instead of telling me that im wrong how about you tell me what happened to the plane bob blair and doug miller saw that was heading towards the site that susan mcelwain didnt see on the other side of the site........???

see i have a vanishing airplane that i have to account for that i can't seem to find anyone who saw it flying away.......no one anywhere.

so anyone got a tip i can follow up on since it seems alot of people don't believe there was a plane?

unless people want to start calling these lifetime resident eyewitnesses liars we still have an airplane to account for. one flying southwest directly towards susan mcelwain but she never sees so its safe to say it didn't make it as far as her or over her.

im open to ideas let's hear some.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 15 2008, 03:01 PM

Dom

In and of itself, the apparent fact that nobody saw one fly away proves nothing. It is still possible that one flew away, but nobody saw it.

Of late, I have taken the position that if indeed 93 crashed there and was completely underground with its passengers and baggage and engines and landing gear, then in order to show they are telling the truth, the government would have reassembled the damn thing like they did TWA 800, and plastered pictures everywhere they could. That simple action would have vindicated their story in the eyes of the public.

Instead they claim to have carted off the wreckage to Iron Mountain, never to be seen by anybody, and commissioned a silly TV movie about what happened.

I don't buy it.

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 16 2008, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Aug 4 2008, 01:33 PM) *
Please forgive this uneducated question, but is it the norm for bodies to be essentially blown apart by aircraft accidents, even the most extreme?

What about the bodies recoverd from the low-fare airline that had a plane crash vertically at full speed into a swamp several years ago due to an explosion of oxygen containers? We're they "recovered" in the same state?

Rick


Valujet Airlines Flight 592 is probably the flight you are referring to . It crashed in the Everglades May 11, 1996 at high speed. I just scanned the NTSB report and could find no description of the remains http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1997/AAR9706.pdf
It was in 1.5' of water over a layer of muck, over limestone bedrock and it describes the bedrock as "shattering the aircraft", so I expect the bodies would not have fared very well.

Clips and stills of the apparent crater are http://www.efootage.com/view_clip.php?clip_id=13231

http://www.p2pconsortium.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5754.html is an account by a diver who worked on the crash site. He described the body parts as "few and far between", and almost all were skeletal, the largest being a part of a femur.
This account is ghoulishly fascinating to read.

Posted by: dMole Aug 16 2008, 09:34 PM

Not to be morbid regarding the Valujet crash, but I would expect the crocodilian, crustacean, and other wildlife "crime scene investigators" to have a rather accelerated adverse effect upon passenger remains in the Everglades as well.

I knew a person whose body was dumped in the Southern US "woods" and animal activity required dental identification of the body after a few days. It was a closed casket funeral, and the cause of death was believed to be a gunshot, not a plane crash.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 18 2008, 07:46 AM

Indian Lake Marina
234 S Shore Trl
Central City, PA 15926


wink.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 18 2008, 07:48 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 13 2008, 05:01 PM) *
Dom

In and of itself, the apparent fact that nobody saw one fly away proves nothing. It is still possible that one flew away, but nobody saw it.


possible? yes.

likely? i don't believe so.

QUOTE
Of late, I have taken the position that if indeed 93 crashed there and was completely underground with its passengers and baggage and engines and landing gear, then in order to show they are telling the truth, the government would have reassembled the damn thing like they did TWA 800, and plastered pictures everywhere they could. That simple action would have vindicated their story in the eyes of the public.


correct. but i don't believe the plane was completely underground or anywhere underground as far as that goes.

QUOTE
Instead they claim to have carted off the wreckage to Iron Mountain, never to be seen by anybody, and commissioned a silly TV movie about what happened.

I don't buy it.


correct. they moved the debris to one of the securest locations on the planet for storage and put out a propaganda film reinforcing their fabrication of the event.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 18 2008, 10:39 AM

Dom, if you don't believe the airplane was underground, then where do you think it was?

