want sources? I give you #@% sources!

[W4d5Y]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
search for "flash".
That'll explain everything.

 

[Absinthe]

Sources out the ass!

 

[W4d5Y]

Oh! More sources!
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

flashes confirmed! Again! by another firefighter! Woopiddidlydoo my ass, biatch!


//editz: Moooore sources!!!
http://abclocal.go.com/images/wabc/2005/TurilliThomas_firefighter.pdf

The door closed, they went up, and it just
seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just
heard like it almost actually that day sounded like
bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or (<structural failure? Trusses failing? Or pre-collapse procedure initiated
eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my by bombs???)
officer just actually took all of us and just threw us
down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of
us, laid on top of us. There were rocks falling and
all that. The lights were still on at that point and
all of a sudden the lights went out and you couldn't
see anything.
At this point, there's a guy from my
firehouse on his way up in the elevator. They got up
to the 22nd floor and 13 Truck got off the elevator.
He said to the guy -- this is before the actual
collapse happened. He said to him stay here with us,
stay here with me, because if this elevator closes, I
don't have any tools. As soon as he said that, the
elevator closed and that's when the actual collapse of
the building happened.

//edit: ZOMG!!! EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF BOMBS!!!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF

Meanwhile we were standing there with about
five companies and we were just waiting for our
assignment and then there was an explosion in the south
tower, which according to this map, this exposure just
blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point.
I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One
floor under another after another and when it hit about
the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it
looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I
was there in '93.

Woot! Another source! Clicky!
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

facilities manager Theresa Veliz explains her perception of the vents in the north tower:

There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.

 

[Absinthe]

This evidence is incontrovertible.

I mean, the dude saw flashes.

 

[Gunner]

tldr

roflcakes

 

[W4d5Y]

Hello?
I couldn't say all of the explosion-accounts were indicating bombs, but have you ever heard of this fireman who said he was walking the stairs in the world trade center and suddenly...got blown, but from below?!
And THAT is supposed to be bodies falling onto the street? A hot rush of air climbing up the stairs, knocking his helmet off, throwing him up the stairs??!

//edit: point 4 of the page is the "start clearing out" matter...
that video with the statement "bomb in the building" might not be from 9/11, but did you know the fire and police departments were really concidering that there was "secondary devices" in the building, as the corporate media put it in those days?

So!? CUT point 4, all those lovely debunkers do in this instance is that they throw 9 F*CKING ATTEMPTS OF DEBUNKING at you, only to spread enough counter-theories to irrate you...
I mean, one minute they say the accounts of bombs were falsely quoted, and the next they tell you that bombs don't mean government insiders planted those (because bush's brother was head of securacom, responsible for security at dulles airport, united airlines *I think* AND the world trade center, but who couldn't be accounted for certain problems with wtc's security because he resigned on september the 10th? Coiincidence?) because they could have been planted by terrorists...

What?
I thought their claim was, there wasn't any bombs and that all of the conspiracy theories were soooo easily debunkable???

Why do they have to hide behind a thousand reasons then???

 

[99.vikram]

Wow...the stupidity...it staggers the mind :|

 

[No Limit]

all those lovely debunkers do in this instance is that they throw 9 F*CKING ATTEMPTS OF DEBUNKING at you, only to spread enough counter-theories to irrate you...

No ****ing way? We wouldn't possibly want people doing something like that? Like say for example, people that take a report which is hundreds of pages long and take a couple sentences out of it to draw a completely different conclusion than what that report said. Or how "some" people keep pulling shit out of their asses and when that shit is debunked they just pull more out completely forgetting the previous claims they made.

Lol. Hypocracy at its finest.

 

[Tyguy]

im convinced :/

 

[simonjedi]

wow, your right, you've totally altered my look on 9/11. Thanks w4d5y for opening my eyes.

 

[Ennui]

This evidence is incontrovertible.

I mean, the dude saw flashes.

I think the tone (defined here as dripping, syrupy sarcasm) of this post pretty much sums up how I feel about this thread.

