Splitsville in Shanksville: Will President Bush Seize Pennsylvania Property for 9-11 Memorial?

flni_homepage1There is an interesting fight brewing over the planned memorial to Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The owner of the land, Svonavec Inc., refuses to sell a critical part of the needed land and the relatives want President Bush to seize the property to allow them to start construction of the memorial so that it can be finished by 2011 — the tenth anniversary of the tragedy.


Patrick White, vice president of the group Families of Flight 93, has asked President Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to take the land. They are demanding 2200 acres for the memorial — much of which are owned by Svonavec. The company has refused to negotiate and the National Park Service has indicated that it is retaining an independent appraiser for 275 acres in dispute.

The government has set aside $58 million for the memorial. The company reportedly turned down a $250,000 offer from the Park Service as well as a $750,000 offer from Families of Flight 93. The company reportedly wants $10 million for the land and forced the Park Service to move the temporary memorial off his land, citing security reasons. The difference between $10 million and the price offered is a bit curious. Either the company is profiteering or the group is trying to force an effective corporate donation of the land. Notably, there have been three appraisals including a second appraisal that was never released by the service.

Mike Svonavec of Svonavec Inc. has complained that the National Park Service and Flight 93 groups are “trying to make my company and myself look like the bad guy in this.” They appear to have succeeded.

For the full story, click here.

122 thoughts on “Splitsville in Shanksville: Will President Bush Seize Pennsylvania Property for 9-11 Memorial?”

  1. Mespo –

    I’m starting to think you are a 5 year old kid. You have not answered any of my questions and that photo you linked to is bullshit. That part did not come from a 767. That is proven in Loose Change. Also that picture does not have any of the parts I mentioned. Tell me where the wings, engines, fuselage, seats, luggage, and ground damage is in that picture. You are either among the most gullible people there are or you work for the federal government and are trying to convince people it was not a inside job with the flimsiest of evidence. Once you take off the tinfoil hat you might see the truth.

  2. vince:

    “You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered.”

    ***********

    With apologies to Wm. Cowper, proof of absence is not absence of proof. Your “questions” were answered many times by many sources as we directed you to in this thread. I will not go through everything with you, but suffice to say it is incredibly easy to convince someone who is already willing to believe what you have to say. BTW if you want to see debris of the 767 that hit the Pentagon, go here:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_13.html

  3. Mespo and others who back his belief-

    You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered. You just keep going back insisting 911 happened the way the gov’t says it did. Please explain to me what you want for proof when you ignore legitimate questions and refuse to watch the docs I recommended. All these docs can be seen on the internet so you don’t have to spend a dime in ordering them. Listen: 911 In Plane Site and Loose Change lay out the facts that don’t jive with the official story. Why no plane debis from a 757 in front of the Pentagon? What are the pods attached to the planes that hit the trade towers. What’s the flash you see right before the planes hit the towers. These are all seen on video taken by the major networks. Both films cover facts not covered by the other and some facts are covered by both. Terrorstorm educates you about gov’t false flag operations and the reasons for them. Fabled Enemies shows just who benefitted from 911 and the gov’ts responsible. Israel did have a hand in 911. Just google ‘Dancing Israelis’. We already know they attacked the US once when they attacked the USS Liberty. Look it up. Google it. They didn’t only attack the USS Liberty they got away with it with help from our gov’t. They did it once and got away with it, what’s to stop them from doing it again? Hell they just attacked a aid ship in international waters with a former US Representative aboard and nothing happened. Israel is a rogue nation and will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Back to 911. Mespo and others like him– I challenge you this. I challenge you to watch the docs I recommended and then come back and say you still believe the gov’t story. Until you see the evidence I have seen there is really nothing more I can say or do. You asked for evidence, I just gave you many sources. Now go look at it and tell me how you’re going to de-bunk it. And don’t forget to tell me how a plane can create such a small hole at the Pentagon and vanish.

  4. Mespo:

    “On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg.”

    “Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision”
    (Seattle Times, 2/27/1993)

    “Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

    Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

    “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

    “BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.”

    However, the 707 has a 77 mph higher cruise speed; F=mV

    “On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection.”