It's my understanding that you believe a 757 crashed in that field?

If it's not underground, and not above ground, where on earth is it?

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 18 2008, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 16 2008, 12:39 PM) *
Dom, if you don't believe the airplane was underground, then where do you think it was?

It's my understanding that you believe a 757 crashed in that field?

If it's not underground, and not above ground, where on earth is it?


i believe there was a large bomb of some sort on board which blew the plane to shreds upon impact when combined with the speed and force of the impact leaving a 6 - 8 foot indentation in the earth. i don't completely understand how the plane was so incinerated but i'm sure the perps of 9/11 wanted to make sure that as much evidence would be destroyed as possible. a lot of the evidence for flight 93 are complete fabrications such as the fdr and cvr transcript, red bandana and so on. i cant find a fly over witness and i believe susan mcelwain would have seen a flyover. the plane didn't disappear into an 8 foot crater without displacing 80 tons of dirt to accommodate for 80 tons of materials. therefor something else had to be involved in the equation completely disintegrating the majority of the evidence which would explain why the passengers were loaded from the tarmac and not the traditional way as done at newark international.

i believe the left engine wing was also severed prior to it impacting allowing it to land 500-600 yards ahead of the plane.

seems indian lake marina is northeast of the crash site.

debris cannot be blown northeast by the wind. this area having a large amount of debris is the biggest smoking gun for a shoot down. it would have to come from an airborne plane.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 19 2008, 07:06 AM

QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Aug 16 2008, 09:46 AM) *
Indian Lake Marina
234 S Shore Trl
Central City, PA 15926


wink.gif


http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

QUOTE
Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine..........

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.


now i know someone is going to figure out what i'm hinting around about......

Posted by: amazed! Aug 19 2008, 02:13 PM

OK, was there an engine found at Indian Lake? You know the area much better than I do, so I'm just asking.

I am aware only of some piece of engine in the bucket of a backhoe. That's all the engine stuff I'm aware of. So tell me about engine stuff.

Anyway, I don't see the connection to how it was loaded in Newark. You lose me on that part.

As for explosives onboard, we could agree, under certain conditions.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 20 2008, 06:39 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 17 2008, 05:13 PM) *
OK, was there an engine found at Indian Lake? You know the area much better than I do, so I'm just asking.


no, the second engine was recovered in a pond about 600 years ahead of the crash site. the government says that it "bounced" there.

QUOTE
I am aware only of some piece of engine in the bucket of a backhoe. That's all the engine stuff I'm aware of. So tell me about engine stuff.


yes i believe that would be a piece of the right engine which was embedded about 4 or 5 feet into the crater. yet somehow we are expected to believe the black boxes went another 20 feet further or so further despite the engines being much larger and heavier.

QUOTE
Anyway, I don't see the connection to how it was loaded in Newark. You lose me on that part.


planes are not loaded from the tarmac at newark international. this is an anomaly in and of itself. then add in that this turns out to be the hijacked plane which had guns on board and some type of explosive device. it is a modified craft and most likely not united 93.

QUOTE
As for explosives onboard, we could agree, under certain conditions.



i can't find another explanation for the disappearing plane no one saw fly away that vanished in a 8 foot deep crater.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 21 2008, 10:46 AM

Dom

Let me say that I believe the Flight 93 thing is a story concocted just for the public's benefit--it is a myth, rather like the Emperor's New Clothes. They even made a movie of it, just to reinforce its legendary status in the public eye.

Let me also say that I know a man whose friend was flying out of EWR during that month. On that day, on the concourse from which he was departing, there was nobody at all at the security checkpoint. To me, whether the fantastic boarding took place at a gate or on the tarmac is fairly well irrelevant, though I am always open to new evidence.

As for the engines, the pictures I saw with the engine part next to the backhoe bucket make it clear that the engine part did not come from a 757 engine. Though I will be the first to admit I've never worked on such an engine. Point is that the piece was so damn small.

