Flight 93's Cockpit separated?

[travis80]

saw this at the skeptic's forum. they say it's an outline of the new loose change movie.


Flight 93 "allegedly" crashes
Debris 6 miles away
Cockpit separated?
No jet fuel found in groundwater in area
Mint condition bandanna, Driver’s licenses.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5073131&postcount=254



is loose change suggesting 93's cockpit separated in the air from a missile hit perhaps? even i would have to say that's bogus!

[KDLarsen]

1. Wouldn't surprise me

Following to that list LC have gone back to full-blown woo, at least compared to the alleged Final Cut. Stuff like "fat bin Laden", missile at the Pentagon etc makes a reappearance.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. The only debris ever found that far away was paper and small pieces of insulation.

We have the flight data recorder information. There was nothing wrong with Flight 93 except the direction it was going and the speed it was going there. All other systems were normal.

[travis80]

3. OMG! "cockpit separated upon impact and flew into the trees"

Originally published in Central PA magazine, November 2001
According to investigators, the cockpit of the aircraft separated from the plane upon impact and flew into the trees, where it disintegrated. The biggest portion of the aircraft that was recovered, a piece of the fuselage, was found after officials drained a pond some 2,500 yards away from the crater. The infamous three-page letter in Arabic encouraging the hijackers was also found nearby, along with credit cards and the plane's black boxes.
http://www.witf.org/lifestyle/central-pa-magazine/995-pennsylvanias-ground-zero-voices-central-pa-magazine-november-2001




the investigators are really saying this? it crashed going over 500 mph, its cockpit cracked off the ground and bounced into the forest where it was disintegrated by the trees?

weren't they also saying the rest of the plane went under ground because the ground was so soft? how then did the cockpit crack off if the ground was so soft for the rest of the plane?

[AntiFascist]

54. This is where a real investigation might answer some questions...

"Coroner Miller tells me 98 percent of the plane has been recovered, but it is hard to believe that."?

[travis80]

55. the FBI has reported 95% and yes, hard to believe since we don't see nearly

anything that comes close to that amount lying in the field. just another absurd claim by officials.

[Kesha]

4. Coroner remembers Sept. 11

Wally Miller:

"Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle. He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_73907.html

Thursday, May 30, 2002?
Now I`m indeed flabbergasted. Never heard this version before.

[travis80]

5. "The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground"

flabbergasted indeed!


"Miller recalled his arrival at the crash site about 20 minutes after the plane plummeted to the earth and described how the aircraft came down at a 45-degree angle. He explained how the cockpit broke off at impact, bouncing into a wooded area of about 60 acres. The resulting fireball scorched about eight acres of trees, he said.

The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_73907.html



what were the investigators thinking with this bogus claim?! The investigators were obviously lying.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Wallace Miller was lying? What evidence do you have to show this to be true? n/t

[Kesha]

7. Nein, mein lieber Bolo...

What if these "official sources" and Wally are NOT lying?

Mainstream sources. No wacky CT.

So, where is the cockpit?


Edited, typo.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Come back when you can make sense. n/t

[Kesha]

9. Ask Wally

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

Interesting... the OCT is contradicting itself.

[defendandprotect]

16. Probably in China, by now . . . !!!

[travis80]

10. not Wally, the FBI who told him

see that video that Kesha just posted. Wally says "the explanation was," so Wally is saying that claim is what was explained to him. Tim Lambert said "according to investigators," so that would make it the FBI.

in the video, Wally goes on to say the explanation was the wing hit first causing the front 1/3 of the plane to snap off sending it into the woods while the rear 2/3 of the plane went down in the ground.

why did the FBI lie Bolo?

[Kesha]

11. You`re right on track

Wally was told so.

And now it`s part of the official story. Let them explain.

[spooked911]

12. there are lots of different flight 93 stories

the main official story is that the cockpit broke off and shattered as the rest of the plane disappeared into the official crash crater.

But the official crater is a hoax.

[Kesha]

13. "the cockpit broke off and shattered into the wood"

It seems that this part of the official story has somehow been forgotten for nearly 7 years.

[travis80]

17. of all the stories the FBI could come up with

they choose the most unbelievable! It would have been a little more believable if they said the tail landed outside. after all, there's no sign of the tail!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

158. because there was no tail

[HannibalCards]

159. That's Silly

Airplanes can't fly without their tail.

[travis80]

168. what happened to it? the tail. i don't see a trace of it. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

171. it didn't fly

[defendandprotect]

14. Oh, yeah . . . and some of the debris was found in a log cabin way off in the woods!!!

Like all of the conspiracies, they keep re-working them . . .

They don't have to worry about sloppy work, they just re-do it!