 

[Absinthe]

What?
I thought their claim was, there wasn't any bombs and that all of the conspiracy theories were soooo easily debunkable???

This is the only part I really understood of your incoherent mess, although I think the preceding was more of the same.

There is no single, all-encompassing conspiracy theory. There are many variants and "alternative" explanations. It is therefore inevitable that while some can be debunked outright based on their contradictions and fabrications, others cannot. However, this does not mean such theories are unassailable, as they still carry the burden of proof.

The page I linked to explains how easy it is to distort and misread information, which is what all "truthers" base their sad little conspiracies on. Its stance is that there is no credible evidence that there were bombs present and that there are countless other rational explanations for what took place that don't need the ****ing Illuminati crest stamped on them. In short, it is asking that you look at presented information with a critical eye instead of accepting some de facto nutjob theory based on the scantest of evidence.

It is up to the conspiracy theorists to back up their claims. And the site shows just how vacuous a lot of them are. Thus far, you've posted a couple of eye witness testimonials that say nary a damn thing and just happen to include the word "bomb". You have to do better.

 

[W4d5Y]

Wrong.
Of course, my opinion is biased, that is quite obvious, if distracting, that I take any piece of information as a basis for conspiracy theories and conclude, somehow, that it was the government after all.

On the other hand, I have nothing else to assume.
I think the general idea that the government is to be blamed that such a total intelligence failure could happen on such a large scale (the cia interferred with the relay of information regarding the hijackers!!! THE CIA!!!) without some faction having an interest in all this...

There just isn't anything else to assume, if you look at killtown's smoking guns and all the stuff with "Comissioner Kean asked by bush to limit wtc probes".

Burden of Proof? Sure, but that won't alter my opinion!

people that take a report which is hundreds of pages long and take a couple sentences out of it to draw a completely different conclusion than what that report said

okay, let's see that again...What did Teresa Veliz say? That she thought there was bombs in the building!
Wrong quotation?

Hmm, startling question...
She stated she was

convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place

hmm, another startling question...
Kenneth Rogers, NY firerighter stated that he

figured it was a bomb

because it

looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing

Also added he had been at the same scene in '93, which also dealt with underground explosives.


Okay, sure, I have the burden of proof, I am to show up with some physical evidence probably, that there was this kind of reaction going on, that this damage is unexplainable on some of the collumns and that there is this kind of chemical residue...


Unfortunately! I am not a researcher! Means! I! Don't! Have! Access! To! World Trade Center! Probes! *yays*

Means, I couldn't *proove* there definitively WAS explosives used...

On the other hand, what else can I assume?
I'd say, most people tell me I'm all gullible and make unsupported claims and conclusions.

I know that, but I basically make one assumption: It is quite possible explosives were in place to bring the buildings down...not only because it *looked* like that, but also because of all these reports of secondary explosions...where did they come from?


How on earth could jet fuel create these massive explosions within the structure, way below the plane's actual impact zone?


Explain! Until you have a credible explanation for that, I'll happily go with the conspiracy theories and prisonplanet.

 

[Absinthe]

okay, let's see that again...What did Teresa Veliz say? That she thought there was bombs in the building!
Wrong quotation?

...

Kenneth Rogers, NY firerighter stated that he because it

...

Also added he had been at the same scene in '93, which also dealt with underground explosives.

Who the **** cares what they think? She was a software development employee. She is neither an expert nor an authority when it comes to explosives, physics, chemistry, and demolition.

And while Kenneth Rogers might have witnessed this bomb-like destruction back in 1993, it's questionable if he actually has the credentials to differentiate between a jet fuel catastrophe and demolitions. However, I have not read a full, clear-cut quote from him that expresses his belief that bombs were detonated. The account was of his initial impressions, not his eventual conclusions.

Eye-witness testimonies are also not even wholly reliable. Far from it.

On the other hand, what else can I assume?

You can assume that the towers collapsed entirely on their own, without demolitions. At the very least, you can try not to assume anything instead of resorting to craziness to fill the gaps.