And I've never seen a picture of the other engine you describe. Are there any?

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 22 2008, 01:30 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 19 2008, 01:46 PM) *
Dom

Let me say that I believe the Flight 93 thing is a story concocted just for the public's benefit--it is a myth, rather like the Emperor's New Clothes. They even made a movie of it, just to reinforce its legendary status in the public eye.


fair enough.

i believe "flight 93" existed. i believed some sort of mkultra cia trained suicidal terrorists boarded the plane. i believe they had guns. i believe there was some sort of device on board the plane. i believe it was intended for congress. i believe 2 of the cia terrorists panicked when a delay was announced and fled the plane and the government is protecting theses assets identity. i believe the plane was loaded from the tarmac at newark international which is a highly suspect and anomalous occurance in itself. i believe there was a real passenger revolt attempted. i believe the us gov shot it down because they could not jeopardize having a heroic revolt on their hands which would have exposed their entire operation before wtc7 collapsed. i believe bob blair and doug miller saw a plane heading towards the crash site that susan mcelwain did not see flyover. i believe barry lichty, joe wilt and his wife gay all heard a missile approaching the site from over top of their houses. barry living in friedens, pa and joe & gay in stoystown both west of the crash site. i believe this small white plane witnessed by susan mcelwain, rick chaney and other witnesses brought down "flight 93". i think the administration took a story based in partial truth and added spin to it and propagandized it to rally support for their war and that the fdr and cvr transcript data are total fabrications.

QUOTE
Let me also say that I know a man whose friend was flying out of EWR during that month. On that day, on the concourse from which he was departing, there was nobody at all at the security checkpoint. To me, whether the fantastic boarding took place at a gate or on the tarmac is fairly well irrelevant, though I am always open to new evidence.


i believe the security that was in place for which we saw hijackers being wanded on video from were given dead wands that morning to allow "hijackers" to carry firearms on the planes on which real live hijackings occured.

QUOTE
As for the engines, the pictures I saw with the engine part next to the backhoe bucket make it clear that the engine part did not come from a 757 engine. Though I will be the first to admit I've never worked on such an engine. Point is that the piece was so damn small.

And I've never seen a picture of the other engine you describe. Are there any?


i can't conclusively say that engine isn't from a 757 so if there is evidence supporting that i am very interested in seeing it. i am very open to the plane being something other than a 757 but still commercial airliner in appearance. for example a 737.

all i can do is take the available evidence and start to compose a narrative which takes into all the accounts and disproves the official story. i dont want to debate plane vs. no plane theories. i want to debate official story vs. reality. its all about a new investigation. i would rather let them conclude the plane vs. no plane argument. my goal is to do what i can to insure that someday there will be a creation of a transparent accountable open investigation.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 22 2008, 02:33 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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 22 2008, 04:13 PM

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?

Posted by: dMole Aug 22 2008, 07:07 PM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 22 2008, 08:58 PM

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

Posted by: amazed! Aug 23 2008, 10:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 23 2008, 06:06 PM

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.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 24 2008, 10:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 28 2008, 03:28 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2456935081384261617

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Aug 28 2008, 11:09 PM

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......

Posted by: dMole Sep 29 2008, 06:38 PM

Hi Dom,

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14629&view=findpost&p=10754094

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Oct 1 2008, 08:22 AM

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.php?s=&showtopic=14629&view=findpost&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?

Posted by: dMole Oct 1 2008, 08:47 AM

"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?"

Posted by: SPreston Oct 1 2008, 10:08 AM

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

Posted by: 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

Posted by: dMole Oct 2 2008, 03:02 PM

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.

http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcaboeings071vl4.jpghttp://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

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.

Posted by: amazed! Oct 4 2008, 05:55 PM

So what you're saying dMole, is that according to an official FAA record, UA 93 landed somewhere that day?