[lovepg]

15. Which becomes the new FACTS that we must all be crazy to question! nt

[travis80]

18. the debunkers are curiously absent about this claim

i wonder if they believe it!

[defendandprotect]

145. Perusing this thread makes two conclusions clear . . .

#1 put Bolo on "ignore" -
#2 put Hannibal Cards on "ignore" -

and stop wasting your time --

:)

[HannibalCards]

147. Sure

'Ignore' facts when presented them. Seems to be the 'truth' movement's main line of defense.

[defendandprotect]

149. When you present "facts" . . . .

you won't be on "ignore."

Bye --

[HannibalCards]

151. As I said

Typical TM line of defense.

First we are 'curiously absent' and now it's 'ignore them'? The TM is amazingly Bi-Polar.

[travis80]

19. now they are saying remains were found inside the cockpit!

In the Senate of the United States
Monday, September 9, 2002
REMEMBERING ALAN BEAVEN
Hon. Dianne Feinstein of California

Even though Alan's seat was in the back of the airplane, his remains
were found in the cockpit at the crash site in Pennsylvania. The Beaven
family has also heard Alan on the cockpit voice recorder, so it is clear
that Alan, standing 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing over 200 pounds,
fought with the hijackers.




August 9, 2002.

Dear Senator Feinstein: My father, Alan Beaven, was among those 33
passengers of United Airlines flight 93. Their hurried steps toward the
cockpit were the first in an international campaign against the threat
of fanatical hostility. For this they should be celebrated.

Secondly, my father's remains were recovered in the front of the
aircraft. Authorities confirmed that D.N.A. testing placed him in the
cockpit at the time of impact. Again, given his seating placement, this
evidence undoubtedly proves his centrality in the effort to regain
custody of United's flight 93.

Sincerely,
Chris Beaven




August 1, 2002.

Dear Senator Feinstein: On April 18, 2002, in Princeton, NJ, I heard
the voice of my husband, Alan Beaven, on the cockpit voice recorder of
United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA, on September
11, 2001.

As you know, Alan's physical remains were found in the cockpit area of
the plane. Alan was a 6 foot 3 inch, 205 lb powerful man.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Kimberly Beaven.




ALAN BEAVEN: IN MEMORIAM
Hon. Barbara Boxer
of california

Mr. Beaven was flying back to California to prosecute one more water
pollution case before taking a sabbatical in India where he was to
volunteer his services as an environmental lawyer. Alan Beaven was one
of many heroes on flight 93 who, aware of the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, chose to fight back against the
hijacking terrorists. His voice was recognized by his family on the
cockpit voice recorder, and his remains were found in the wreckage of
the cockpit.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/107-285/text/senate.html

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Alan Beavan

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93beavenbiop8.asp

In the words of Atrios, a DFH. A long-haired environmental lawyer who took on oil companies and polluters and was about to take a year-long sabbatical in India to do volunteer work.

The antithesis of everything RedState, and yet his family recognized his voice on the cockpit recorder, and his remains were found in the cockpit.

He fought back with all the others, another hero among the many on 9/11.

[travis80]

21. don't tell me you believe this Bolo?

even YOU can't believe this cockamamie official claim.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. His own family recognized his voice on the cockpit voice recorder.

Yes, I believe them over someone who seems to know all about me even though they have 48 posts here.

[travis80]

23. no Bolo, about the cockpit going into the woods and remains found inside

that cockamamie story. please tell me you don't believe THAT.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Why wouldn't I?

Since the people who were there that day and the weeks after say that that is what happened. Why would I believe you over them?

[travis80]

25. because there is absolutely NO evidence to support the cockpit claim

or the claim passenger remains were found inside. show me some photos of the mangled cockpit with remains inside.

the investigators never even told this tale to the media. looks like they only told the passenger's family Miller, the landowners -- who in turn told the media. the investigators never told the media directly! why not?


not to mention the physics of a large plane crashing at over 500 mph, the wing hitting, sending the plane into a cartwheel motion, snapping off the front end (cockpit) and it flys into the woods, and the remainder of the plane bores deep down in the soil is . . . how do you say? . . . IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Other than the people who were there.

No, you don't get to see photos of mangled corpses.

[travis80]

28. nice attempt to distract Bolo. i meant photos of the cockpit

show me photos of the mangled cockpit at Shanksville. and i don't know why you don't want us to see photos of mangled corpses from flight 93 (like you got any) when the government released photos of mangled corpses inside the pentagon? one of your skeptics websites even hosts those photos of mangled corpses! and i thought no corpses from flight 93 existed? only small body parts, small enough to PLANT.

