FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: Dave McGowan - Waking Up America
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
wantanswers



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good Interview,

However Fintan I want to clarify something you said to him because I am a bit confused. You said ,"You are not one of those people who thinks that all of the people that were on that plane that hit the pentagon are still alive and working for the united states government?"
you laughed very heavily at this finding it very ridiculous for someone to say and I quite frankly while I dont know if it is the case could see that it could be a possibility aka Operation Northwoods called for that but either that is the case or maybe some of the 59 names were made up or they hearded the people and then got rid of them I can only see those three possibilities, what other explanation could there be you are not suggesting that a 757 did hit the pentagon are you? some of the names might even be fictious has anyone checked all the names on the passenger manifest list? but then they could get caught with that, was on the passenger manifest list and if so and they were all real people if they didnt work for the government what happened to them, and doesnt the cia plot for cuba, Operation Northwoods, say that they would be cia agents pretending to be students on vacation so why is this so laughable?

First of all from working at Pan Am for 6 years in reservations I know some things for sure and the first one is that the top management CEO's are usually corrupt and dont care anything for the employees at all, while the union pretends to at least the one I was in Teamsters they also work with the management to pretend to be at opposition to them to keep our wages low and slow up any normal living raise and benifits. They have key people in the Teamsters who they rile up to have walk outs to pretend they are fighting for us meanwhile they force you to join as soon as you pass your 90 day probation so they can collect their dues from you and then they do everything in their power to not reach an agreement with management so your wages stay frozen for over 3 years, but then after Pan Am 103 went down over Lockerbie, seems management and teamsters could work fine together to sell off the airline piece by piece and the key routes to Delta and what do you know we started getting regular raises hmmmmm, which they didnt even bother telling us anything till it was on the news for about an half hour but we were still taking calls telling the public calling in that none of our planes had crashed because we didnt know, they didnt even tell us till it was widely known. Also they lied to us every step of the way about what was going to happen after they sold the routes off to Delta which is too long to go into now but it would blow you away what the management told us, lies. But besides this I know this for sure we had recipocal agreements with other carriers that if we cancelled a flight due to payload (meaning not enough people on board) they took our ticket and we did the same. So on a day that all four of those flights were at 20 percent payload sounds very fishy especially one that is going from Boston to LAX, if it was a short flight or on the same coast like mia-jfk where at the time we had 5 flights into jfk and 4 into lga sometimes they would let those go not very full because they knew the commuters needed to count or depend on the schedule but very often even those they would cancel due to payload and put them on later flights unless it was the last flight out and needed to get back to its base, So I highly question the 20 percent payload factor for the flights when the average payload that day was 80 percent which would be about right. I worked the help desk to many times and called passengers to tell them their flight was cancelled and often on the same day or day before their flight. Reservation offices are open 24-7, 365 days a year with most major carriers and many times as you all know you will arrive at the airport and be told they couldnt reach you but your flight is cancelled. So payload factor is a big big red flag. The obvious flag everyone points out is that there is no way that a 757 could fit in that hole or that the piloting skills of Hani Hanjour on American 77 could even be possible but only be done by a very skilled pilot which people have said he did not have. The five frames of video captured by the parkinglot cam is in direct conflict of the flight recorder information released by NSTB. There really is no need to go into all the evidence of why it is very unlikely that it is all possible that AA77 hit the pentagon so why do you think it is laughable at the suggestion that the people could work for the government, I really dont understand that unless your point should be and only be that he shouldnt comment on his opinion on what might be the case as we cannot say for sure as he stated first time but I think later he only interjected opinion which to me fits one of the only three possible things that could of happened to the people on that passenger list-
A. they worked for government are all ok
B. they got on the plane and were taken somewhere else and terminated which then we cannot assume that happened with the pilot with all the info that has came out about him and his working at the pentagon and on the same kind of scenario prior to working for american
C. the names are not real people which I doubt because what if someone followed up on each and everyone of them, seems to me only A and B seem likely they either were killed by the government or they work for the government.

This is just my theory and not fact but I would like a response from Fintan at what he thinks happened to these people then because I really dont find the idea so laughable but very plausible indeed.