Posted by: 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/WebObjects/Flights.woa/7/wo/olx7a0LGy3WiXt79wC/2.15

http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aadcacurrent077cp9.jpg

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?

"http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a842latetakeoff#a842latetakeoff Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, bound for San Francisco, California. It leaves 41 minutes late because of heavy runway traffic. [http://web.archive.org/web/20040629224627/www.msnbc.com/news/create_p1.asp?cp1=1&cpm=1&cpe=1&URL=www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; http://web.archive.org/web/20021002112814/http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/article/0,1426,MCA_945_1340414,00.html; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007]"

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=ua93&timeline=complete_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:
http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aadca2077fy7.jpghttp://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

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.

Posted by: amazed! Oct 5 2008, 11:40 AM

Thanks dMole.

Suffice to say that there are numerous examples of the books having been cooked, eh? Rampant misinformation meant to confuse.

Posted by: SPreston Oct 5 2008, 12:36 PM

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.

Posted by: keroseneaddict Oct 29 2008, 09:20 PM

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/WebObjects/Flights.woa/7/wo/olx7a0LGy3WiXt79wC/2.15

http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aadcacurrent077cp9.jpg

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?

"http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a842latetakeoff#a842latetakeoff Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, bound for San Francisco, California. It leaves 41 minutes late because of heavy runway traffic. [http://web.archive.org/web/20040629224627/www.msnbc.com/news/create_p1.asp?cp1=1&cpm=1&cpe=1&URL=www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; http://web.archive.org/web/20021002112814/http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/article/0,1426,MCA_945_1340414,00.html; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007]"

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=ua93&timeline=complete_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:
http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aadca2077fy7.jpghttp://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

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......

Posted by: dMole Oct 29 2008, 09:37 PM

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

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Oct 31 2008, 03:40 AM

i've asked this at various threads where the duh-bunkers were mocking this evidence and they seem to die instantly when the following is proposed to them so i thought i would post it here as well......

According to the 9/11 Commission, less than a minute after Flight 93 acknowledged a routine radio transmission from the FAA’s Cleveland Center (see 9:27 a.m. September 11, 2001), John Werth—the controller handling the flight—and pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity of Flight 93 hear “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/11/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; CBS News, 9/10/2006] Someone, presumably Flight 93’s pilot Jason Dahl, is overheard by controllers as he shouts, “Mayday!” [New York Times, 7/22/2004] Seconds later, the controller responds, “Somebody call Cleveland?” Then there are more sounds of screaming and someone yelling, “Get out of here, get out of here.” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001; Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Observer, 12/2/2001; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Then the voices of the hijackers can be heard talking in Arabic. The words are later translated to show they are talking to each other, saying, “Everything is fine.” [Newsweek, 12/3/2001]

Shortly before Flight 93 reverses direction and heads east, someone in its cockpit radios in and asks the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington, DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] Jeff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, “We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.” [Washington Business Journal, 9/11/2001] Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m. (see (9:28 a.m.) September 11, 2001) [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11] , so it is presumably made by one of the hijackers. Twenty-five minutes later the pilot hijacker will also program a new destination into the plane’s navigational system (see 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001).

so this shows up as an arrival at dca because al qaeda [after being heard hijacking a plane on a day when 2 other hijacked planes have already been slammed into the wtc] contacted faa and made a highly unusual request for a flight path change to help them reach their target which is approved. is that what the claim is?

Posted by: amazed! Oct 31 2008, 10:23 AM

I have heard the first few radio transmissions, but nothing about "changing the flight plan to IAD"

If true, that would agree with the other info here at PFT that 93 ultimately landed IAD.

And how do they know that a new destination was programmed into the nav system by the pilot?

The big airplanes don't go into DCA do they? I thought all the big planes go into IAD.

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 31 2008, 08:23 AM) *
The big airplanes don't go into DCA do they? I thought all the big planes go into IAD.