    My mistake, that one requires a bit of a lead in via discussion of the actual treason Arnold planned, i.e. removing the defenses of West Point, and a discussion of just how crucial of a part the loyalties to Washington and Washington’s, how shall we say, “Unforgiven” like adherence to discipline played in winning the war.

    Per the similarity between the treasonable design of Arnold and the
    the flight paths of those four planes and just how PERFECT they were in making their way to holes in the primar radar before turning off their transponders, I suppose I could think of one cinematic simile.

    Have you ever seen “Star Trek II, Wrath of Kahn?” If so, do you remember the scene where Spock and Kirk are reacting to the first crippling hit by Reliant?

    Spock: “They knew exactly where to hit us.”

    Trouble is, we don’t have a Washington or Kirk asking

    “Yes, but who knew and why?”

    SIYOM,

    Bob

  5. Bob:

    On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg. Unfortunately all the 1960’s analysis data was lost in the collapse. Technically he was correct that the energy from the impact would not topple either tower, however the resulting damage to the structure, the loss of fire retardant materials along with the compromise of the sprinkler system did. BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.

    On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection. Washington and his ancillaries may have been wrong about Arnold based on his history, but I see no evidence they conducted an extensive investigation. Rather, like some of our WTC theorists,he just relied on good ol’ common sense–to his detriment I might add. They should have read the fine print on those brokerage ads that past performance is no guarantee of future success–or loyalty it seems.

  6. Patty C 1, January 4, 2009 at 6:56 am

    Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.

    How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.

    You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!

  7. I am a proponent of allowing the full exposure of the logical and illogical views regarding all subjects. However, I am often astounded by the irrational arguments posited by educated persons. Very educated, astute, and wealthy people fell for Madoff’s ponzi scheme because they “believed in” Mr. Madoff and did not ‘observe the facts’, just as other educated people “believe in” an inside job of a 9/11 conspiracy theory while ignoring the relevant facts.

    Although astounded, I expected some of the stated “beliefs in” the incredible because the majority of people worldwide still “believe” in an anthropomorphic god who observes their every move and hears their every thought–a belief which is immeasurably more untenable than the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    That is the inherent problem with “beliefs” v. facts. To “believe” is to have faith without evidence. “Beliefs” are allowed in the ‘brainstorming’ phase of opinionated thought; however, such ‘emotional and/or spiritual senses of certainty’ must forever be barred from all rationalizations of events that must be founded on statistical certainty to ‘verify’ the legitimacy of facts in any of life’s happenstances.

  8. Mespo:

    “I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.”

    Mespo,

    When you adopt an argument or series of arguments as your own, you bear the burden of defending those arguments as if you had made them yourself. Accordingly, you bear the burden of explaining away contradictory evidence presented, and dispensing with accompanying counter-arguments, TO THE EXTENT THAT REASON ALLOWS.

    I put an emphasis on reason simply because argumentation runs afoul when one becomes over zealous in achieving the goal of argumentation, i.e. winning the assent of the audience & opponent(s).

    I’m sure your attempt to form a coherent counter-argument to those who toss up piles and piles of ‘tidbits’ without any rational structure must be frustrating. However that does not license you to engage in ad hominem & ridicule.

    How many clients have you had that walked into your office and stated the facts of their complaint in a perfect element by element of each law structure? Unless it was a fellow attorney, I’d say it never happened. So what did you do? You listened to all of it; wheat and chaff. And then you did what? That’s right, whether your motive was financial or a simple feeling of moral obligation, you sifted through it all to see if there was a case.

    And yet, here I stand as a fellow attorney, attempting to inform you of a how a certain story is metaphysically impossible while hanging my hat on each and every element of applicable laws, of both society and physics, only to have you make comments about tin foil hats and ‘conspiracy theories.’

    My question is why.

    I have an idea, which is why I asked you to revisit the story of Andre & Arnold and put yourself in the shoes of George Washington. Sometimes Mespo, you have to go against the advice of those you trust the most and ‘do the right thing.’