How on earth could jet fuel create these massive explosions within the structure, way below the plane's actual impact zone?[/i]


Explain! Until you have a credible explanation for that, I'll happily go with the conspiracy theories and prisonplanet.

Extremely high temperatures, burning debris, flammable liquids pouring down the tower, and a structural inability to withstand such an unpredicted event? Why does it need to be more complex than that?

Also, citing Prison Planet with serious intent is just shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Anyone that believes this bullshit should be labeled criminally insane and shot in the face with a 12 gauge. And I mean that.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Holy shit. PROOF!

Oh wait.

 

[W4d5Y]

I believe the NIST. If they were the ones designated responsible by the government itself to persuade the people that this collapse was entirely natural in the first place, how much weight does the information have then that most of the fires were controllable and weak in nature?
(temperatures only higher than 250? celsius at some peaks, way below 600? celsius necessary to kick off the molten-metal phenomenon, the rubble being mysteriously about 1400? degrees hotter than the steel probes they received...

Oh, did you know comissioner kean was asked by bush to limit the wtc steel probes? For what reason???!)


The official pancake theory just has to be looked upon with scrutiny, accurate or not, and so far we'll have to *concider* alternate explanations and check those for scrutiny as well.


ask experts, even some, who are by nature experts on controlled demolitions...
http://911proof.com/10.html

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

ask experts, even some, who are by nature experts on controlled demolitions...
http://911proof.com/10.html

And a creationist with a degree in biology is a scientist.:|

 

[W4d5Y]

This is a foul attempt at discrediting those opinions...Opinions aren't proof, but you always think there wasn't anybody with academic career supporting those alternative ideas.

 

[golden_fang]

enjoy your ban.

 

[Absinthe]

I believe the NIST.

Evidently you do not, since the NIST's reports do not support the theory that there were bombs hidden in the buildings.

And your entire molten steel point is neatly addressed here.

You do not have an alternative explanation to the destruction of the towers. You have a loose collection of "facts" that you spew out and hope will fit together. Stop reading Prison Planet and all the other truther websites you have bookmarked and get a ****ing grip. You've been duped by specious, unscientific, amateur investigators and you're just parroting all their shit.

Jesus Christ, think about it. Contrary to whatever Hollywood has led you to believe, the US government does not have the competence or the organization to pull something like this off. Our history of covert operations has been riddled with failures and shortcomings. It's ridiculously implausible. You're like the new version of JFK assassination nuts. But surely... surely we would have some kind of concrete evidence by now if there really was a conspiracy at work here, right? After all, this would have to be a big operation, with many people involved to make it work. Certainly somebody would speak up now.

But that will never happen. Because there is no conspiracy. Wake up from fantasy land.

 

[Absinthe]

This is a foul attempt at discrediting those opinions...Opinions aren't proof, but you always think there wasn't anybody with academic career supporting those alternative ideas.

What's the important lesson here?

That intelligent people can be ****ing stupid.

 

[W4d5Y]

Gosh, I just have no clue...I can't figure how that pool of aluminium could have been created up in the tower...
Yeah, debunking's doing good, I just have my doubts...everybody has his doubts, but I just can't abandon the thought there might have been something up there alltogether...
Gosh, I'm no expert, but all those explosions literally tear my head apart.
It's just a bit much to analyse...
I mean, even the debunkers can be wrong.
A missile strike on a plane (like flight 93) wouldn't ground it at once, also, it would only disable the (hottest) engine it hit, sending it off flying...

Well, this is what happened...

About flight 93, what 911myths fails to mention is that the mayor of shanksville himself spoke of information that f-16s were close by (this is covered by a flight controller who also stated this) and that a vietnam veteran had heard a missile shot... It just makes sense...

Oh yeah, they totally got something wrong:
An engine can't seperate and tumble across the surface of the earth...if the moving object it was attached to plunges into the ground at 90?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

About flight 93, what 911myths fails to mention is that the mayor of shanksville himself spoke of information that f-16s were close by (this is covered by a flight controller who also stated this) and that a vietnam veteran had heard a missile shot... It just makes sense...