I always changed planes at Dulles (IAD) when I flew through there (with reasonable frequency), and I've never been to DCA. BTW IAD is one of the "spookiest" places that I've ever been IMHO, but I suppose that Langley still has it beat by a little. ;)

EDIT: So is that source from Thompson's timeline then Dom? It looks like it.

EDIT2: It looks like FlightArrivals.com has most of the United DCA arrivals coming out of Chicago O'Hare today (one from Denver DIA). I didn't see any plane types, but all the O'Hare flights were numbered between 600 and 620.

Link might not paste:

http://www.flightarrivals.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Flights.woa/7/wo/zxJo01A5sWFn2Gaz7o/3.15

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Oct 31 2008, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 29 2008, 04:00 PM) *
EDIT: So is that source from Thompson's timeline then Dom? It looks like it.



correct

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 09:29 PM

Well come on then Dom, post the link then for we "lazy old men" already. We've got trolls to slay...

See what happens when I try "subtle" and "diplomatic?" thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 20 2008, 01:20 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 30 2008, 12:29 AM) *
Well come on then Dom, post the link then for we "lazy old men" already. We've got trolls to slay...

See what happens when I try "subtle" and "diplomatic?" thumbsup.gif


http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua93.

cheers.gif

Posted by: Domenick DiMaggio CIT Nov 20 2008, 01:50 AM

so haven taken a proper amount of time to consider all of this and reflecting back on this interview some things kind of stick out to me.


1) no human remains on the 11th. none were seen/found.

2) small amount of human remains recovered on the 12th. we viewed this images. several images of each remain and what stuck out to me is that they were all laying in 'dirt'. the only dirt there is the road which means they should have been in plain sight. they appeared to not be concealed in any manner in the images. one was a severed arm and no blood anywhere near the dirt under it.

3) miller confirms no blood at the scene. not a single drop anywhere.

4) no documentation of evidence inside the crater. no remains alleged to have been recovered were documented in any way shape or form.

5) miller claims photographs of the remains are located off site but has all his other photos including ones of human remains there in a shoe box.

6) fbi seemed to have been recovering the remains and bringing them into the dmort setup. miller photographed what he recovered the rest was photographed [allegedly] in the lab. this leaves the location of the remains impossible to identify.

7) fbi provided a list of names of who wally miller was going to find.

8) fbi brought victims samples in from family members in order for wally to be able to identify them.

9) fbi was in complete control provided names, remains, & dna samples to the coroner.

10) miller seems to indicate he identified all of the passengers and yet concedes that remains went to armed forces dna lab in maryland.

11) he still retains 3 caskets of 'unidentifiable' remains that aren't necessarily hijacker remains but just remains which are beyond identification or do not match any provided samples. why weren't these sent to the lab in maryland?

Posted by: amazed! Nov 20 2008, 10:57 AM

Wally Miller is a damn liar.

Posted by: Rickysa Nov 20 2008, 01:27 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 20 2008, 09:57 AM) *
Wally Miller is a damn liar.



He sure seems to be "pissy" during the interview...I concur....I'd get cranky having to lie repeatedly and not to contradict myself or forget my lines.

Posted by: gepay Feb 13 2011, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 20 2008, 04:33 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.


I agree with amazed. We will never know the truth of what happened as we are not the perps and by perps I do not mean the alleged hijackers or the Saudi man in a cave in Tora Bora. I agree with dom that the most likely story is somthing along the lines of the plane being shot down and there being a bomb aboard. I do believe in the possibility of Mk Ultra extensions to suicide bombers but most of the FBI listed types seemed to be manipulated patsies. We can send remote controlled space probes to the rings of Saturn so remotely controlled Boeings are very believable to me. If one follows what few verifiable facts that can be found and verified, what does this tell us about the macroparasites that are controlling us with controlled events such as 911?
This was said about the JFK assassination but it applies just as well to 9/11.
"President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared . . . the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence.'
Farewell to America – James Hepburn (a pseudonym) 1968

Posted by: amazed! Jan 26 2013, 06:30 PM

Well now the matter of Wally Miller is mostly resolved, thanks to a subsequent interview by Christopher Bollyn, and told in his fine book, Solving 911.