[lovepg]

29. Lighten up its hard to keep track of all the bullshit they are supposed to try and defend!!! nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. "the claim passenger remains were found inside"

As far as I know, you're the only person to use the word "inside." A reasonable interpretation of the Feinstein/Beaven comments is that some of Beaven's remains were found amidst wreckage from the cockpit. There might be something else going on here, but if the best you've got is possibly confused remarks by his family, and a senator presumably relying upon those remarks, then you don't have much.

[travis80]

35. you admitting you don't believe the cockpit was intact enough

for remains to have been found inside?

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. has anyone said that it was?

What I believe really doesn't matter very much. The starting point is the testimony of people who were at the site.

[travis80]

37. then why are you skeptical that remains were found inside?

you just brought up that i was the only saying the remains were found inside the cockpit as if you disagreed with that premise. are you now backtracking?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. I think my posts are pretty clear.

I don't really know what your problem with them is. If you'd like to respond to them, please feel free.

[travis80]

39. it was clear to me you didn't think the cockpit would be intact enough

for anything to still be able to be inside it, or else you wouldn't have said A reasonable interpretation...is that some of Beaven's remains were found amidst wreckage from the cockpit.

remember the whole point of the two Senators making their speeches was for some feel-good honors for the passengers breaching the cockpit and they mentioned the evidence of the passenger breach was Beaven's remains were found inside the cockpit after the crash.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Seriously, Travis....

Can you think of any good reason the hijackers just slammed UA 93 into the ground OTHER than the actions of the passengers?

[travis80]

41. how is that relevant to this thread? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

42. Just answer the question...

if you can, dude.

[travis80]

45. soon as you tell me how it's relevant to this thread

dude.

[SDuderstadt]

50. I seem to recall that you're a "no-planer"...

did I get that right?

[travis80]

46. SDuderstadt, do you believe the cockpit landed outside

and the rest of the plane buried into the ground?

[SDuderstadt]

51. I don't care...

dude.

[travis80]

56. you don't care if the official story adds up?

that's treasonous where i come from. dude.

[SDuderstadt]

118. What doesn't "add up" is your interpretation of...

the "official story", dude. I'd also advise you to tread carefully around that "treasonous" accusation, no matter how indirectly made.

[Twist_U_Up]

119. Wow ....just ......WOW

Watching you get made in this post has been a real blast. A real thermal expansion Blast.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Let us know when you want to wade into the actual debate...

dude.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HannibalCards]

131. Just a thought

Instead of 'sitting back' and reading a message board, shouldn't you be doing something to get some relief for the victims you claim to care so much about?

[Twist_U_Up]

133. you dont know me. you dont want to know me

another keyboard warrior hiding behind a screen
its a brave new world
:eyes:

[HannibalCards]

136. "Keyboard Warrior"?

<self deleted> Not gonna get dragged into a flame fight.

[SDuderstadt]

132. If I'm "proving the lies and distractions"...

then it should be simple for you to point to a lie, dude. In the meantime, since you can't, you just baselessly accuse me of "spitting in the faces of the victims and family members, on a hourly basis".

Really? I'm not the one postulating goofy claims that deny the reality of what happened to the victims that day, dude. Why don't you try out some of your more absurd theories on the family members and see what kind of reception you get?

Again, let us know if you want to jump into the substance of the debate, rather than hurl insults from the sidelines, dude.

BTW, what do you mean by a "serious intervention"? Sounds a bit ominous, don't you think?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HannibalCards]

137. Made

You're a creationist?

[SDuderstadt]

138. Ooh...ominous...

are you some sort of "enforcer" for the "truth movement"? Oh, wait...I've got it! You're some sort of vigilante, right? Right?

[lovepg]

125. How about they couldn't frigging fly the plane... Jeeesh. nt

[SDuderstadt]

128. Let me make sure I get this straight...

you believe that they plowed the plane into the ground by accident?

Dude, this is why people here openly laugh at you. Has it ever occurred to you that people would not openly laugh at you if you didn't say such patently absurd things?

[lovepg]

139. Its entirely possible they were going to Washington and flew the plane into the ..

ground by accident yes.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Dude....read the transcript of the cockpit....

voice recorder. Jesus.

[lovepg]

154. You mean up to the point it goes silent three minutes before the official story crash time..

Or after that during the crucial time it went down? OH YEAH YOU CAN"T HEAR THAT PART.
Yet you still claim to know HOW it crashed. Its absolutely stupid moronic posts like this that is the reason you are on the ignore list of more people than anyone else on DU!

[SDuderstadt]

155. Dude...

do you know what a flight data recorder does? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't embarrass yourself in this manner.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

161. If you don't know what a flight data recorder (FDR) is...

why not just say so?

[lovepg]

162. swat swaT swat!

[SDuderstadt]

163. So, you DON'T know what an FDR is...

and how we know the plane crash was not an accident. Figures.