Right...because their happened to be planes nearby and some old guy heard a missile it must be true? If your gonna post retarded theories at least make them sound credible.

 

[W4d5Y]

Jesus ****ing christ, what else do you want?
Mysterious unmarked plane nearby, denied by the FBI, missile heard, engine inexplicably missing, flight controller stating he saw an f16 on his radar screen.

Credible? Oh, surely not.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

flight controller stating he saw an f16 on his radar screen.

You seem to have missed my point. The fact that their are some planes nearby does mean that they are doing anything out of routine. Besides, the plane had just been hijacked FFS.

 

[No Limit]

Jesus ****ing christ, what else do you want?
Mysterious unmarked plane nearby, denied by the FBI, missile heard, engine inexplicably missing, flight controller stating he saw an f16 on his radar screen.

Credible? Oh, surely not.

You are ****ing brainwahsed.

Your molten steel theory was totally debunked, so what do you do? You move on to another theory and want us to disprove that. When that is disproven you will move on to another one, and on and on and on. Please, stop.

But I'll humor you:

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Before you post your next set of crackpot theories first put the pipe down and go to that 911 myths web site. Make sure what you are about to post isn't already debunked, 99% chance that it is.

 

[kirovman]

want sources? I give you #@% sources!

Reputable sources.

 

[W4d5Y]

Yes, I moved onto another topic...I was talkin about that engine...sure, even if they didn't tell us the truth about flight 93, this wouldn't add to the suspicion that they engineered the event themselves.
But still, I don't think this is a serious approach at debunking because most of the issues 911myths adresses are false.

There is witnesses that suggest that a missile was fired, look at the engine:
They actually compare this to a usual crash, where the plane splits apart, its components tumbling around loosely.

So they actually do this like the CTs!
Remember the no-plane issues about 93, because there was no visible debris?
The CTs compared the site to a usual crash site, but those are uncomparable.
But now, so do the debunkers!

They tell you aluminium couldn't survive a 90? degree turn, seperate and tumble around, while about 80% of the plane are buried in the dirt.

Think of it! The usual plane crash doesn't really have the plane deliberately plundged into the ground, but rather sliding about the ground, pilots desperately seeking control over the plane.

If the plane remains above earth level, sure stuff can rip off and roll of the ground, but not if the whole plane moves not parallel but vertical into it!!!!

THIS IS BS!!! FLIGHT 93 WAS SHOT DOWN FACE IT!!! AND THE DEBUNKERS GOT IT WRONG HURHUR!!!

 

[Absinthe]

See, you're just jumping from point to point as they all get knocked down. At no point do you ever approach something close to a theory because you make no attempt at intertwining and explaining your "facts" in a larger model. And when you are debunked, you say "911myths is false". ****ing convenient.

Yes, there are witnesses that suggest a missile was fired. These people are - like you - wrong. And I honestly don't know what you're trying to say right now because you are just rambling. And you have backed yourself with nothing.

 

[Jintor]

Yes, I moved onto another topic...I was talkin about that engine...sure, even if they didn't tell us the truth about flight 93, this wouldn't add to the suspicion that they engineered the event themselves.
But still, I don't think this is a serious approach at debunking because most of the issues 911myths adresses are false.

There is witnesses that suggest that a missile was fired, look at the engine:
They actually compare this to a usual crash, where the plane splits apart, its components tumbling around loosely.

So they actually do this like the CTs!
Remember the no-plane issues about 93, because there was no visible debris?
The CTs compared the site to a usual crash site, but those are uncomparable.
But now, so do the debunkers!

They tell you aluminium couldn't survive a 90? degree turn, seperate and tumble around, while about 80% of the plane are buried in the dirt.

Think of it! The usual plane crash doesn't really have the plane deliberately plundged into the ground, but rather sliding about the ground, pilots desperately seeking control over the plane.

If the plane remains above earth level, sure stuff can rip off and roll of the ground, but not if the whole plane moves not parallel but vertical into it!!!!

THIS IS BS!!! FLIGHT 93 WAS SHOT DOWN FACE IT!!! AND THE DEBUNKERS GOT IT WRONG HURHUR!!!