PS. Just FYI for anyone interested in airline trivia when they revived or so it appeared Pan Am it was really Eastern Airlines leftover assests who purchased the Pan Am logo or so that was what we were told, I did subcontract work in reservations for them, they subcontracted out all their reservations to a company called Oasis. The first day of work they had the scottich guy dressed up playing the bagpipes before you entered the door which now looking back might of had more significance than I knew at the time also they had bought the old seaplanes back we used to use out of Key West and to Bahamas that also were used by Chalks.
It is also interesting to note that eastern had a crash on Sept 11, 1974 killing all passengers on board. In my opinion, that some high level CEO's of very large companies are masons either with the York or Scottish Rite or members of our favorite skull and bones society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You said ,"You are not one of those people who thinks that all of the people that were on that plane that hit the pentagon are still alive and working for the united states government?"

It was an inside joke, referring to comments made by Jimmy Walters in an interview when he was in full-on 'fruitloop mode'

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
wantanswers



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I fully understand that it was a joke and he said several times how he thought that the guy wasnt credible by saying they worked for the government so I want to know why is it not credible that all the passengers could be alive and work for the government since it seems to me either
the three scenarios I described above with the last one not really a possiblilty since they know people will hunt down the names and check.

So I dont get what point you are making Fintan clearly states he thinks that is a ridiculous assumption and I want to know why he thinks that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wantanswers



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

after i did more research on pentagon crash and according to what i could gather from different sources most seem to think if they were going to use a plane they would make it look as similar as they can to the real plane, and after reading thoroughly pilotsfor911truth.com analysis of the crash I guess since they have not ruled out that it can not be ruled out that it was either the 757 or a drone that was designed to be very similar with that said I guess it is a possiblility that all psgrs could of died on scene however unlikely i feel that is considering none of us were present and i guess this might be Fintan's position I dont know since he didnt answer was just curious on what he thought. I also wonder does anyone know if any remains at all were found of the passengers at that crash site, bones anything, I do not remember reading much of what was found of the passengers and how they determine all the dna of each person, just curious. Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Pilots Reply with quote

Quote:
and after reading thoroughly pilotsfor911truth.com analysis of the crash I guess since they have not ruled out that it can not be ruled out that it was either the 757 or a drone that was designed to be very similar


I have not ruled out the possibility that the pilots for 911 truth may not be particularly reliable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wantanswers



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I worked for Pan Am also till Dec 3, 1991 the last day of our employment when we went to work and were told to go home without any notice that they were going under. I remember one of the pilots listed on the list and met him once very briefly, as at one time i was thinking of transferring out of reservations and into flight attendant position but didnt because i didnt want to loose my senority since it was a different union and if I had of, I wouldnt of been there till the end because I would of been cut out with the layoffs since my senority would of started over. I have to say that he seemed like a genuine and very nice person from what I remember. Pan Am was one of the best companies I worked for as far as people go, it was like one big family and most people were very kind to each other , I guess its hard to explain unless you have worked for an airline most all looked out for each other. I find looking at the data recorded there to be reliable, could their be disinformation agents there, yes of course since these donkeys infiltrate every group including this one, but on a whole it looks like good data and facts to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:25 pm    Post subject: flyin high Reply with quote

Quote:
I find looking at the data recorded there to be reliable, could their be disinformation agents there, yes of course since these donkeys infiltrate every group including this one, but on a whole it looks like good data and facts to me.


Understood -

I'm certainly not suggesting every airline employee is a spy, nor am I singling out the 'pilots' as being a group of 'rogue disinformationalists' infiltrating the 'movement'. I'm not implying that every individual involved in a 'truth group' is an intelligence agent. I'm simply commenting on the curiously consistent handful of researchers and activists involved with the organization of these groups and sites.

I'm sure there are many good hearted folks attempting to unravel the mysteries of 911 and honestly disseminate information they can not reconcile with reality. I expect this is true within the ranks of just about every group of 'truthers'.

All I'm pointing out is that this group, like most of the high profile 'truth' sites on the net, appears to be organized by the same group of researchers and activists whose questionable opinions and evidence have sheparded the truth movement from the beginning.