[lovepg]

164. Swat swat swat!

[SDuderstadt]

165. Dude...

when you can't answer questions, you need more than a fly swatter. You need a SWAT team, dude.

[lovepg]

172. Your POST is like the gnat that flys around the ass of the ox before it is swated by the oxes tail

[OnTheOtherHand]

173. your post brings to mind a succinct and simple phrase: massive haiku fail n/t

[lovepg]

175. Your post brings to mind another simple phrase... massive humor failure.

[OnTheOtherHand]

178. as ever, you're a bringer of sweetness and light n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. no, actually, they didn't say that

The word you put in bold here is, again, a word that you yourself introduced into the discussion. We're right back to my first post. You're trying to get people on record as saying that the cockpit was intact, or "intact enough," to physically contain human remains -- and maybe someone is on record as saying that, but you haven't shown me that.

I really don't have a fixed position on this -- my knowledge of the evidence is all very much indirect. I'm just pointing to what I see as a problem with yours.

[travis80]

44. they are saying remains were found INSIDE the cockpit

i don't know how you can rationally say otherwise?

Even though Alan's seat was in the back of the airplane, his remains
were found in the cockpit at the crash site in Pennsylvania. - Senator Feinstein

Secondly, my father's remains were recovered in the front of the
aircraft. Authorities confirmed that D.N.A. testing placed him in the
cockpit at the time of impact. Again, given his seating placement, this
evidence undoubtedly proves his centrality in the effort to regain
custody of United's flight 93. - Chris Beaven

As you know, Alan's physical remains were found in the cockpit area of
the plane. - Kimberly Beaven

His voice was recognized by his family on the cockpit
voice recorder, and his remains were found in the wreckage of
the cockpit. - Senator Boxer


not once to any of these four people use the words "amidst" or "among." they all say "in."

seems like you are just using Boxer's choice of grammar and words to argue that all four of them mean among the wreckage.

but do i understand you that you believe the cockpit, whether still intact or not, landed in the woods and didn't plunge down into the ground along with the rest of the plane?

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. no, think harder

"in the wreckage of the cockpit" doesn't even begin to imply that the cockpit was intact,

"D.N.A. testing placed him in the cockpit at the time of impact," if you think closely, also doesn't imply that the cockpit was intact.

Feinstein's statement in isolation does, and perhaps Kimberly Beaven's, but that is far from solid evidence that anyone ever intended to claim that the cockpit was intact -- much less that an intact cockpit is a crucial part of the Official Story, or whatever point you think you're making. Even if Feinstein or her staffer was dead wrong on this, that in itself wouldn't matter.

[travis80]

48. as i said, only Boxer's comment make you think different.

so you never answered specifically, why do you think they meant amongst the wreckage and not inside the cockpit?

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. you're misrepresenting my posts

I can speculate about your motives, but it isn't worth my while.

Care to try again? or are we done?

[lovepg]

174. simple question for simple people....

If the planes cockpit did not disengage then it was in the pit. If that is the case the plane collapsed onto the cockpit as that part hit first.
That would mean the entire plane would end up in the cockpit so to speak. Including DNA from the passengers.So saying someones DNA was found in the cockpit and that proves a passenger rebellion occured
is a stretch at best. It proves not a thing. And well the cockpit disengaging story has many problems.

[HannibalCards]

176. I don't see

a question in that entire post.

[lovepg]

177. true enough implied but not spoken..

My question is this. If the official story is that a passenger rebellion took place that lead to the crash of the jet, what evidence do you have this indeed occured?

[SDuderstadt]

180. For the last fucking time....

listen to either the transcript or recording of the CVR, dude. How many fucking times do you have to be pointed to the evidence?

[HannibalCards]

181. Come on

... you know Truthers don't look at 'evidence'. Their info comes straight from youtube.

[SDuderstadt]

182. Well, there's always a first time for everything....

one can hope that some of them will eventually begin looking at actual evidence.

[lovepg]

183. Ohh nooo the oct bots are gonna explode... Do Not answer question must distract

with insult number 5678 from insult program!!

[HannibalCards]

184. Post

180

[SDuderstadt]

179. This post is so stupid...

it doesn't even need a response.

[travis80]

185. good point, but family members were told the cockpit was in forest area

even though there is absolutely no evidence for that. shame on the FBI for lying to the family members like that. it's despicable.

[SDuderstadt]

186. I'd love to see proof of your claim....

dude.

[travis80]

187. i'd love to see proof the cockpit went into the woods too

but i don't see any . . . dude.

[SDuderstadt]

188. I think you should ask the boys at "Loose Change"...

dude.

