Where is the wreckage of UA 93?

Zweites Deutsches Ferhnsehn (ZDF), Germany's public television station, broadcasts an investigation into alternative accounts of 9/11 called "Mythos und Warheit: Der 11. September 2001." The documentary concludes there was no government conspiracy behind the attacks but describes what producer Michael Renz calls a "wall of silence" when he approached officials for information. "When officials are asked about 9/11 conspiracy theories they react by barricading themselves. For example: one of the greatest mysteries about the attacks on America is the apparently empty crater in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Where is the wreckage of Flight United 93? After asking United Airlines, we are told that the insurance company has the wreckage. But the responsible manager at that company is first in a meeting, then on a three-day business trip, which then becomes a several weeks-long intercontinental trip. During this time he cannot be reached by email or cell-phone--or so we are told by the secretary of one of the largest airline-insurance companies in the United States. After weeks and countless phone calls finally a brief answer: we do not have the wreckage. The FBI in Washington is in charge. The FBI press officer is surprisingly open and cooperative. There will be no interview about 9/11 but he will certainly give permission to film the wreckage. After all, the investigations have ended and there is no reason to exclude the public. Alas! The FBI no longer has the wreckage. It has been returned to United Airlines. Back to square one! Yes, we have the wreckage, says the airline after a new inquiry. But no permission to film. No reason given. All inquiries to government officials, and most to private companies, end this way. Apparently no one wants to have anything to do with 9/11." The producer describes similar difficulties when he tried to obtain permission to film inside a Boeing flight simulator or when he approached New York officials to ask them about the fireproofing in the WTC. "But when we talk with officials off-the-record, many say a gag-order has been handed from the top. There is widespread fear of getting into trouble by talking."

Article :

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091107renz#a091107renz

Tick-tock... More suspicion and circumstantial evidence that things are not as we are told.

WTF IIRC most of the plane was recovered.

I]“Miller, the director of a family-run funeral home and elected county coroner for Somerset, Pa., said only eight per cent of the wreckage was recovered. Everything else was vaporised, he said.”
(Edmonton Journal, 3/28/04)
article reprinted here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/280304_crash.html

Aint it interesting that according to the FBI the wreckage was also never identified?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406
Same as the identity of the alleged hijackers was never positively identified.

how do you think all those remains got there?

What are you trying to say? That there was no plane at all? What are you trying to get at besides "just asking questions?' After 7 years isn't time for you to step up an propose a theory on what happened? Because I just don't get what you think happened.

don't have to get what others think happened! It's for the investigation to find out what happened.

there will never be another one.

since there will never be another investigation you have a lifetime hobby.

In New York City. This will not be this Nov. but next year.......
That is what was reported yesterday at this event: http://communitycurrency.org/filmfestival2008.html

tell me of anything that was found on September 11 at the cash site that confirms your certainty that this was indeed UA 93.

they were all accounted for.

So how did those remains get there? A simple question don't you think?

"DNA linked the remains.."?
Who told you they were all accounted for?

First of all:
How much human remains were found at the crash site?
Have you ever heard of cases where evidence was planted at a crash site (eg Lockerbie)?
Have you ever heard of a DNA analysis that was faked?
In other words is there anything at the crash site on September 11 that seems to prove to you that the crash site was not faked?

unless you have something the truth movement has yet to find in 7 years.

In post 7 you state that the found remains are sufficient proof that UA 93 crashed there.
You've also stated that the DNA of the passengers is sufficient proof.
I've challenged both.
If both your arguments indeed aren't sufficient proof at all that UA 93 crashed in Shanksvilme maybe you start realizing that it would be very helpful to locate the wreckage of the plane.
Don't you find it amazing that apparently nobody has the wreckage?
Don't you find it amazing that it is very likely that FBI's claim of having recovered 95% is BS.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html

It would be very useful to this conversation if I understood your point? Are you saying that there was no crash but enough wreckage and body parts were quickly put in place to fool the many first responders that were on scene in minutes. They are all convinced that a plane crashed there - how were they fulled? Any ideas at all or are you just asking questions?

The first pics don't show any clearly identifiable parts.
The other pics show parts that have been found days AFTER 9/11.