I mean, it's virtually impossible to find a '911truth' discussion that isn't dominated by the conclusions of these celebrity conspiracists:

Quote:
Also included are a handful of folks deeply involved in the 'truth' movement, and peripherally related to aviation, mostly through 911 truth activities.

For example:


[...]

Researchers

Sofia a.k.a. "Smallstorm"
Writer, Director, Researcher
911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions

David Ray Griffin
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology
Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University
Author or editor of some 30 books
"The New Pearl Harbor"
"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"
"Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11"
"The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God"
"9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"
Scholars For Truth, Full Member

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Physics Professor (retired)
Ph.D. in Physics from Vanderbilt University
Chairperson of several international physics conferences
Research conducted at major laboratories in USA, Canada, United Kingdom and Japan
Over fifty peer-reviewed publications, including Nature, Scientific American and Physical Review Letters
Journal of 9/11 Studies - Focus on Goals
Why Indeed Did The World Trade Center Buildings Collapse




Not to mention, most of the high profile groups, including this one, appear to be organized by 'retired' officers and employees of military and corporate intelligence agencies - the same types of agencies these 'truth' sites claim to be investigating.

For example, the third avaition professional on the list of founding pilots is:

Quote:
John Lear
Son of Bill Lear (Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11


They even provide a link to Mr. Lear's Wiki entry, which reads:

Quote:

John Lear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lear (b. 1942) is an accomplished former pilot and well-known Ufologist. He is the son of aviation pioneer, inventor and founder of the Lear Jet Corporation, Bill Lear.

Aviation background
John Lear, now retired from flying, amassed over 19,000 hours of flight time, and has flown in over 100 different types of airplanes in 60 different countries around the world. He flew both commercially and in missions worldwide for the CIA. John Lear is the only pilot to hold every airman certificate issued by the FAA, and has held many world records. [1]

[...]

Involvement with Bob Lazar and Area 51 / S-4
In the summer of 1988, John met a physicist named Bob Lazar, and soon became intimately involved in the Area 51 / S-4 story. It is claimed that Lazar worked at the S-4 test site (approx. 10 miles south of Area 51) from December 1988 to March 1989, where he took part in the reverse engineering of extraterrestrial craft. During this time Lazar relayed information to Lear about his alleged activities and experiences there.

During this time both Lear and Lazar claim that they were able to acquire a piece of the fuel that powered the craft, Element 115, conducting several experiments that proved the high gravitational attraction and heaviness of the element, among other things. Though, apparently, this evidence was "stolen" back.

Around March 1989 Bob Lazar, John Lear, Gene Huff and others organized several trips into the desert to view test flights from a distance. On one of these excursions, Lear claims to have witnessed a glowing yellow-orange, disc-shaped object that rose above the mountains at Groom Lake while looking through a Celestron telescope. On one of these trips, the group was eventually caught, and shortly thereafter, Bob Lazar ceased working at the test site.

In late 1989 KLAS-TV reporter George Knapp interviewed John Lear, which resulted in Knapp interviewing Bob Lazar and breaking the Area 51 / S-4 story to the public.


1990s to Present

In the mid to late '90s, John Lear had a break from UFO research. In November 2003 Lear appeared on the popular Coast to Coast AM radio show to give an interview (first time in a decade) with Art Bell, where he shared his views on UFO Disclosure, among other topics.


In March 2004 he appeared in another interview discussing revelations and theories about the moon. Most recently John Lear has become a regular posting member on the conspiracy based discussion forums fantasticforum.com (Coast to Coast AM discussion forum) [2], and Abovetopsecret.com [3] where his Moon Photo Anomalies discussion thread has become very popular.

A third interview on Coast to Coast occurred in January of 2007, with Richard C. Hoagland, discussing their theories regarding artificial structures and life on the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lear


So, one of the leading 'pilots' is a corporate billionaire, ex CIA pilot, and prominent 'UFOlogist' working with other known disinformationalists.

More than just a "whatever...", IMO.