[travis80]

189. i'm pretty sure it was the FBI who made up that asinine claim

dude

[SDuderstadt]

190. Well, then...

find some actual evidence of it...dude.

[travis80]

49. OnTheOtherHand, do you believe the cockpit landed outside

and the rest of the plane went deep down into the ground?

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. I've already addressed this point

I can't force you to pay attention, and I won't repeat myself gratuitously.

[travis80]

74. i find people who say they won't repeat themselves never really answered the question

in the first place.

[OnTheOtherHand]

135. you find lots of strange things n/t

[Neily]

89. Bolo you are confusing me...

#2. Bolo Boffin - The only debris ever found that far away was paper and small pieces of insulation.We have the flight data recorder information. There was nothing wrong with Flight 93 except the direction it was going and the speed it was going there. All other systems were normal.

#23. travis80 - no Bolo, about the cockpit going into the woods and remains found insidethat cockamamie story. please tell me you don't believe THAT.

#24.Bolo Boffin - “Since the people who were there that day and the weeks after say that that is what happened. Why would I believe you over them?”


Bolo you are confusing me. Which do you believe? The cockpit broke off and landed elsewhere or the only thing that landed elsewhere was paper and insulation?

[Bolo Boffin]

92. Not my problem.

The OP has the statement "Debris 6 miles away" above the bolded question "Cockpit separated?"

The only debris found that far away was paper and small pieces of insulation. The cockpit separating and hitting the woods is not that far away.

English.

[Neily]

96. Clarity is the responsibility of the writer....

not the reader.

Hundreds of yards away is not close either... especially when there were reports that parts landed in the pond beyond the woods which was significantly further away and given the official explanation that the plane did a nose dive into the ground.

In addition....

Human remains being found that far away is not as innocent as "paper and small pieces of insulation." as seen below...

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

"Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

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."

Minutes later is not a result of wind...

A cloud of confetti-like debris is not a result of wind...

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Indian Lake is only six miles away from the crash site by driving around the lake.

It's only a mile or so straight there. That misunderstanding has long been cleared up.

New Brunswick is a full five or six miles away geographically. That's where I was referring to. You don't even know the basic facts of what happened here, and you're blundering in, yammering about "clarity is the responsibility of the writer"? Well, research is the responsibility of each of us. You better do some more background digging before you embarrass yourself further.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com

[dbonds]

99. Can you try to be a bit more respectful?

You write extremely insulting responses where a simple answer would suffice. This serves to only piss off those you are responding to and derail the conversation. If you are interested in actual discussion leave out the insults. We understand that you can get upset when you are caught in a contradiction, but no reason to take it out on those to which you are responding.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. I give as good as I get. No more, no less.

So take your concern and place it somewhere less annoying for me but where you can always keep track of it, bitte.

And I haven't been caught in a contradiction, so place that assertion right next to your concern.

[dbonds]

103. Keeping track of it?

Like a spreadsheet. Hmmm, thats an idea. See who insults first, who escalates, who distracts. Wish I had time for that I bet the results would be spectacular.

Without quantitative analysis it seems you give quite a bit more and harder than you get. If you are going to hold yourself up as a paragon of truth of fact, that's one delusion, but you can't take every question of your story as an attack. You claim self righteous indignation when certain elements of the narrative are questioned, yet you not only question you dismiss them out of hand and with insults. You use techniques that makes one doubt you actually believe the story you are defending. And when one wonders a loud about why you use those techniques you accuse them of questioning your motives. You set yourself up as untouchable. Wouldn't it be more conducive to back all that down and just talk about the facts respectably. Using techniques that you have you won't change anyone mind, not even lurkers. Don't insult directly or indirectly. If you tire of certain elements being rehashed too much then maybe you can write up a faq and request to have it made a sticky.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. You have confused this thread with one that discusses me.

You will need to go to another website to continue discussing me. There are a couple that would gladly gnash their teeth with you over my name.

But continuing to discuss me will be interpreted as the personal attack it is and be reported. Cease your personal attacks IMMEDIATELY and get back to the OP.

Or shut the fuck up. Your choice.

[dbonds]

107. The website that discusses you is down for maintenance this morning.

/joking

You confuse your discussion techniques in this thread as being about you. I'm not discussing you, just how you argued or attempted. Debate techniques are valid when the techniques are used to avoid topics.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. You are being incredibly rude and provocative to me right now. n/t

[dbonds]

109. If I come across rude I apologize , I'm meaning this as lets turn down the heat in here.

I'm trying to be emotionless and spocklike in my responses, and my purpose was to try calm down rhetoric. It is not an attack on you. It is an attack on the techniques being used for debate.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Which is why you keep repeating that I've been "caught in a contradiction" over and over again.

Riiiiight. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is more like it.