    Furthermore, if the Culper gang and the officers at Tappan one held the belief that Arnold, a celebrated war hero, could never commit treason, well, I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.

    SIYOM,

    Bob

    P.S.

    FYI, I never considered the collapses of the buildings to be anything more than a secondary or tertiary argument indicative of ‘inside help.’ The primary tell of a ‘treasonable design’ can be shown in the flight paths of the planes and where the alleged novice pilots chose to turn off their transponders. These guys weren’t good or lucky; they were F’n perfect.

  9. Mespo:

    While I was eagerly awaiting your reply to my previous posts, I came across this:

    “My “minions” and I think you bear the burden of proving your extraordinary and defamatory claims with extraordinary and convincing proof. I see all innuendo, coincidence, ad populum argument, and a person believing –and desperately wanting to believe– the worst about his Country with nothing more than a preconceived notion fitting a warped value system. Should you be serious you, like every citizen, may appear before the Special Grand Jury and present your “proof.” Let’s see if your fellow citizens reward you with indictments or those funny aluminum hats.”

    Mespo,

    Are you advising those who question the official story, which has been said to read like ‘good fiction’, to bring their complaints to a sampling of the American population; nearly half of which STILL believes Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11?

    Perhaps it would be better to advise Vince to bring his concerns to a judge who does not engage in outcome-determinism merely to re-confirm his ‘preconceived notions fitting a warped value system.’ After all, if the ‘American People’ did that, why they’d ridicule anyone who dare threaten to disrupt their dogmatic slumber with such awful things like facts and evidence proving they’d been resting on little more than ipse dixet assertions and baseless arguments from authority.

    I guess you still haven’t figured out why I asked you to review what happened in Tappan, NY 1780.

  10. Bob, Esq:

    “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”
    **********
    I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.

  11. If Bin Laden did it, then why aren’t we really after him? Why isn’t the whole world after him? Why do we call Pakistan an ally who we know is providing him safe haven? Why did Bush disband the Bin Laden team? Why did he say he’s not really interested in him? Why did the White House back pedal on Bin Laden being the guilty one? Why do the FBI show the Embassy bombings and not the Twin Towers as the reason they want him? Why did we go to Iraq? Why’d we fly his family out of the country 2 days after 911? Why’d we let him go at Tora Bora? Why…

    There’s a lot of questions that you have no answers for and so far no one seems to. In fact no one wants the questions asked and I can see why. They’re scary questions. Hard questions. And I don’t think anyones going to really start asking them for another 5 or 10 years. Maybe longer. But sooner or later, when cooler heads prevail and time has removed the natural barriers to them, they will be asked. And hopefully answered.

  12. mespo727272
    1, January 4, 2009 at 11:59 pm
    “Waynebro:

    You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!”

    Once more your bipolar view of everything limits your thinking. I either assert or I don’t, or I allow room for the possibility thereof. I don’t assert multiple dimensional theory but I allow for the possibility of it.

    I don’t assert M theory but I allow for the possibility of it. And I don’t assert the theory that some Israeli faction had a role in 911, but I allow for the possibility of it, as I do for many theories that have a degree of plausibility to them. You don’t have to agree or disagree with something to acknowledge it. The juries still out for me on what happened, and the notion that Israel would have something to gain from dragging the US into a war against arab nations is certainly not a ridiculous notion. Theres motive so of course its a possible theory until proven otherwise.

    Of course instead of addressing the specifics you asked for that I gave you, you instead just post another rant, calling me boring and alluding to my stupidity. Thats because you can’t answer the two questions I gave you hours ago, so you’d rather bury them in a tirade of haughty superior bullshit.

    What’s boring to me is closed minded individuals who mock and ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of the truth, particularly when there are clearly many schools of thought on the subject which are held by a wide and diverse group of scholars, experts and those involved in the events.

  13. Mespo,

    One quick reminder:

    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

    The burden is upon he who affirms, not he who denies.

    Did you know you have a proclivity for denying the existence of evidence contradicting ‘the official story?’

    BTW, the world is still waiting for that white paper promised by Tony Blair and Colin Powell PROVING that Bin Laden & Al Qaeda did what they say they did.