I suppose you forgot that the hijackers diliberately crashed the plane to keep the passengers and crew from getting control of the plane after they attempted to overpower them. :/

 

[MiccyNarc]

flight controller stating he saw an f16 on his radar screen.

Aviation major jumping in here to state that no matter what the movies tell you, radar screens don't show what type of plane it is. The most you'll get is a transponder (sqawk) code that identifies every airplane. There's no little label above the dots on the radar screen saying "F-16" or "Boeing 757"
Did any of the other controllers see said "F-16"?

Think of it! The usual plane crash doesn't really have the plane deliberately plundged into the ground, but rather sliding about the ground, pilots desperately seeking control over the plane

In normal plane crashes, you're right. And in normal plane crashes, the pilots usually aren't dead.

 

[Solaris]

Answer the clarky challenge or ban imo.

 

[Absinthe]

Answer the clarky challenge or ban imo.

QFT

Everybody who posts a 9/11 conspiracy topic should be forced to face the challenge or get punished.

 

[Irksome]

Whats the clarky challenge?

PS: Do they really call themselves truthers?

 

[Calhoun]

Think of it! The usual plane crash doesn't really have the plane deliberately plundged into the ground, but rather sliding about the ground, pilots desperately seeking control over the plane.

The usual plane crash is accidental, in which the pilots are attempting to make the safest, least damaging "landing" as possible under the conditions they are facing. This was a forced crash, though, and the ultimate goal was as much damage as possible, and not to land the plane intact. The safety of the pilots, passengers, and the plane itself, were not being taken into account. Think of it.

 

[MiccyNarc]

The usual plane crash is accidental, in which the pilots are attempting to make the safest, least damaging "landing" as possible under the conditions they are facing. This was a forced crash, though, and the ultimate goal was as much damage as possible, and not to land the plane intact. The safety of the pilots, passengers, and the plane itself, were not being taken into account. Think of it.

You realize the futility in asking a truther to think, right?

 

[W4d5Y]

Cookie:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org
make your own opinion about that site, I still have to make mine as well.

I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a missile

guess who said that? The mayor of shanksville.
Also, according to him, jets scrambled to intercept were "very, very close."

The usual plane crash is accidental, in which the pilots are attempting to make the safest, least damaging "landing" as possible under the conditions they are facing.

Didn't I just try to explain that? Anyway, what do you mean with the pilots being dead? Are you reffering to the designated pilots of flight 93, or the terrorists or anybody else seeking to fly it?

Anyhoo, I wished to express that neither conspiracy theorists NOR debunkers may compare flight 93 crash to an ordinary one.
Because in a normal crash the pilots, or anyone else who is aboard that plane, will try to lessen the damage, making the impact of the plane at a narrower angle.
But with flight 93, the plane made a 90? turn, for whatever reason, from a few hundred feet height, plunging it right into the ground.

As for the missile dispute, a plane CAN stay airborne for several minutes, even after a missile hit it. There was this incident above russian seas with a korean 747 (I think it was a 747, it was some kind of commercial airliner after all) which lost contact and navigated straight into russia, and with no radio contact to russian authorities, they gave in the need to ground it.

Don't ask me to tell you when that happened, where, what kind of commercial airliner exactely was involved, because you can look all that up. And from what I have read, the plane stayed up in the air for a conciderable amount of time.
Also, don't expect a sidewinder to tear a gaping hole into a plane, because that would need shrapnel, but a sidewinder is built to hit the hottest spot of the target, which would, indisputably, be the engine.

About the flight controller, I never supposed it actually was an f-16 that he saw, since the mystery airplane, the closest flying object in 93's vincinity, could not possibly be an f-16, since it was white, unmarked and most noticably had its engine attached to the tail section.
He simply said that he had seen an f-16. Maybe he just assumed it was, maybe because he couldn't explain the presence of that plane in any other manner or as its flight resembled that of a military plane, regarding speed and what-not.

//edit: Laura Temyer, resident of the shanksville area:

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny, I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."
"I think the plane was shot down"

She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.