Care to discuss the OP any time soon? Or is big old bad Bolo just so bright and shiny that you just can't resist another post about me?

[dbonds]

111. As far as the OP..

All the contradictions just go to prove we need a new independent investigation.

(Queue up the typical OTC distraction technique of asking what contradictions - I'll pre-answer, too many to completely list and many have been listed in this forum thousands of times.)

[travis80]

169. skeptics are against a new investigation.

apparently they thought the last one cost too much. rofl

[Neily]

116. just a thought

"If you tire of certain elements being rehashed too much then maybe you can write up a faq and request to have it made a sticky."

Or don't read the posts.

[Neily]

115. There's a lake, a pond, and...

New Brunswick... You said the word "far." I consider the pond to be pretty "far" (and obscured by trees). I consider the lake at 1 mile to be "far," and 6 miles sure is far.

I am just pointing out that your words aren't clear and are up to interpretation by the reader. Thanks for clarifying.

[pfloydguy7750]

26. It's just bullshit

[travis80]

30. it is all BS. that's why the debunkers fled this thread

they can only defend so many government lies.

[greyl]

31. Show us the photos of KSM being waterboarded.

Since you can't, I presume you don't believe it happened, eh?

[travis80]

32. were there photographers there too filming him?

there were at shanksville.

[travis80]

34. you know greyl, for you to even compare the two shows your ignorance. nt

[travis80]

57. really skeptics?

Flight 93 hits at over 550 mph
wing hits the ground first
sends plane nose over end
nose of plane hit the reported soft ground at an angle
cracks off the cockpit
cockpit launches in air
lands in the forest
remains found in the cockpit
but rest of plane still had enough force to bury through the ground


really skeptics? really?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Let's hear your version. n/t

[travis80]

60. let's hear your answer first. you really believe this?

you really believe the cockpit broke off from hitting the ground and flew into the woods while the rest (most) of the plane still had enough inertia to drive itself deep into the ground?

[Bolo Boffin]

67. No, I want to compare your version that's supposedly so much more reasonable.

Please provide it.

[travis80]

69. so you don't believe that part of the OFFICIAL story? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

70. My goodness, how you do go on. n/t

[travis80]

71. my goodness, how you avoid questions. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

72. I will take the word of people who were there picking up the pieces with their own hands.

Is that answer enough for you? Are you ready now to let us in on your much more reasonable description of what happened?

[travis80]

73. so that's a yes, you believe the cockpit broke off and rest buried?

can't understand why you skeptics can't answer in an easy yes or no? it would save SO much time.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. My goodness, how you avoid presenting your much more reasonable explanation. n/t

[travis80]

76. my goodness, how you avoid answering in a simple yes or no

real quick Bolo, do you believe part of the official story about the cockpit breaking off and the rest of the plane going deep in the ground? yes or no

[Bolo Boffin]

77. I believe the people who were there picking up the pieces with their own hands.

What do they say happened, travis?

[travis80]

78. my goodness, Bolo's still avoiding. can't respond in a simple yes or no.

looks like this is going to be a LONG discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. What do the people who were there and picked up the pieces say, travis?

This isn't that hard to figure out.

[travis80]

80. i don't know Bolo, why don't you quote them?

lets see why all those people have to say about the cockpit and the rest of the plane. anxiously awaiting.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Wait -- YOU are the one spinning the account that you call the "official account". Where did you get

it from?

[travis80]

82. ah ha! trying to back out of it Bolo? don't blame you

you have to be TOTALLY INSANE to believe

a 757 can hit at over 550 mph
wing hits the ground first
sends plane nose over end
nose of plane hit the reported soft ground at an angle
cracks off the cockpit
cockpit launches in air
lands in the forest
remains found in the cockpit
but rest of plane still had enough force to bury through the ground


right Bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

83. No, I'm not backing out of anything at all.

Where did you get that account from? Simple question.

[travis80]

84. LOL, your very own post, #6. "Wallace Miller was lying?"

so Bolo, was Wally Miller lying?

[Bolo Boffin]

85. No, Wally Miller was not lying.

Like I said, I trust the people who were there picking up the pieces with their own hand.

Now that that's established, pray tell what's your much more likely and reasonable scenario? Now would be a good time to present it.

[travis80]

86. so you agree with that part of the official account?

about the cockpit breaking off and the rest getting buried?

simple question. original question. yes or no?

[Bolo Boffin]

87. I believe Wallace Miller. Anytime you want to present your more reasonable scenario would be good.

Now would be good.

[Neily]

90. Complete contradiction

How and why would the nose break off before impact? If it was going as fast as they say and entered soft ground then it would stay intact, unless it separated prior to impact (which then begs the question... what cause the separation pre-impact).

