where are the planes?

Sorry Guys, thought i would throw my two cents in here... these pictures are old...but they do show debirs from the crash. What is the CT here?? that the plane DIDN'T crash here? There were MANY witnesses!!










Also there was a question about burnt grass. All the photos I looked at have been taken at an angle were you cant see how far the grass is away form the impact point. I did find one pic from overhead...but its not very clear. Might I add, there are pictures of burnt trees.

Originally posted by nick7261
You're shifting the point of this entire topic by arguing whether or not Flight 592 had debris or not.

No, I'm not laboring that point at all. I accept that Flight 592 was pulverized on impact. The difference being that much of Flight 592's debris was recovered, while much of Flight 93's debris is "missing," according to some observers who didn't actually witness the crash first-hand.

Yet there are first-hand witnesses from as nearby as 1500 yards from the crash site of Flight 93. People saw it crash, grabbed fire extinguishers, ran to help. So, unless the Men In Black somehow managed to clean up the area in a matter of seconds before the first civilians arrived on the scene, then you have to accept that something unusual but physically possible happened at 93's crash site — most of the plane and its passengers were vaporized (not pulverized but vaporized) on impact.

Originally posted by nick7261
Why aren't debris and burn marks visible at the Flight 93 site?

Well, there was a huge fireball and mushroom cloud, according to first-hand witnesses, so you know there was a conflagration of some sort. What sort of conventional explosion could burn up all of the plane's fuel, vaporize the passengers and most of the debris in an instant?

Possibly the jet cone effect, which was described to me by a Marine Corps demolitions expert many years ago. This guy knew how to construct directional explosives with a little C4 plastic and a paper cone — the charge was set inside the cone, the cone actually directed and concentrated the blast in whatever direction you pointed the open end, making it a much more powerful detonation than if it simply exploded on open ground. The jet cone effect.

Perhaps the tremendous impact of Flight 93 into the soft dirt of the strip mine produced a jet cone type of explosion, incredibly intense in one direction (up), and incinerating everything in a twinkling. A few seconds later, civilians come running up, see nothing but a smoking hole in the ground, and are astonished.

The rest is conspiracy theorist history.

— Doc Velocity

Incidentally, what I refer to as the "jet cone effect" (the term that was imparted to me by the Marine demolitions tech) is probably better know as the "shaped charge" effect, which is used in a variety of modern weapons, from nuclear detonators to anti-tank rounds. All basically use a simple cone to direct the expanding energy in a desired direction.

en.wikipedia.org...

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Time to bump this up a notch. These are supposed to be non-shrapnel parts of Flight 93, looking a bit like the pther parts we've been looking at.

Windows found apparently in the woods, not at the crater.


fuselage section with paint job, also in woods.


This one looks like it was buried by early settlers:


The things they found intact almost seem silly. A red hijacker bandana.

Oops. Cam beat me to it. I guess that happens

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


Perhaps the tremendous impact of Flight 93 into the soft dirt of the strip mine produced a jet cone type of explosion, incredibly intense in one direction (up), and incinerating everything in a twinkling. A few seconds later, civilians come running up, see nothing but a smoking hole in the ground, and are astonished.

Now you're starting to sound like a CTer that thinks the planes that hit the Pentagon were holograms.

Seriously, the jet-cone effect doesn't make sense at all. The jet fuel contained in the plane would be traveling with tremendous velocity and momentum towards the earth. On impact, this momentum would carry the jet fuel into the earth and land surrounding the crater. This is exactly what all other crash sites besides Flight 93's show.

To believe that the jet fuel somehow ignited with downward momentum and didn't burn any of the ground directly touching the crater, or the crater itself, is a bit of a stretch, imho.

How could jet fuel traveling 500 mph towards the ground not soak the ground around the crater? And if the jet fuel was on the ground, how could it not ignite?

For what it's worth, I recall one witness saying that the crash site did NOT smell like jet fuel.

Cam and Caustic...

Thanks for the photos!

Humor me for a second...

If there is a theory that the government is involved in a cover-up of a shoot-down, or is complicit in any way, the photos supplied by the government don't really provide evidentiary value on their own.

Getting back to my primary point, the freakin' hole in the ground doesn't look like any other plane crash site that I've ever seen. Unless you have pics of other similar crash sites, you gotta give me that point (please!).

So why doesn't it look like a plane crashed in this hole? Is it because of some unique physical characteristic of this crash, i.e., Doc's opinion that the high-speed, nose first crash vaporized the plane and the people without creating any visible burn marks? Do you really think that's a feasible explanation?

Just look at the pics of Flight 585 and Flight 427. Both of these were nose-first plummets, yet their crash sites look "messy" for lack of a better word. Flight 93's crash site looks pristine.

Give me an honest opinion.... is it crazy to look at that crash site and think something doesn't look right?

First off... I do not claim that the plane was NOT shot down. I still think thats possible.

That being said..a plane did crash there. I am not a scientist or an archeologist....BUT...that was an old strip mine. The ground although solid, appeared to be somewhat soft. This MAY have allowed the plane to get deep into the ground. I did hear from one report that there is probably still debris 20 ft down. (not sure where I heard that)

The several interviews i have read AND watched with the medical examiner was very interesting. Unless he joins the ever growing list of people that are "in on it"

Originally posted by CameronFox

That being said..a plane did crash there. I am not a scientist or an archeologist....BUT...that was an old strip mine. The ground although solid, appeared to be somewhat soft. This MAY have allowed the plane to get deep into the ground. I did hear from one report that there is probably still debris 20 ft down. (not sure where I heard that)

I read today that the ValuJet flight that crashed in the everglades had something like a 20 ft deep crater that they found beneath the initial crater. Maybe this is where the idea came from.