    Funny how the FBI doesn’t attribute 9-11 to Bin Laden in its Most Wanted poster.

    SIYOM,

    Bob

  14. Mespo,

    Once again you failed to address anything I said in support of my assertions. You simply ignored them as if you were engaged in pathological science.

    That aside, allow me to quickly address the following:

    “To engage directly, I see no reasonable way that the NIST report can be called unfalsifiable. In fact, it was tested by outside consultants who reviewed every assumption and retested its conclusion. This fact alone refutes that argument completely. Numerous scenarios were proposed and tested and some, like fuel fires, were ruled out. This to me is the essence of the scientific method. I saw no rush to judgment either since the process took two years to complete not weeks or months.”

    Mespo, the certain folks in NIST charged with delivering the 7 year old botched abortion known as ‘The Final Report on WTC 7’ were faced with families demanding a new and better detailed & reasoned report; combined with the fact that their faces were turning red with embarassment for taking nearly a decade to explain something, as you would say, so simple and explainable.

    Here’s a physics professor voicing one of his objections to NIST’s disregard for the scientific method:

    “The nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC 1) was about 100 meters from WTC 7. For building 7 to come straight down at nearly freefall speed without explosives frankly strains credulity and leads us
    to search for a better explanation.

    Accordingly, several careful studies were performed regarding the collapse of WTC 7.17 I wish to call attention to this footnote in a paper by Professor Kenneth Kuttler:

    “any further analysis of WTC7 should include all floors (not just “floors 8 to 46”) and

    conservation of momentum considerations.” Now why would he say this about including all the floors in further analysis work, and not “just floors 8 to 46”? Dr. Kuttler’s paper points to a NIST solicitation. After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7:

    “Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center
    Building Seven.”

    We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way
    to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?”

    (link omitted, awaiting moderator)

    BTW, I found your comparison between 707’s and 767-200’s to be incorrect and outright misleading.

    The difference between 707’s and 767’s per total mass and maximum force of impact (P=MV) is negligible and I’d be glad to show you why later. However, you characterized the design of the WTC as ONLY being able to withstand a 707 traveling at landing approach velocity. This is incorrect.

    Here’s what the folks at Worthington, Skilling, i.e. the firm that Leslie Robertson & co worked for, said about the design of the Towers as far back as 1964:

    “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

    Leslie Robertson, et. al. would repeat this claim in numerous interviews and documentaries for the next 40 years when making comments such as he “designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.”

    SIYOM,

    Bop

  15. Waynebro:

    You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!

  16. mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Waynebro:

    “Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations? Yea, that’s crazy huh?”

    **************

    “What I say is simple: Prove it!”

    lol, so I take it reason is not the way this Cicero learns?

    One more time.

    I don’t need to prove it Flavius. I didn’t assert it.

    I merely challenged your dismissal of it as tin foil hat fodder.

  17. No ones saying these things did happen…, ok well Vince is but the rest of us aren’t. Meaning the rest who like me, doubt both the official stories and most of the “govt” did it stories still have questions that have not been addressed sufficiently. I doubt the government did it. But that they allowed it to happen is not in doubt. At this point they’re not even really denying they at least (in their words) “dropped the ball”. We know they stifled information. We know they ignored warnings. So that leaves the questions “why”. It also combined with other facts, like the FBI’s wanted list detailing the Embassy bombings and not 911, leaves some real doubt with regards to the who. Who were the players? All the players?

    When Bush and the FBI come out and say Bin Laden did it and are back looking for him again because he was responsible, then let me know. But in the meantime, as long as the FBI and the White House are both wishy washy on not only whether he did it but whether or not they’re even looking for him, I’m going to have to reserve judgment until someone can provide me with some real answers.

    All I’m saying is there’s easily a reasonable doubt to the “official story”. If this were a real court of law I would think a judge would be compelled to concur with me. There’s a “reasonable doubt”. And until the questions are answered, instead of stifled, I’ll reserve my judgment for something more tangible than your precious NIST report. If that earns me a tinfoil hat in your book then so be it. I’ll wear it prominently on my noggin with pride.

Comments are closed.