I assume you believe the videos of the planes hitting the towers. And, as we all know the towers were much more solid than the soft ground. So, where are the broken noses of the planes that hit the tower? I dont recall seeing the planes hit the towers and shoot the nose off to the side of the perpendicular towers and land on the ground. I recall seeing them slice through like butter.

So, which one is it? The speeds were relatively equal on all planes supposedly. You cant believe one and believe the other at the same time.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Your unfounded assertion:

"If it was going as fast as they say and entered soft ground then it would stay intact."

[Neily]

91. I am starting to wonder about motivations....

here with Bolo. He has completely contradicted himself in this thread. I too observed those same contradictions. Made it really hard to decide what he actually believes. I don't think I know yet.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. I'm going to say this to you once.

I have not contradicted myself at all. You are stating a factual inaccuracy in an attempt to attack me. You will cease your attacks on me IMMEDIATELY.

[Neily]

95. Saying you have contridicted yourself...

Is not a personal attack, especially when I can provide the quotes where you say 2 completely different things. So, don't demand that I stop personal attacks when there is nothing personal about it. I am asking you to clarify the glaring contradiction. That's all. Intimidation is not going to work this time, sorry.

[Bolo Boffin]

97. You didn't just do that but specifically began questioning my motives.

Which is a personal attack. Don't do it again.

I have not contradicted myself here. Stop making factually inaccurate statements about me.

[dbonds]

100. This is beyond believablity.

You stand yourself up as a paragon of fact and truth and attack anyone that challenges you. Yet when you are caught in a contradiction you have a hissy fit? Please, less tactics and more discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. I haven't been caught in a contradiction. Stop making factually inaccurate statements about me. n/t

[dbonds]

105. First, let any reader of the thread judge for themselves about the contradiction.

Next, that would not be a statement about you, but about a contradiction in your beliefs and logic. That is not personal, that is something you put on the site every day, many times a day, for everyone to see and judge.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. I simply haven't contradicted myself. The assertion that I have is factually inaccurate. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. OK, I judge that I can't tell what you're talking about

Not just you -- I largely can't tell what the entire thread is about. It's a problem I often have when people claim to be rebutting the "official story." When that phrase stands for "the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report" and/or "the contents of the NIST report(s)," I may think it's awkward, but at least we can all see what those reports say. Here I can't tell what it is. Is "the official story" whatever "travis80" says it is? Is there somewhere we can read this "official story" in officialese to see what parts of it we agree with, disagree with, or are agnostic about?

About all I've seen Bolo say is that he believes Wallace Miller. Apparently travis80 thinks that means that the cockpit landed in the forest, virtually intact. Or maybe that it didn't. I strongly suspect some people are reading into Bolo's posts something that simply isn't there.

[HannibalCards]

113. See post #88

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. hmm

Your first reference looks like a great source, but I doubt that anyone else (ETA: here) has had access to it -- so it doesn't directly bear on what people here are calling "the official story."

The wtc7lies site doesn't seem to say anything about the cockpit landing in the forest, so I'm still trying to sort out whether someone thinks that is the "official story" and, if so, why. A few ambiguous statements from August 2002 wouldn't seem to suffice.

[HannibalCards]

117. The source

is a repository for the official reports of the investigating entities present at Shanksville. Some of the information is not on line, but the reports are all available to those really seeking the truth.
The bottom line is - Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, killing all aboard. There was zero evidence of a shoot down.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. I agree -- but arguably, weirdly, that is off topic

This appears to be a thread about whether (and in what sense) Flight 93's cockpit "separated." I don't really know why. I have basically the same question as Bolo: 'where is this story coming from, anyway?' (ETA: See #81 for Bolo in his own words.)

Perhaps some people reason, "If we can find any case in which someone Official said something that, in retrospect, can be construed as misleading, then the entire Official Story crumbles and We Win!!" Is there anything to it other than the screwball proof-texting of Sen. Feinstein? I don't know. I don't even care that much. But I'm curious.

* ETA: Just to underscore the weirdness: in #3, travis80 has "OMG! 'cockpit separated upon impact and flew into the trees'" OMG indeed; WTF, even. As I Google the phrase, travis80 appears to have originated it in the act of "quoting" it.

[HannibalCards]

122. The cockpit story

has been showing up around the conspiracy sites for the past month. It appears to have originated with Killtown, and spread by his socks everywhere.
The only real reference is the WITF story, which is human interest, not 'official story'.
The official reports from the various agencies do not report any such thing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

123. thanks, that would help to explain my confusion

I may be curious, but not nearly curious enough to keep track of Killtown.

"The official reports from the various agencies do not report any such thing."

Imagine that. ;) Thanks again.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. Killtown may started this foolishness??? Oh, my God.

Please track this down if you can.