These are the types of common coincidences that keep me from wholeheartedly embracing analysis offered by groups like the truth pilots. It's nothing personal - I'm just not comfortable considering information without also considering the source... anymore. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm    Post subject: Jimmy Walter Reply with quote

Wantanswers,
in ANSWER to your specific question, I think we all ack and were aware of the Northwoods-fake students proposal.

However, the scenario in question is that Mr. Jimmy Walter, Millionaire 'angel' of 9-11 Truthiness, who also believes that Tower 2 was hit by a blue hologram not the plane which thousands of people saw, started out telling CNN viewers that he was not the best person qualified to answer the question of what happened to the passengers.

Further: Anyone can speculate ... but that's unwise to do publicly on many issues.

Later, while appearing on a television show by Penn & Teller which is appropriately tilted BULLSHIT, the same Mr. Walter told the camera that he FIRMLY BELIEVES that all the passengers are
a) alive
b) working for the government (CIA?)

despite the near-complete absence of evidence leading to this conclusion ... except for of course historical and parallel information from 1962.

Had Walter actually STATED (unless it was clipped) that his FIRM BELIEFS were based on Operation Northwoods, then Mr. Penn or Teller could have engaged in a debate with him on the plausible relevance vs. irrelevance of this officially-documented fact that the govt previously planned to murder Americans for political/propaganda reasons. Now, THAT would have been an exciting and provocative BULLSHIT show -- which is why it didn't happen.

All the "Truthers" get to huddle on their side of the web, going "what about Northwoods?" while all the arrogant anti-skeptics on the other side of the web get to smugly discuss what an idiot Jimmy Walter is and how all his followers and 9-11 Truthers are all a bunch of douchebags.

It's hard to construct a better outcome than this. That's the story behind what Fintan was referring to.

Even if you suspect that something like this might be a possible thread in some scenario, you can't go on TV or online and say that you firmly believe something so utterly fantastic ... especially when it's MORE likely that the CIA would have simply ruthlessly murdered all the unlucky passengers ... unless you think that ALL the victim's families and friends are also lying. (Frankly, I suspect they would have murdered all the "students" in 1962 as well, if JFK had signed it ... they just did not type that into the document.)
Back to top
wantanswers



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for that Smile you make very valid points both of you and thanks for clearing up about Mr. Walters as I was not familiar with him or what he had said before, or briefly heard and did not pay too close attention. Thanks for answering and clearing it up for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wu Li



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wu Li wrote:
OK SIMPLETON VERSION!!
So maybe flight 93 was the plane to hijacked
Then it would allow you to use your planned exercises to do even worse as you planned and use this event to your advantage.
Shoot down 93 perhaps but the worst which you have planned for in exercises have already happened (911).
Why would this be so crazy?
Not any crazier than Scalar tech?
In other words create the hijacking event at the same time you are holding many military events taking place at the same time.
So many different options to be had AREN'T THERE?
I give up!! and I choose to fight this World Globalization Plan which is linked directly to this event.
Laughing
As I hear a sweet voice singing in the "A" room next to me.
Laughing
Early on I spent all my money on a recording studio for appreciation.
What a smart chap!
All paid for
Ignorance may eventually win me:wink:

appreciation

_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:15 pm    Post subject: newest article by David McGowan - 2007 July 4 Reply with quote

David McGowan posted a new addition (part 6) to his series on Flight 93 today,www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr91.html , while bashing the Disinfo movement.

Some excerpts:

Quote:
One such long-forgotten detail is that spokesmen for United Airlines initially reported that there were 45 persons on board Flight 93 that fateful day – 38 passengers (including the four hijackers) and seven crew members. Several days after the attacks, however, at the very same time that the Todd Beamer story was hitting the press, the airline abruptly revised the passenger count to 37. To explain the discrepancy, “United issued a statement Sunday [September 16, 2001] saying one of the 37 passengers had purchased two tickets, so the number of people had been incorrectly reported as 45.” (“’Let’s Roll,’ Flight 93 Victim Heard to Say Before Crash,” ThePittsburghChannel.com, September 16, 2001) Airline spokesmen failed to explain why it took five full days to realize that there was allegedly a duplicate name on the curiously short passenger list.