At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911 emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke. Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself was immediately confiscated by the FBI.

just dug this up again.

And this:

Susan Mcelwain of Stonycreek Township said a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swooped low over her minivan near an intersection and disappeared over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge.

It was less than a minute later, Mcelwain said, that the ground shook and a white plume of smoke appeared over the ridge. "It was so close to me I ducked," Mcelwain said. "I heard it hit and saw the smoke. All I could think of was how close I came to dying. " About a mile north on Buckstown Road, Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an explosion and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge.

"As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.

"If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt," Decker said. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane. " Late Thursday afternoon, federal agents who spoke to reporters at the crash site said "there was no evidence as of yet" that a second plane was nearby when Flight 93 plunged into a strip mine.

Earlier Thursday, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken.

I don't exactely know what to do with that stupid mystery airplane, only that it might have shot down 93.
I don't the heck know what kind of plane that could have been to be able to carry rockets, maybe it was an A-10 warthog, but you can never know.
Still, it is funny how they first denied that plane, I mean, were they trying to hide something?


I think there's a total of three mystery planes:
The e-4b electronic warfare boeing that circled the white house after flight 77 hit the pentagon,
the unmarked white plane with the rear engines over flight 93's crash site,
and the C-130, in this case either a ordinary cargo plane or another electronic warfare plane, that...in whose radar shadow flight 77 was flying into the pentagon.
(they had the same trajectory in flight 77's final approach, the C-130 flying a few hundred feet or so above flight 77, straight above it.
My 2 cents: That manoeveur (sorry if I'm spelling that wrong) doesn't really look like as if it was following flight 77, because technically, that wasn't a persuit at all, but it rather resembles as if it was guiding flight 77...if having any function at all.
Concider that if you were following a plane, it would appear odd if you flew just right above it, a few hundred feet up or so, instead of flying behind it where you have some actual view on the persued plane.
A major debate is going on why they decided a c-130 from washington should intercept flight 77, which Dick Cheney had been tracking on radar for at least 50 miles from the white house [this is true! Just look at mineta's congressional testimony!], although it might appear reasonable to scramble f-16s from an air force base which fortunately also is located in washington itself and did have, according to an official government page, which by now only is viewable by an internet archive. Means, its validity is disputed, but you wouldn't expect such a page, if it featured information that would harm the government, still to be located on a government website by now.)

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You realize the futility in asking a truther to think, right?

Damn, you beat me too it.

 

[W4d5Y]

*investigating available mystery airplane data*

credible pilot interviewed by NBC, just for fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLPjm8TDpiY

//edit: info about 93 crash:

THE 911 CALL. At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911 emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke. Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself was immediately confiscated by the FBI.

THE DEBRIS FIELD. The reclaimed mine where the plane crashed is composed of very soft soil, and searchers say much of the wreckage was found buried 20-25 feet below the large crater. But despite that, there was also widely scattered debris in the immediate vicinity and further afield. Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week.

THE MYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving, unmarked small jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed. Several days later, authorities said they believe the plane was a Falcon 20 private jet that was headed to nearby Johnstown but was asked to descend and survey the crash site. Yet officials have never identified the pilot nor explained why he was still airborne roughly 30 minutes after the government ordered all aircraft to land at the closest airport.

THE ENGINE. While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the roughly 500 mph impact, they also said an engine -- or at least a 1,000-pound piece of one -- was found "a considerable distance" from the crater. Stuhl, the Shanksville mayor, said it was found in the woods just west of the crash. That information is intriguing to shoot-down theory proponents, since the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines.

LOCATION OF F-16S. From Day 1, the government has given conflicting accounts about the exact whereabouts of three North Dakota Air National Guard F-16s, assigned to national air defense, based at Langley Air Force base in Virginia and scrambled at the height of the attacks. Just a few days after the crash, a federal flight controller told a Nashua, N.H., newspaper that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of the hijacked United jet, following so closely that it made 360-degree turns to stay in range. "He must have seen the whole thing," an unnamed aviation official said.