[HannibalCards]

126. It is on his blog

At the September 1st entry.

Similar wording, eh?

ETA: Removed link

[Bolo Boffin]

127. Just a heads up - it's not cool to link to Killtown's blog here.

No traffic for that insane asshole.

So all of this is a level of personal incredulity informed by the mind of Killtown? Fine. I'm sticking with what Wallace Miller and the other people said, the ones who were actually there picking up the pieces. If they say they recovered most of the cockpit off in the woods, and that they recovered the bulk of the remains of some passengers there, leading to the reasonable supposition that they were in the cockpit at the point of impact, then that's where it was, as far as I'm concerned, and that's what happened. I don't give a damn how crazy someone like Killtown thinks that is.

[HannibalCards]

129. Apologies

I removed the offending link. The curious can find it if they wish. Also note - Ktown's message board has been taken down by the server. Apparently he violated ToS a few too many times.

[HannibalCards]

59. Sure.

Do you have a better story, with evidence to back it up?

[travis80]

61. i'm still waiting for evidence to back up THIS story!

please, lay it all out here.

[HannibalCards]

62. Read the reports from the multiple agencies

and first responders on the scene.

If you can dispute what they say, then do so. Until then, their story stands. Understand, until you have read the report, and know what it states, you cannot refute it.

[travis80]

63. ok, post those reports that describe the broken off cockpit

can't wait.

[HannibalCards]

64. The full reports

are far to large to post here, and they do not all exist on the internet. You'll have to go to or write to or call the physical archives and get copies. They are available to the public via the FOIA.
If you are really seeking the truth, you will have to do the research. You cannot accurately dispute the reports until you have read them.

[travis80]

65. but you have read all these alleged reports you claim are out there?

in FOIA land?

[HannibalCards]

66. Yes, I have.

[travis80]

68. ok, well just post the relevant parts about the broken off cockpit

or you can even scan them and post links to the scanned pics.

otherwise i'm going to call you a liar.

[HannibalCards]

88. Here you go

For anyone who wants info of the multiple agency's reports on the crash of Flight 93;

Natural Hazards Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
482 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0482
[e-mail] | [phone]

The repository is there. All the reports and evidence for your research. Read exactly what the FBI (among many others) reported on the crash site. Happy reading.

For a thorough look at the evidence that is available online, go to http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1

[travis80]

166. i said

just post the relevant parts about the broken off cockpit. let me know if you need help in what that means.

[travis80]

191. HannibalCards? i'm waiting

post your material related to this topic.

[defendandprotect]

143. Don't worry . . . soon there will be photos . . . !!!

If not, three or four frames of a "cockpit" flying by - !!!

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

140. Congratulations . . .!!

[defendandprotect]

141. Those who arrived there first said nothing there . . . NOTHING. . .including coroner .. .

Let's also remember that aerial photos show that the "hole" existed before the

mythical plane flew into it ... to totally disappear!!!


:evilgrin:

[HannibalCards]

142. That is incorrect

[defendandprotect]

144. Excuse me, but it is correct and the Coroner's words have been repeated here endlessly . . .

try the archives --

[HannibalCards]

146. The coroner says

"The remains of a number of passengers had been found in all five sectors." –Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller, quoted from Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes," p. 262.

[defendandprotect]

148. That's not what he said originally . . . NOTHING THERE . . .

including NO BODIES --

[HannibalCards]

150. Prove it.

First he says 'nothing there' (you claim) then he goes on to identify the bodies that weren't there?

Sorry, you make no sense. Link to the source of your claim.

[HannibalCards]

153. Let me help you

From the article "On Hallowed Ground" Wallace Miller remembers his first visit to the crash site.

"As coroner for the previous four years, and a funeral director all his working life, Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this.

Walking in his gumboots, the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached.

***

He estimated the average weight of each of the 44 people aboard flight 93 was 79.5 kilograms, for a total body mass of 3500 kilograms. "We recovered 270 kilograms. Of that, we identified about 110. The main thing I've been saying ever since that is the area down there is a cemetery because 92 per cent of these people's loved ones repose there."

As the coroner, Miller's job description was simple: identify the remains, notify the next of kin, return the remains home.

"I didn't do any of that," he notes. "This became a job for a funeral director.""

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

[travis80]

167. piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached

was there flesh still attached to them, or were they just dry bones?

[travis80]

156. new Loose Change didn't show cockpit separating controversy

just watched American Coup and it didn't talk about the cockpit separating. anyone know why?

[HannibalCards]

157. There are different levels

to lies and insanity. Perhaps Loose Change (there's another new one??) didn't want to sink that far.

Why don't you ask Dylan, Jason and Alex?

[travis80]

170. lies and insanity

you should know.