The airline also declined to identify the passenger or give a reason for his or her alleged purchase of an additional seat, thus making the claim difficult to investigate, if anyone had been so inclined. At the time, no one really questioned the explanation for the revised passenger count, but in retrospect, United’s claim seems rather suspect. After all, even if someone had needed or wanted a little extra personal space, there was no reason for them to have paid extra for that luxury, given that the aircraft could seat around 200 passengers and only 38 tickets were sold. If they so desired, every passenger on that plane could have spread out across their very own row of seats, for the price of a single ticket.

What conclusion then should we draw from this curious tidbit of lost history? One possibility is that there was in fact a 38th passenger, one whose existence was denied so that his identity would remain forever concealed – and for a very good reason: that 38th passenger, you see, could very well have been the real post-hijacking pilot of United Airlines Flight 93.

Another aspect of the Flight 93 story that has been long forgotten is that one theory/rumor that was circulating very early on, but that never really took root, was that one member of each hijacking team was already in the cockpit, sitting in a jump seat, before the planes ever left the ground. Real airline pilots, or those who can be passed off as real airline pilots, are routinely afforded that privilege, so such a scenario is entirely plausible. Once the official story began to take shape, however, such talk quickly subsided. Perhaps it is time to bring it back.

Consider, if you will, that all of the callers from Flight 93 were consistent in claiming that they only saw three hijackers. At no time throughout their ordeal did any of the passengers see the fourth hijacker that the government steadfastly maintains was aboard that plane. But how could that be? The most reasonable explanation that comes to mind is that the fourth man was already in the cockpit before the plane took off and thus was never seen by passengers.

Consider also that none of the callers – several of whom spoke at length about what had transpired on the doomed flight – spoke of a violent takeover of the cockpit. None of them, in fact, gave any indication that they had any idea how control of the plane had been gained, even though, as has already been discussed, several of the callers were seated in either first-class or business-class seats, from where they should have been able to hear and probably even see any attempted takeover of the cockpit. Why then did none of them witness the cockpit takeover? Again, the most logical answer is that, contrary to how the scene plays out in Hollywood’s multiple versions of the event, there was no storming of the cockpit; control of the plane was gained quietly and efficiently by someone working within the cockpit.

Another forgotten fact about Flight 93 is that passenger Tom Burnett told his wife, Deena, that one of the hijackers “has a gun.” (www.tomburnettfamilyfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html) Deena Burnett has said that Tom, a gun enthusiast who had grown up around weapons, was well acquainted with guns and was quite sure that what he had seen was real. But how could a gun have made it through airport security (which, despite frequent claims to the contrary, was not all that lax prior to September 11, 2001)? The answer is that it almost certainly did not pass through security; it was either carried on by the 3rd pilot/38th passenger, bypassing normal passenger security, or it was planted somewhere on the plane, possibly in the cockpit, its location known to the mysterious 38th passenger.

It is not hard to imagine how a man with a gun, who was already within the cockpit and who was not considered a threat by the flight crew, could easily have taken both the pilot and the copilot by surprise, preventing either from sending out a hijacking alert. This mystery man could then have been joined, either at a set time or by some type of prearranged signal, by a couple of his associates conveniently seated nearby in first-class seats. Together, they could have quickly killed/disabled/restrained the two pilots, after which the unseen 38th passenger could have taken the wheel, so to speak – remaining unseen by any of the passengers – while one of the other men took the gun to use for crowd control, where it could then have been seen by first-class passenger Tom Burnett.

Speaking of crowd control, it should be noted that the hijackers had uncannily good luck in that regard, given that all four of the hijacked planes were flying that day, for reasons that have never been explained nor seriously questioned, with a suspiciously light load of passengers. In hindsight, it seems rather obvious that the likelihood of this mission succeeding would have been significantly reduced had the hijackers had to contend with, say, 175 passengers on each plane rather than just a few dozen. Equally obvious is that the ‘terrorists’ that the government has blamed for the attacks would have had no control over how these flights were booked, and yet they still managed to secure not just one, but four ridiculously under-booked flights to carry out their dastardly mission.