My point is very simple:
Presenting the wreckage of UA 93 would be a proof beyound a shadow of a doubt that the plane did indeed crashed there.
You seem to believe that what was found at the crash site is irrefutable proof and therefore the presentation of the wreckage isn't needed.
So, either you have to prove that what was found on September 11 at the crash site is irrefutabke proof or you should agree that the wreckage should be presented.
As btw it often is the case in other plane crashs:


The same btw goes for the question:
Why weren't the alleged hijackers not positively identied?
Why in fact are basic procedures of a criminal investigation not done?

the plane you show did not. I think I see your problem - you don't understand kinetic energy - don't forget that the velocity is squared so speed of impact is the critical difference.

if you do have 95% of the wreckage you should be able to reconstruct a bit of the plane, no?
Shall I post the Lockerbie plane that was blown up in 35,000 feet....?

Andre, you ask:

"is there anything at the crash site on September 11 that seems to prove to you that the crash site was not faked?"

The obvious answer (which is, YES!), is uniformly supported by the testimony of all first responders to the crash, including Wallace Miller and two others who were second and third on the scene, all of whom I have spoken to myself. That testimony establishes beyond reasonable questioning that shortly after a plane was seen to be in distress over Shanksville, PA, a huge crash occurred, immediately after which (by which I mean just a minute or two) a huge field of debris containing airplane parts, human remains and airplane cargo was visible.

So: for that site to have been faked:

1. The airplane in distress would have had to have recovered, and recovered in a way that no one saw it do so, since no one reports seeing such a recovery; and

2. Secret agents would have to have been on hand at the approximate location of the expected crash (since we have reports from eyewitnesses who saw it screaming just overhead, and hearing it crash shortly thereafter) to plant the crash debris everywhere, and to produce a HUGE explosion at just the right moment. The crash debris, remember, was EVERYWHERE: in the trees, on Barry Hoover's roof, all over his woods, etc. Remember that huge trees were torched by the explosion, and others were literally blown out of the ground by its force.

Your thesis thus requires that these secret agents were in possession of huge amounts of recently-alive HUMAN REMAINS which they somehow deposited at the 'crash site', in a very short amount of time, with no one watching, in a fashion that was not likely to draw suspicion form those who came to the crash site afterward (like Miller) to investigate.

How likely is that, Andre?

You see, it's not like Lockerbie, because no one is saying that crash site is faked. In that case the CIA tampered with evidence (faked it) to cast suspicion where it did not belong - a terrible crime, but nothing like 'faking a crash site'.

Could key evidence have been faked or planted? Sure. But that is very different than saying no plane crashed there. As for whether I can guarantee that the plane was UA 93, I am not taking that question up here. I don't doubt that it was, but if you want to argue that it wasn't, I'll let someone else present the counterargument.

Thanks for your answer.
I have respectfully to disagree.
Everything you do present does not prove beyound the shadow of a doubt that a plane (and as you do admit certainly it doesn't prove beyound a shadow of a doubt that UA 93) crashed there.
Only if this would be the case the presentation of the wreckage of the plane would be superfluous.
In fact ONLY the presentation of the wreckage would prove thata plane crashed there and that teh plane was UA 93.
So where is the wreckage?
Why was it not even presented as evidence in the Moussaoui trial?
Why does apparently NOBODY know where the wreckage is??


But back to your argument.
You state:
"The obvious answer (which is, YES!), is uniformly supported by the testimony of all first responders to the crash, including Wallace Miller and two others who were second and third on the scene, all of whom I have spoken to myself. That testimony establishes beyond reasonable questioning that shortly after a plane was seen to be in distress over Shanksville, PA, a huge crash occurred, immediately after which (by which I mean just a minute or two) a huge field of debris containing airplane parts, human remains and airplane cargo was visible."

If youlook at the witnesses who reported on or immediately after 9/11 (and not thre years later) they speak a very different language:

“If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated,” Delano said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane …. Just like a big pile of charcoal,” Barron said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

John Walsh: "When I got there, the plane was obliterated. You couldn't see the cockpit or the wings or nothing."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Lee Purbaugh: “There was nothing there. Everything was shredded.”
(Among the Heroes, 299)

Nick Tweardy : “You couldn’t see nothing,” said Nick Tweardy, 20, of Stonycreek Township. “We couldn’t tell what we were looking at. There’s just a huge crater in the woods.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html

Nina Lensbouer: "But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

And also officials state the same:
"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.
(Cox News Service, 9/12/01 b)

Lyle Szupinka, State Police Major : "If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash”.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

There is one statement that seems to imply the contrary:
"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0911p4.asp


As for human remains you've mentioned the witnesses again speak a very differen language:

“Peterson said he saw no bodies at the scene, but saw no signs of life, either.”
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/957434/index.html