Also, I'm not so sure that the whole strip mine theory has much value. There is a strip mine to the north of the crash site up on the hill, but the actual crash site appears to be in more of a farm field. It doesn't look to me like this is an area that was ever mined, but I can't be sure.

By the way, wasn't it the coroner who said he didn't see 1 drop of blood at the crash site?

Originally posted by nick7261

I read today that the ValuJet flight that crashed in the everglades had something like a 20 ft deep crater that they found beneath the initial crater. Maybe this is where the idea came from.

Also, I'm not so sure that the whole strip mine theory has much value. There is a strip mine to the north of the crash site up on the hill, but the actual crash site appears to be in more of a farm field. It doesn't look to me like this is an area that was ever mined, but I can't be sure.

By the way, wasn't it the coroner who said he didn't see 1 drop of blood at the crash site?

Nick,

Here are a couple more pictures. One shows a map of the area that shows it was a strip mine. The other shows a clear picture of the crash site and crater...you brought up the burnt grass. This shows the burnt trees.

I will find a couple interviews from the coroner. I think that if the biggest body part he found was a 6 inch vertebrae ... there would not be much blood around.






[edit on 21-2-2007 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by nick7261
Seriously, the jet-cone effect doesn't make sense at all.

It makes sense to those who understand the physics of explosives and explosions, and the pros have put it to use in a variety of applications. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not physically possible. In this case, I've gone to the trouble of painting a picture for you...



Since we know that the ground at the strip mine had been worked extensively in the past, we can be reasonably certain that it was fairly loose, compared to unworked earth. The impact of a streamlined craft at some 450-580 mph into loose earth could, in a fraction of a second, excavate the necessary cone to contain and direct the ensuing blast. The jet cone (or shaped charge) effect is more than a directional blast, it's an amplification of all the energy in the blast, folded back onto itself, with hellish results. BOOM, all the energy of impact and the resulting fuel explosion is fired back out of the jet cone, vaporizing everything within the cone and launching a shower of shrapnel and small debris back out of the cone mouth. The cone then collapses into a shallow pit.

Originally posted by nick7261
The jet fuel contained in the plane would be traveling with tremendous velocity and momentum towards the earth. To believe that the jet fuel somehow ignited with downward momentum and didn't burn any of the ground directly touching the crater, or the crater itself, is a bit of a stretch, imho. How could jet fuel traveling 500 mph towards the ground not soak the ground around the crater? And if the jet fuel was on the ground, how could it not ignite?

The fuel didn't "soak in" because it was spent instantaneously in the jet cone blast. The fireball and mushroom cloud were seen by eyewitnesses — so, like it or not, you have to admit there was a hell of a big fire, at least for a few seconds. My contention is that everything — the plane, fuel, passengers, the works — were fired back out of that hole like a cannon. A damned big cannon.

And the jet cone effect I'm talking about would produce a fiery plume with the energy of a sub-nuclear detonation, evaporating metals and plastics, blasting human bodies into confetti. Windows shattered for a half-mile in every direction, according to one witness (whom I quoted earlier). So, we know there was a hell of a crash, a tremendous burst of flame that reduced bodies, metals and synthetic substances to their molecular state, and a powerful shockwave — but no apparent fire at ground zero.

I'm telling you, it went straight up into thin air.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by CameronFox
That being said..a plane did crash there. I am not a scientist or an archeologist.... BUT... that was an old strip mine. The ground although solid, appeared to be somewhat soft. This MAY have allowed the plane to get deep into the ground. I did hear from one report that there is probably still debris 20 ft down.

The cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 was discovered at a depth of 25 feet in the crater. The flight data recorder (in the tail section) was found at a depth of 15 feet. Both were heavily damaged, but "in fairly good condition," according to FBI spokesman Bill Crowley.
www.post-gazette.com...

Most interestingly, according to a "UA93 Memorial Ambassador" (a tour guide, I suppose), over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered within the crater.
www.youtube.com...

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/21/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by nick7261
Getting back to my primary point, the freakin' hole in the ground doesn't look like any other plane crash site that I've ever seen. Unless you have pics of other similar crash sites, you gotta give me that point (please!).

So why doesn't it look like a plane crashed in this hole? Is it because of some unique physical characteristic of this crash, i.e., Doc's opinion that the high-speed, nose first crash vaporized the plane and the people without creating any visible burn marks? Do you really think that's a feasible explanation?

Just look at the pics of Flight 585 and Flight 427. Both of these were nose-first plummets, yet their crash sites look "messy" for lack of a better word. Flight 93's crash site looks pristine.

Give me an honest opinion.... is it crazy to look at that crash site and think something doesn't look right?

Of course not. this was not an ordinary crash. it looks like a shoot-down, one obv. interpretation, but there are other explanations. In fact one argument against a shoot-down is that compared to the miles-long debris field that would cause, most of the plane was found< I believe, in this fairly small area, and it was intact enough, or part of it was, to dig that gouge. Soft soil there explains the engine looking like early settlers buried it there. But otherwise, the gouge should perhaps be thought of less as the crash site than as a feature of the overall site, which expands well into the burnt woods. Velocity took the explosion, burning fuel, flying debris into that area, which explains both the burn trees and the lack of burning right around the crater.

In short, from what I see, the plane didn't entirely end up there, most of it just passed the spot.