On just about any day other than September 11, 2001, the ‘terrorists’ would not likely have gotten so lucky. We know this because the size of the cabin crews assigned to these flights indicates that the passenger loads on September 11 were quite atypical. United Airlines Flight 93, for example, had five flight attendants on duty serving just 37 passengers. American Airlines Flight 11 had no less than nine flight attendants on board, apparently serving each other since most of the passenger seats were empty. Similarly, United Airlines Flight 175 had seven flight attendants on board, or about one for every seven ticketed passengers. Anyone who has flown in recent years with American or United, or with any other domestic airline, knows that that level of service is hardly the norm.

.....
Quote:
Speaking of 9-11 skeptics, it has occurred to me, while working on this post (at, I might add, a rather blistering pace that has left me feeling a bit fatigued), that perhaps the reason that the ‘truth’ movement has heaped so much scorn and derision upon both the passenger lists and the reported phone calls placed from Flight 93, is to discourage serious researchers from looking too closely at the details of those phone calls and passenger lists – for perhaps hidden in those details is something approximating the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001. And the truth, needless to say, would be a most unwelcome addition to the 9-11 ‘truth’ movement.

....
Quote:
there are several clear indications that this had to have been an inside job:

First, the planners of this mission had to be absolutely certain that the mysterious 38th passenger (and, obviously, his counterparts on the three other flights) would be afforded the privilege of being seated in the cockpit.

Second, it had to be assured that this person would have access to a gun – either one that he carried on himself, or one that was planted for him.

Third, the four flights had to be deliberately under-booked to help insure the success of the operation.

Fourth, all of these facts had to be covered up and/or glossed over.

....

Quote:
One question concerning Flight 93 that begs for an answer is: what happened to the rest of the plane (and, of course, the plane’s contents, including the passengers)? Officially at least, only a small fraction of the plane was ever recovered, leaving nearly 100 tons of aircraft unaccounted for. Since it seems very unlikely that either a crash or a missile strike would have reduced nearly the entire plane to confetti, the obvious question is: what became of all the wreckage?

That, alas, is not an easy question to answer. The problem arises from the fact that the alleged ‘crash’ site, along with a large swath of the surrounding countryside, was sealed off from public view in near-record time. As one early report noted, “The curious were kept more than 3 miles from the crash site.” (Ken Zapinski “A Blur in the Sky, Then a Firestorm,” St. Petersburg Times, September 12, 2001) A veritable “army of 400 troopers, 16 mounted police officers and three helicopters” was quickly assembled to secure the perimeter of the restricted zone. (Tom Gibb “FBI Ends Site Work, Says No Bomb Used,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 25, 2001) Some residents were barred from their homes for the duration of the search. At least seven people were arrested in the first two weeks after the attacks for committing the unpardonable sin of trying to breach the perimeter to get a look at the purported final resting place of Flight 93.

The FBI was clearly quite concerned with keeping prying eyes away from the alleged crash site. What were they afraid might be seen? While the curious were kept at bay, an unknown number of FBI agents (along with, undoubtedly, various other shadowy government operatives) presumably occupied themselves with finding evidence. To aid in those efforts, “A self-piloting helicopter developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute was sent to Somerset County yesterday afternoon to aid the FBI in its investigation of Tuesday’s crash of United Airlines Flight 93. The 14-foot-long helicopter is outfitted with a laser rangefinder that can quickly produce a highly detailed, three-dimensional map of the impact crater and the surrounding spread of debris … the aerial map can include objects as small as one or two inches in diameter … The aerial map may help identify key evidence faster than it might be found by physically canvassing the area.” (Byron Spice “Self-Piloting Copter from CMU Aids in Mapping Somerset Crash Site,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 13, 2001)

So the FBI was clearly also quite worried about possibly leaving some speck of evidence behind. And yet, with no shortage of manpower, technology or commitment, some 90% of the plane was allegedly never recovered. How could that be? Two possible answers come to mind: there never was any plane, or at least not one that blew up near Shanksville, Pennsylvania; or considerably more airplane wreckage was recovered than has been, or ever will be, officially acknowledged.

