View Single Post
Old 8th October 2013, 10:54 AM   #284
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.
If you want to find someone misrepresenting facts look in the mirror. How many examples do we have of you doing that so far?

Quote:
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.
Curious that of the scores of detailed interviews first-term Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller gave you picked out just one sentence, from one statement, removed from all context – why is that?

The answer to your question about why Miller made those particular observations is quite obvious when you don’t remove the context. The aircraft nose-dived into the ground at very high speed, burying itself in a crater which then collapsed on itself. It left no large, clearly identifiable pieces of debris, no intact bodies and no doubt by the time he got there the scene was eerily quiet. This seems like a no-brainer. I would in fact expect exactly those sorts of observations under the circumstances.

Same thing with Scott Spangler and Patrick Madigan’s observations of not finding large, clearly identifiable pieces of airplane. We are used to aircraft accidents occurring during take-off or landing where the impact speed is relatively low and the impact angle relatively shallow, often leaving much of the plane intact.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im...ne.crash.1.jpg

http://inothernewz.com/wp-content/up...ft-crashes.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AtXmS311Vn...0/aircrash.jpg

http://resources1.news.com.au/images...-air-crash.jpg

That is NOT what happened in Shanksville – the plane did not skid along the ground at low-speed, it dove almost straight in at very high speed - so there is no reasonable expectation that intact wings, tails and so on should be found. The most broadly analogous situation would be to a Kamikaze attack during WW2 – they didn’t find much aircraft wreckage after those either. I mean, were you seriously expecting they would find this:



At this point I guess my mind just boggles at what you think it is you have proved here. How does any of this establish anything different from what we already know - that Flight 93 after being taken over by hijackers nose-dived into a field in Shanksville where the remains of the aircraft and all the people aboard were recovered?

I certainly don't see how any of this supports claims of an insurance scam involving a real estate developer and the FDNY re: Building 7.

Quote:
Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it.
Technically speaking aircraft impact resistance was not a design requirement of either the customer or of city code and the twin towers were not actually designed specifically to survive aircraft impact. This was something that was studied after the design work was already completed, the impact in question being a Boeing 707 flying at 180mph. As it turns out both towers survived impacts 5 to 7 times greater than those crudely studied in 1964.

Again, what this has to do with an insurance scam regarding a real estate developer and the FDNY re: Building 7 boggles the mind.

Quote:
Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.


That was a joke, right?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 8th October 2013 at 10:55 AM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top