Bollyn went to interview Wally, years later, regarding the incident at Dover AFB Mortuary in February 2012 with disposal of remains. In that incident, Wally was quoted by AP, and Bollyn followed up and eventually had a personal interview with him.

After discussing the Dover incident, talk turned to 911. Apparently it was a friendly interview, with some of Wally's employees in the room. Wally's main business is a funeral home, and he is merely county coroner on a part time basis.

During the interview, Wally's employees called out "Tell him what the FBI told you Wally."

He did, and it all makes perfect sense. The feds were late to the party. Wally got there first, and being an honest man told the TV cameras that there was nothing in the field that looked like a crashed airliner. Nothing to see. Several of his assistants tell the same story--no airplane, no bodies, nothing.

The feds show up, and try to make the best of a bad situation. In private, they ask Wally to be "a team player". Naturally he agrees to do that. Who is going to say no?

So the feds rent some local heavy equipment and back hoes and such, and declare a spot in the woods about 1800 away from the hole in the ground to be the ACTUAL site of the crash, in the woods. Rope it off, and even the land owner, Jim Svonavec, is not allowed at the site in the woods.

They set Wally up at some command post 10 miles away in the county, and he is presented DNA samples supposedly belonging to person A and person B. Never saw a body, but signed off on a bunch of deaths.

At least they are able to chuckle about it in Shanksville today.

Posted by: Ret737Driver Feb 28 2014, 11:32 AM

There is absolutely no way that small alleged impact hole was of a Boeing 757 aircraft, period.
USNPGS ASO '77

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 28 2014, 01:31 PM

QUOTE (Ret737Driver @ Feb 28 2014, 04:32 AM) *
There is absolutely no way that small alleged impact hole was of a Boeing 757 aircraft, period.
USNPGS ASO '77

Agreed, the hole is too small:

A B757 has 124ft 10in wingspan. The gash is over 20ft too short. Not speaking that the hole also looks too shalow for an impact of a plane at 500+ kts weighting 180000lb (both values according to the alleged FDR) - the recorded gross weight implies the plane must have had on board at very least 35000lb of jetfuel - the absolute absence of major fires on the site makes the observation quite incompatible with the gross weight recorded by the alleged FDR.

Posted by: bobcat46 Mar 1 2014, 01:18 PM

Something that I have also noticed from the Google Earth photograph is the burn pattern. Between the hole and the burned woods is some grass that here appears to be in summer brown. Other photographs show unburned brown grass around the hole. Why is the grass not burned between the hole and the woods and all around the hole. Plus, the burned woods is off to the side of the impact at a sharp angle to the wings. Thinking of momentum and physics, what kind of momentum would the plane have to have at impact to send all of the fuel in that direction? Certainly no straight down. Also, if the plane impacted the ground straight down, as they claimed and as would be necessary to make such a perfect impression, why is there not a fire pattern all around the hole? I can answer all of these questions: a B-757 did not crash into the ground at this location.

Also, on my Google Earth, all satellite photographs have been removed from 1994 to 2004. I remember seeing more there during that period before.

Posted by: Godspeed2012 Mar 2 2014, 11:02 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 28 2014, 12:31 PM) *
Agreed, the hole is too small:

A B757 has 124ft 10in wingspan. The gash is over 20ft too short .



My friend it has been proven that what you think what are wing dents or scars were not at all caused by a Boeing 757 on September 11 2001.

Dont get caught in the trap /lie, there were no wing scars left behind. The damage to the ground on 911 is a mere 14x10 feet oblong crater. Impossible to have been caused by anything remotely the size of Boeing 757.

Check out my thread here. Dont get fooled, dont spread more lies.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22604

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)