As previously stated, it seems reasonable to conclude that something exploded in the air over Shanksville. A fair amount of debris was recovered, much of it by rank-and-file citizens who gathered it from around their nearby homes and farms. And if there was nothing more for the government to conceal than a small crater serving as a fake crash site, then why was such a large area cordoned off? What were all those state and federal agents so diligently guarding? And what was it that searchers were looking for?

Though impossible to verify, my best guess is that they were searching for exactly what they found: large chunks of Flight 93 that came to rest far from the alleged crash site. The existence of these pieces, of course, could not be officially acknowledged since it would be difficult to explain how a light breeze could transport bulky pieces of aircraft fuselage over great distances. And it certainly wouldn’t have been difficult to ‘disappear’ the troublesome wreckage given the extraordinary level of security around the restricted zone.

Another lingering question surrounding Flight 93 concerns the precise time that it crashed/exploded. There are three relevant times to consider here: 9:58 AM, the time at which all communications from the plane reportedly ceased; 10:03 AM, the time that, according to the official story that eventually took shape, Flight 93 plowed into the ground; and 10:06 AM, the time that was initially widely reported and accepted as the time of the ‘crash,’ until the 9-11 Commission said otherwise, with the alleged CVR (cockpit voice recorder) to back up their claim.

According to one media report, “A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent – according to government-prepared transcripts – and the time top scientists have pinpointed for the crash. Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 a.m., give or take a couple of seconds. Family members allowed to hear the cockpit voice recorder in Princeton, N.J., last spring were told it stopped just after 10:03.” In the same report, we find that “’The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10:06:05,’ plus or minus two seconds, said Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events. ‘I don’t know where the 10:03 time comes from.’ Likewise, a written study commissioned by the Department of Defense – carried out by seismologists from Columbia University and the Maryland Geological Survey – also determined impact was at 10:06:05.” (William Bunch “Three-Minute Discrepancy in Tape,” Philadelphia Daily News, September 16, 2002)

There would seem, at first glance, to be a bit of a conflict between the seismic data and the official 9-11 Commission report.

In September 2002, however, the ever-popular Terry Wallace spoke with Discover Magazine and in doing so he may have unwittingly solved the mystery of the three-minute discrepancy: “’The UA flight produced a significant signal, consistent with a fully-loaded jet that was intact, or nearly intact, on impact.’ That finding disputes rumors that the hijacked jet was shot down, he says, because a missile or other explosion would have broken the craft into smaller pieces that would have caused less seismic disturbance. The Pan Am crash [sic] over Lockerbie, Scotland, which blew apart in midair, produced only a faint signal, even though the crash [sic] occurred close to an array of ground-motion sensors.” (Lauren Gravitz “Seismic Waves: The Ultimate Black Box,” Discover Magazine, September 2002)

What we know then, thanks to Mr. Wallace, is that the destruction of an airplane in the air will not produce a significant seismic signal. We also know that the vast majority of the available evidence clearly indicates that Flight 93 was indeed destroyed in the air. We can therefore safely conclude that the seismic event that occurred at 10:06:05 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 was not directly related to the termination of Flight 93. What did produce that significant seismic signal, needless to say, was the explosion that created the legendary crater near Shanksville – an explosion that a witness described as “like an atom bomb hit.” (“Flight 93 Passenger Said He Planned Action,” ThePittsburghChannel.com, September 12, 2001)

What we are obviously dealing with here are two separate events.One of those events, the creation of the Shanksville crater, occurred at precisely 10:06:05 AM. But that tells us only that at 10:06:05 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001, some type of explosive device, likely an air-to-ground missile, was detonated on the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, either to destroy a large portion of the plane that had landed there, or simply to create a crude, improvised ‘crash’ site. This would have occurred, we can reasonably infer, sometime shortly after the actual destruction of Flight 93.

We are left then with two possible times for that event: 9:58 AM and 10:03 AM.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anybody notice that Dave McGowan's site has been down the last few days ? http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/
I've never seen it down before.

The message I get is :
Quote:
www.davesweb.cnchost.com Temporarily Unavailable

This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.