Somebody who saw slightly more:
“He (Dave Fox) saw three chunks of torn human tissue.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90823.html

and somebody with a very trained eye agrees with the above mentioned observation:
“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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8¬Found=true

And:
"This is the most eerie thing," he says. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90823.html


When they describe what they see:

“He (Coroner Wallace Miller) 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.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8¬Found=true

"If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap," said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. "There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

And a very rare close up supports this impression:


"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane,” said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.
(Cox, 9/12/01 b)


Your point 1. Difficut but possible (sorry, this certainly doesn't constitute a proof beyound the shadow of a doubt)
Your point 2.
If you have a look how the secret service can manage to plant evidence and control a crash site in foreign countries (eg Lockerbie and the AL Al crash close to Amsterdam) you would be more cautious.
In fact one only needs to have a prepared crater (with explosives) one person one the ground and to assure that the plane comes this way.
Keep in mind that besides Lee Purbaugh NOBODY saw the crash.
So, certainly it would be difficult to fake the crash site.
But you fail to prove beyound a shadow of a doubt that it would be possible.
Therefore I underline my request that in order to establish the truth the wreckage should be presented and I really don't understand why (as with the request for a positive identification of the alleged hijackers) this is not obvious to people.

Btw (I don't want to discuss this in order not to change tghe topic of the OP but as you've talked to people in Shanksville):
Did you also talk to people at Indian Lake (Marina)?
And what do you make of the fact that people east of the crash site witnessed the plane that they believed crashed coming from the east to the crash site
and all the other witnesses who saw the plane approaching the crash site from northeast before disappearing behind the trees?
Thanks.

And do you believe he gets it so wrong to believe it was 8% (so almost nothing which btw corresponds perfectly to all the eyewitnesses) than 95% which means they found almost everything of the plane.
As usual people simply believe instead of asking that
alleged hijackers are positively identified
all the plane wreckage is presented
etc etc

Is he an expert on jetliners? We are talking about the amount eventually recovered NOT what was visible on the surface so the 'eyewitnesses' you speak of are utterly useless.

Aside from a theory of the gaps argument, is their any evidence that the coroners figure is even remotely accurate?

it appears he was talking about human remains, not wreckage:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8

... so I guess Miller goes back on Andre's liar list?

EVER called somebody a liar?

... whether or not you "call" them a liar.

:eyes:

Oooonh? :think:

That must be French for "I must scratch!"

... "Have you been hitting the cooking sherry again?"

You mistake me for some Julia Childs sherry swilling Frenchie, don't you?

So wrong.

... then I guess there must be some other reason your reply made no sense.

She was from Baaahhhston.

Not believing somebody is far from calling somebody a "liar".
Sorry, my world view is not so simplistic:
I believ the world is more complicated than claiming "Either you're with us or you're withthe terrorists"

Either human remains were recovered from that hole, or Miller is lying; there isn't any way he could simply be mistaken about that. Either those remains were identified by DNA as the Flight 93 passengers, or the lab test people are lying. Whether or not you "call" anyone a liar is irrelevant; doubting that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville is equivalent to calling a lot of people liars.

But anyway, my sarcastic comment was about how you found one piece of what Miller said that contradicted what the FBI said, so you gave credibility to that piece (while implicitly discounting everything else he said). With that one piece apparently being a misunderstanding, I assume that Miller reverts to your "unbelievable" list, whether or not you call him a liar. It just amuses me how "truthers" sift and filter eyewitness testimony to suit their agenda.

The coroner's statement might be misquote (to be checked out btw)
so the FBI might be right in their claim.
So we don't need to see the wreckage.
So we don't need to know where the wreckage is today.
This is the same logic of wishful thinking that never talks of burden of proof and standard procedures and even has no problem with the fact that the alleged hijackers weren't positively identified.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html

Here's some pictures of the wreckage at the crash site:

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html

see OP.
So where is it?

Read the entire thing.

the OP is based on a documentary done in 2007. So where was the wreckage last year and where is it NOW?

indeed. One of my questions is based by the text of the OP.
Yet, the question remains:
Why doesn United Airline not show the wreckage and even at first apparently lies about the wreckage:
"After asking United Airlines, we are told that the insurance company has the wreckage."
And why do not even photosof the 95% of the wreckage have been presented at the Moussasoui trial.
Why in general do they never present evidence they could present?

As an aside:
Do you agree that the alleged hijackers should be positively identified?