UA 93: FBI cordoned off area six miles from crash site

[Andre II]

"BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course."
(CNN, 9/13/01)

Why did they have to cordon off this area?
Articles only talk about very few pieces of debris in the area of New Baltimore that had been found in gardens etc?
Why are no results officially known of what has been found in this area?


also an interesting response from freedomfiles:
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2961

(Thanks to John Doe II)

[Andre II]

1. To make this clear

What we know what was found in the area of New Baltimore we only know because of witnesses talking about what they found in their gardens. But their findings are small and don't seem to justify anu cordoning off the area (moreover no witness account mentions the cordoning off. And Indian Lake wasn't cordoned off.
Why is there no official statement what was found and why it was considered necessary to cordon off the area?

[lightbulb]

2. Here's a live news clip

from that day describing how widespread the debris was, with an aerial shot.

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

[Andre II]

3. Thanks

It's know that debris was found in New Baltimore (8 miles away). But this was found on private property.
Nowhere has there ever been any account: Where exactly the FBI cordoned off an area and what they found.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Damn, nice find

There were more visible pieces of a plane at the second crash site, then there was at the first. Plus a second crater! Plus, there's still the Indian Lake site that's not even mentioned at this point.

Three debris fields at least, for a plane that supposedly flew into the ground and didn't explode until impact? No way.

[greyl]

5. So iow,

the terrorist hijackings actually happened, but they're lying about it being shot down, right?

[petgoat]

6. How do you jump to that conclusion?

Multiple debris fields could be explained by the plane
coming apart in the sky due to aerobatic gyrations.

Shoot-down does not necessarily mean hijackers.

[greyl]

7. If I were curious

about what you thought, I would have asked you the question.

[petgoat]

10. iow, you're not curious, and you haven't got an answer as to how

you leaped to the conclusion that shoot-down = hijackers.

[greyl]

11. Do you ever get tired floating strawmen

and being incorrect?
To be clear, I'm not curious about what you type here.
I asked a question of someone who is not you.
On this forum, you can find me stating a few possibilities about 93, at least one of which you failed to mention.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Oh I believe planes were hijacked

and I also believe a lot of innocent people were killed.

What I don't know is whether or not the four hijacked planes are what flew into the four official crash sites on 9-11.

Based on the evidence I've been able to look at, I do believe that 2 hijacked planes were destroyed in the WTC. I do not believe that 2 hijacked planes and the fires that resulted caused the total failure of three separate buildings.

In regards to the other 2 flights, I do not believe they are at either crash sight. What we are seeing is the result of missiles, IMHO. Where did the real 93 and 77 go? I really don't know, but it can't be that hard to disappear two planes, compared to let's say totally destroying the WTC.

[BuddyYoung]

9. 77 wasn't scheduled to fly on 911 & didn't (BTS records). How could it

have been hijacked on 911?

[greyl]

12. How do you explain the photo evidence of huge pieces of flight 93?nt

[Andre II]

13. Really?

First of all what exactly do you call "huge pieces"?
How do these photos prove that the pieces are from a Boeing 757 let alone Flight 93?
And btw when have been these pieces been found?